The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Dan]

Are they against any of the lawsuits involving the bakers or florists? I haven't seen an . I have seen individual gay men, I even mentioned on one Facebook. But not the lgb . If they have, I'll take back my previous statement

Some people who identify as LGBT are opposed to the lawsuits saying that they are happy to know that companies don't want to serve them, so they can avoid said companies. I personally think it's ridiculous that these companies turned away customers in the first place. You're being paid; why alienate customers? Before you say that serving LGBT people goes against their religious beliefs, think about business owners that wouldn't serve people with different ethnicities or skin color because it went against their religious beliefs.

 

[Swift]

Some people who identify as LGBT are opposed to the lawsuits saying that they are happy to know that companies don't want to serve them, so they can avoid said companies. I personally think it's ridiculous that these companies turned away customers in the first place. You're being paid; why alienate customers? Before you say that serving LGBT people goes against their religious beliefs, think about business owners that wouldn't serve people with different ethnicities or skin color because it went against their religious beliefs.

One- show me in the bible where it says not to serve black people.

Two - it wasn't the people they were denying, it was the event. The same bakery hat is having to come up with 135K has served other gay people. Just not a gay wedding.

 

[Dan]

One- show me in the bible where it says not to serve black people.

Two - it wasn't the people they were denying, it was the event. The same bakery hat is having to come up with 135K has served other gay people. Just not a gay wedding.

1: I wasn't specifically talking about Christians. I was talking about people who will claim they won't serve people because of religious beliefs, whatever they may be.

2: Why didn't they serve for the gay wedding, then?

 

[Swift]

Because gay marriage is against their religion and to support that event is to support the act. Doing a birthday cake is not because everyone has a birthday.

But again, if the lgbt wants the populace on their side, they shouldn't shove their beliefs down someone else's throat. No matter how right they may feel they are.

 

[Dan]

Because gay marriage is against their religion and to support that event is to support the act. Doing a birthday cake is not because everyone has a birthday.

But again, if the lgbt wants the populace on their side, they shouldn't shove their beliefs down someone else's throat. No matter how right they may feel they are.

Trust me, we're not interested in making other people gay. Homophobes are only interested in making other people homophobes.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh, and the white house being lit with the rainbow flag was ridiculous. Talk about supporting one group of Americans over an othe .

I think you may find that you walk right past many examples of arbitrarily acknowledging difference. The way the mind sorts through which examples to take note of, and which to not, is generally going to be quite telling. This point of difference was actually newsworthy.

 

[Denur]

But again, if the lgbt wants the populace on their side, they shouldn't shove their beliefs down someone else's throat. No matter how right they may feel they are.

Their believes? Oh you poor ignorant thing.

 

[Daniel]

One- show me in the bible where it says not to serve black people.

Two - it wasn't the people they were denying, it was the