World Vision apostasy, or: never, ever, give your money to Christian organizations...

[fm93]

What would any of this have to do with anyone else? Why should anyone in the society care about what you do in your personal life, or why should you share it with them?

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Society shouldn't care. And people generally don't share such private information.

How can someone not be capable of these things with another person of the same sex?...I am a married male, and I have all of these things with my best friend, Rob. We've been best friends for 20 years, and I do not plan on ever not being his best friend.

You don't feel motivated to live together, or share ownership of possessions like houses and cars, or, you know, marry him.

Then I go to someone who is more aligned with my ideas for the cake. Why would I go to someone for service who doesn't want to serve me? Am I trying to exert my own power over them that they MUST be my servant against their will?

"That negro should go to a restaurant that's more aligned with his ideas of fair treatment. Why would he go to a restaurant for service that doesn't want to serve him? Is he trying to exert his own power over them that they MUST be his servant against their will?"--Bill's response if TWeb had existed in the 1950s, I guess.

Come on, Bill. Until you went and asked for a cake, you had no idea that the baker would refuse to serve you. Even if you went somewhere else, you'd still feel hurt. You weren't asking for equipment to make a bomb. You simply wanted a cake to commemorate a happy moment in your life, but you were denied because of your sexual orientation. There's no power play involved here. All you seek is equality, not dominance.

This is an argument from outrage. When people align themselves with others, it is usually because they share similar values. When one party abandons that common value, the other has every right to withdraw, and to let the first know why. If the first sees it as a threat, then the first is displaying a victim's mentality.

They promised to support impoverished children, abandoned those children when they heard that World Vision would allow gay people to do something as heinous as also help impoverished children, and bombarded Stearns with angry emails and boycott declarations until he finally reneged on his decision. Essentially, "We're going to betray children and put their lives at stake unless you prohibit a group of people from helping other children." It's perfectly legitimate to say that they were threatening Stearns.

If the company is founded on the deity's principles, would you want them to reject those principles just for your own power play? That sounds an awful lot like bullying.

But World Vision is NOT rejecting the deity's principles. Even if the common evangelical interpretation of certain passages is correct and same-sex marriage is theologically forbidden, the charity is simply allowing gay people who may be married to help the poor--and last time I checked, helping the poor most certainly is one of the deity's principles.

That's life. When people see a geek with a knockout, they automatically and primarily focus on terms like "gold digger".

It's narrow-minded and presumptuous.

When you identify yourself primarily by your sexuality, it is going to be the focus of discussion.

No they aren't. Unless you make your sexuality an issue.

From what I can see these days, it is the homosexual who is making a public spectacle of their sexuality, including press conferences to announce it.

You're missing the context here. Homosexual people have to mention their sexuality because the world we live in essentially forces them to make it an issue. It's not some selfish stunt just to grab attention. They’ve heard derogatory slurs based on their orientation. They’re stereotyped as weak and promiscuous. Sports and sex, two things that our society can’t seem to get enough of, are overwhelmingly heterocentric, and professional athletes have publically said that gay players aren’t welcome in the locker room. They’ve been kicked out and disowned by their family and friends. The combination of this marginalization and stigmatization has driven many to take their own lives, believing that there is no place for them in this world. And so homosexual people need to speak out—to be honest with themselves about an aspect of their identity, and to serve as a voice of solidarity to others.

Finally, those who “have press conferences to announce it” don’t want it to be an issue beyond that. That’s why the Missouri lineman said "I just wish you guys would just see me as Michael Sam the football player instead of Michael Sam the gay football player.”

if the prevailing deity says it is sinful, then society will continue to see you as a sinful individual. If it means so much to you to be accepted by a society without being a bully about it, then you may choose to not engage with another in an act that society sees as sinful. But choosing to engage in sinful behavior will result in you being considered a sinful person, regardless of if you are engaging in that behavior 24/7.

No. You’ve simply said what sex you happen to feel attraction towards, and people immediately assume that you’re engaging in sex and think of you in those terms.

The next several parts of your response assume a certain interpretation of certain passages, and debating that interpretation is outside the purview of this thread. I’ll therefore set them aside for now.

Where was anyone denied access to the bakery as an individual client? Charities are a different animal, as they are typically ideology based. And what church turned away an individual person?

A woman was denied communion at her mother’s funeral. This next one wasn’t technically inside a church, but a heart attack patient was refused last rites by a chaplain. There’s also a similar issue with the Boy Scouts banning gay people from troop leadership positions.

Is it their fault that you identify yourself by that behavior?

But you don’t immediately identify yourself by a behavior, if at all. You simply declare your orientation, and people leap to assumptions about your behavior.

It makes it obvious that you don't get what our objection really is, nor why we hold to it.

Based on your interpretation of a few Bible verses, you believe that all expressions and contexts of homosexual relations are immoral, and that same-sex marriage goes against some divine mandate. From this, you demand that the churches and organizations with which you affiliate be theologically accurate (as you see it) and affirming. Is this not correct?

Is it genuine love to allow your teenager to do drugs? Is it genuine love to let your teenager engage in behavior that you see as destructive? Is it genuine love to not discipline your children when they deviate from your standards? Is it genuine love to even have standards?

I don’t believe that all expressions and contexts of homosexual relations are comparable to that. But setting that issue aside, I do believe that marginalizing, stigmatizing and disowning your teenager most certainly is not genuine love.

[Epoetker]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Society shouldn't care.

And yet SOCIETY does, and shows no signs of not doing so. All that changes is what SOCIETY says people should care about.

And the operative definition of "society" is pretty much 'what all the bored rich girls are talking about'.

But setting that issue aside, I do believe that marginalizing, stigmatizing and disowning your teenager most certainly is not genuine love.

The operative alienation is Edited by a moderator



The point is, if both parents don't clamp down on this behavior by boys early in life, they risk having the boy get naturally and predictably alienated and further effeminized by SOCIETY, i.e., girls. The destruction of male authority in the home, of course, ensures that this alienation proceeds normally and mechanically.

[fm93]

I'm interested in reading scientific sources. Your link is just hate speech.

[Epoetker]

I'm interested in reading scientific sources. Your link is just hate speech.

Hate speech by a schoolteacher/statistician who happens to have real-world experience with representative samples of the people in question, and their families, so I'll take his view over government-funded scientists who could never, ever, ever get similar findings published by any government or business agency without massive data massaging/falsifying at best. It's guys like him or actual gay magazines, which 1. I'm generally disinclined to read for pleasure and 2. are even more likely to get me moderated very fast.

When dealing with the realities in this business, it's important to remember that "gay" and "suitable for public consumption" are words that get very far away from each other, very fast.