Fighting Back!

[Tassman]

I don't hate anyone. Homosexual sex is by definition a perversion of natural law.

“Natural Law”, as proposed by Aquinas, assumes without substantive evidence that morality is objective and derives from God. In short, it’s a theological notion and not supported by facts.

The American Psychological Association maintains that "...lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders [or perversions]. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology". This is consistent with the view of every equivalent association and related discipline throughout the world.

Obscene attire is absolutely in evidence for anyone that wishes to conduct a search for the getup some people choose to don when parading in gay pride parades. Sodomite, is from the Latin and pertains to the actor in the commission of sodomy.

Ah! Generally terms such as “sodomite”, obscene attire”, “parading perversion in the presence of children” etc would be seen as derogatory, but I bow to your scholarly explanation of their Latin roots. Thus when I refer to religious belief as a “delusion” I trust you’ll remember that I am merely using the word in its original Latin sense just as when I use the word “superstition” with regard to your belief system and not to regard them as derogatory.

Furthermore, I don't claim my moral values override people with different moral values. Morality, while not universal, is a platform from which ethicality and principles derive in order to make for the semblance of a righteous society.

Not quite. Moral values evolved to enhance the social cohesion essential for the survival of a social species such as us. We are naturally predisposed towards behaviours such as cooperation, reciprocity, altruism, conflict resolution and the awareness of the social rules of the group. Without these qualities being developed within us in the first place there could be NO morality as we know it today.

This is why those morally opposed to pedophiles write laws that prosecute pedophilia so as to make that perverse trespass upon innocent children illegal and prosecutable by law. And thereby insure children are safe in that society where those laws are present.
This is why a moral society opposed to forcible sex draft laws that prosecute rape. Because rape is immoral, perverse, and violent. And while no lawmaker can draft a bill and pass legislation that guarantees common sense, morality, or decency in a society, they can draft bills that become laws that prosecute those who act unlawfully in that society and those laws can prosecute for non-compliance to the consensus that defines morality, common sense, and decency.

A morally decent society guarantees full equality to ALL its citizens regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. It does not relegate sections of society to second-class citizenship.

Conversely, anti social behaviour as per your ‘scare-list’ - of pedophilia, rape and violent crime, etc - impinge upon individual freedoms and is therefore detrimental to an ordered, cohesive society. Such individuals must be removed from society for its own protection.

This isn't a nation of one. My notion is one of many. Unlike what you apparently advocate, a civil society does not turn on permitting anyone to do anything they wish and relegating those who are morally opposed to the status of second class citizen.

“Permitting anyone to do anything they wish” is NOT what’s being advocated. Rather it’s the granting of the same civil rights, as enjoyed by most citizens, to those currently denied some of those rights.

If you want a carnal hedonistic society in which to parade indecency, move to a country where that exists. It does not exist in America, it never has. And the movement that hopes to eradicate the present state of a moral platform in law and order so that it shall, while determined, shall be met with determined opposition. Though that agenda and it's proponents may be bolstered now by the advances it has achieved thus far, it shall be repelled in the long run.

Of course your'e using the terms “carnal”, “hedonistic” and parading indecency” in their original non-derogatory Latin sense, I assume. <sarcasm>

You're not in a position to talk of Law and Order. It’s the moral platform of Law and Order”, as per the Civil Rights Act, which you are attacking. Granting full civil rights to all citizens is simple justice. It will no more result in a carnal hedonistic society than granting the vote to women or allowing miscegenetic marriage did.

Perhaps you should police your bigotry before attempting to argue your hate has special rights.

Ahem! Psychological Projection: “A defence mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people”. If the shoe fits...

We're done here.

We are unless you can produce better, less emotive arguments.

[Tassman]

Those demanding forced servitude of those who do not agree with their perversion are the bullies.

Providing consistent service to the public as per the Civil Rights Act, whereby everyone is entitled to service without discrimination, is hardly “forced servitude”. Demanding one’s rights does not equate with bullying, whereas denying those rights on the basis of one's personal belief does.

And I think the former are. Please tell me how declining to serve someone is bullying while demanding service from someone unwilling isn't...

All discrimination in these circumstances, e.g. refusing to provide service to blacks or Jews or gays, is a form of bullying, whereas demanding service from a service-provider is a right under the Civil Rights Act.

[MaxVel]

So...

Today, when the courts say that gay marriage is legal, moral and constitutional, they are correct and we all should meekly submit to their expert judgment.

Of course, back when the courts said homosexual behaviour was illegal and immoral, they were wrong about that. Just like back when slavery was legal, they were right about that, but now that it's not legal, they're still right about that too...


Country Sparrow's moral views are just as valid as anyone's, except that they're wrong and 'bigoted'... Because all moral values are subjective, and equally valid, except for Christian ones, which are based on supernatural woo.



Terms like 'misogynist'; 'bigot'; 'whining Christian'; 'homophobic' are perfectly reasonable and neutral ways to refer to someone who disagrees with you. Terms like 'sodomy' and 'obscene' are revealing indications of an underlying hatred... Atheists like Dawkins who advocate ridicule and being intentionally offensive about religion, and to religious people, don't hate anyone or anything, because they're not religious bigots like you.



Christians who supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage, and oppose gay marriage are wrong and should be prevented from foisting their religious views on anyone in the public square.

Christians who opposed (and overturned) slavery, struggled for women's suffrage and support fair treatment of gays are... uh... well, they're wrong too, because they're Christians and their views are religious. Besides, some other self-professed Christians disagree with them, so there! Anyway, just shut up all you God-botherers!!

And atheists like Dawkins, who say things like being sexually abused as a child is not that bad,... uh... well, they're, uh.... At least they're not religious bigots and homophobes like you!

[Country Sparrow]

It's an example of the war on Christianity and morality generally. If the moral platform can be argued enough to be the hurdle to overcome, the immoral will feel they've gained a victory in recruiting those who believe they may proceed because the religious are being opposed and oppressed.

GLAAD and the LGBTQ community are organized bigots and bullies. They gather together and target religious businesses, individuals, and hope to intimidate them out of their religious faith in order to be left alone by the threats. Death threats, vandalism, lawsuits, intentional targeting so as to put a media blast on a person or business entity. All tactics in the arsenal of those opposed to religion and family values.

Natural Law wasn't written by the GOP or the Christian community. Two male zebra don't reproduce offspring, so those that argue from the platform that homosexuality is natural in itself are wrong. And that same sex animals sex one another isn't an apt example of human homosexuality being appropriate behavior either. They're lower life forms, they're lower animals. We're suppose to be the higher animal and not base.

Calling something a marriage doesn't make it so. Promoting a moral wrong doesn't make it a civil right.

[fm93]

You know, the people who most strongly influenced my supportive views about gay people and same-sex marriage are, in fact, Christians, some of whom are gay themselves. So it deeply amuses and saddens me to see people speaking of this as if it was a war on religion and morality. I don't believe there's an inherent contradiction between homosexuality and Christianity. In fact, those authors had such an impact precisely because their faith was the basis of their arguments, rather than an enemy or side issue.

Yes, some gay rights advocates do behave abusively and hypocritically towards the Christian community. Just like some Christians behave abusively and hypocritically towards the people whom they're commanded to love as themselves, to whom they're supposed to serve as a shining light representing Christ. Neither instance of poor behavior affects the message itself. So please, stop portraying the debate as if there's an inherent, deliberate war against religion. Both sides for the most part consist of decent people earnestly trying to seek what they earnestly believe is right. Acting as if there's a conspiracy against your side accomplishes nothing.

[Darth Executor]

Legislation, like the Civil Rights Act, made in the spirit of the Constitution

There is nothing in the constitution that demands non-discrimination of the private sector.

Do you really think the Constitution can be interpreted in this way? Not really! The Constitution equally protects ‘freedom from religion’ as it does ‘freedom of religion’.

Actually there is no freedom from religion protected in the constitution. It's an interpretation, one that can (and should, to punish people like you for abominations like the CRA) easily be discarded in another political climate.

[OU812]

As for Christian missionaries attempting to introduce an alien religion into a foreign country, I know from experience as a resident in Bangkok that most Thais find Christianity utterly incomprehensible – my Buddhist wife thinks it’s silly and unbelievable. Despite 150 years of active missionary work in Thailand, Christianity has made very little headway and 95% of the population remains solidly Buddhist - a more tolerant world-view in my opinion than judge-mental Christianity.

So....the 'argument' by the white Aussie expat boils down to:

1. His wife's opinion, ex. "she thinks it's silly and unbelievable".
2. His opinion that Buddhism is a "more tolerant world-view" than "judgemental" Christianity.



I don't care about whether a world-view is "judgemental" or not, or more "tolerant". What I am concerned with is whether a world-view is TRUE or not.

(and remember, R. Dawkins would find your wife's belief system just as "silly and unbelievable" as she does Christianity, so you might want to think about that next time before you try to hypocritically pit other religions against Christianity )

[Jedidiah]

I don't care about whether a world-view is "judgemental" or not, or more "tolerant". What I am concerned with is whether a world-view is TRUE or not.

Amen.

[Jedidiah]

1. His wife's opinion, ex. "she thinks it's silly and unbelievable".

Well, you do have to admit that he is right in seeing Christianity as foolish:

1 Corinthians 1:21 - 25

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[myth]

Well, if you disobey the government because of your “understanding of God’s Law” then you must be prepared to face the consequences. Furthermore, there are many who have a different “understanding of God’s Law” - and many who don’t believe in a God at all. So you must justify why YOUR particular “understanding” be given preferential treatment over everybody else's beliefs – especially in a secular democracy like the USA?



You are entitled to your view. Just as I'm equally entitled to think that you are wrong.

As for Christian missionaries attempting to introduce an alien religion into a foreign country, I know from experience as a resident in Bangkok that most Thais find Christianity utterly incomprehensible – my Buddhist wife thinks it’s silly and unbelievable. Despite 150 years of active missionary work in Thailand, Christianity has made very little headway and 95% of the population remains solidly Buddhist - a more tolerant world-view in my opinion than judgemental Christianity.



No. YOU should realise that there is a line which YOU cannot cross crossed without consequences, namely the law of the land. No one is above the law no matter what religious ideology one adheres to.

As for people “fighting for their rights” this is precisely what those demanding equality are doing and what the likes of you are attempting to resist in the name of your religious beliefs. Women’s rights were resisted for the same reason and so were equal rights for blacks - often with scriptural justification to support the prejudice against such reform. And now we're seeing the same thing happening with the demand of equal rights for homosexuals. But, as with women and blacks, there is every indication that they too will get justice.

From your responses, I gather a few things:

1. You're not interested in truth, but convenience.
2. Apparently you believe in subjective truth.

And that's all I need to know to decide to quit arguing with you about this. If your ability to reason is so degraded that subjective truth is answer to all of this, then there's no reason to keep arguing with you.

It's also funny that you think I'm so dim that I'm not aware of consequences of my actions. All I'm saying is, if the government decides to start rounding up Christians to exterminate them, then I've got enough guns to make a stand and won't mind the consequences of the decision. I'm not a doormat just because the government has more resources than me.

I think I'm going to bow out at this point, since the argument has pretty much stalled out. Thanks, though.

[Bill the Cat]

Providing consistent service to the public as per the Civil Rights Act, whereby everyone is entitled to service without discrimination, is hardly “forced servitude”.

Actually, it is EXACTLY forced servitude. It is forcing a person to provide a service to another against their will under threat of legal action.

Demanding one’s rights does not equate with bullying, whereas denying those rights on the basis of one's personal belief does.

Demanding service is bullying, especially after knowing that the person really doesn't want to serve you.

All discrimination in these circumstances, e.g. refusing to provide service to blacks or Jews or gays, is a form of bullying, whereas demanding service from a service-provider is a right under the Civil Rights Act.

It's federally sanctioned bullying no matter what flowery smelling manure you shovel over it.

[Country Sparrow]

What is missed by some is that Christians have civil rights as well. And they do not have to abdicate their religious civil rights, when religion/and the religious, are a protected class.

Now it is true that this woman's voice could peel paint. But if you have a volume control you can learn why Christian business owners, and per the USSC upholding the Christians right to their core values under the civil rights act, do not have to serve homosexuals wedding cakes, perform marriages on their private properties that are open to such ceremony, allow homosexual couples to register at their bed and breakfast, etc...

[MaxVel]

You know, the people who most strongly influenced my supportive views about gay people and same-sex marriage are, in fact, Christians, some of whom are gay themselves. So it deeply amuses and saddens me to see people speaking of this as if it was a war on religion and morality. I don't believe there's an inherent contradiction between homosexuality and Christianity. In fact, those authors had such an impact precisely because their faith was the basis of their arguments, rather than an enemy or side issue.

Yes, some gay rights advocates do behave abusively and hypocritically towards the Christian community. Just like some Christians behave abusively and hypocritically towards the people whom they're commanded to love as themselves, to whom they're supposed to serve as a shining light representing Christ. Neither instance of poor behavior affects the message itself. So please, stop portraying the debate as if there's an inherent, deliberate war against religion. Both sides for the most part consist of decent people earnestly trying to seek what they earnestly believe is right. Acting as if there's a conspiracy against your side accomplishes nothing.

What you say sounds eminently reasonable and sensible...

...except that it's usually the extreme fringes that drive public opinion changes, and changes in laws and enforcement.

My concern with the 'gay rights movement' is that they seem unable to separate identity from behaviour. They seem unable to seperate an objection to a behaviour from an objection to them as a person.

That is, when someone says 'I think homosexual behaviour is immoral', meaning: 'I think it would be better if people didn't do it, and doing it is dangerous to your spiritual health.... ..but it's still your choice to do it.' and have a live-and-let-live attitude, they can't allow that. They want to force agreement, acceptance and endorsement of their behaviour and lifestyle. They're not content with having gay marriage recognised by the state, they want to make everyone agree with them that that's a good thing.

It seems clear to me that at least some gay rights advocates are specifically targeting people who they know disagree, trying to 'trap' them into a situation where the legal power of the state can be used to drive them out of business. Rather than asking a photographer who supports them to take photos of their wedding, or choosing a supportive location for a wedding or reception, they seem to be deliberately choosing locations where they can get a refusal that they can then take legal action on. Rather than taking their business where its wanted, they choose to initiate a problem. I don't think that in most of these cases they have no other alternative for the service they're seeking, and rather than voting with there feet and giving their custom and money to someone who wants it, they seek to force everyone to want it.

You may say that it's not a war, but when there are people out there who refuse to agree to disagree, who deliberately 'target' people who disagree, who distort language to demonise their ideological opponents, and worse, then it looks pretty much like a war to me.

[Tassman]

Actually, it is EXACTLY forced servitude. It is forcing a person to provide a service to another against their will under threat of legal action.



Demanding service is bullying, especially after knowing that the person really doesn't want to serve you.





It's federally sanctioned bullying no matter what flowery smelling manure you shovel over it.

Nonsense! It’s the demand of some service providers for the right to discriminate against some people for personal reasons of their own; just as blacks and Jews et al have been discriminated against in the past. This is religion-based bullying and no longer acceptable behaviour; end of story.

[JimL]

Nonsense! It’s the demand of some service providers for the right to discriminate against some people for personal reasons of their own; just as blacks and Jews et al have been discriminated against in the past. This is religion-based bullying and no longer acceptable behaviour; end of story.

The problem is that these folks believe that the those doing business in the public square should be able to discriminate. If they don't want to serve African Americans, Jews, Gays, Christians, Muslims, Canadians or whomever, then they feel that they shouldn't be required by the government to do so. They are all for discrimination, but probably don't consider themselves to be bigots.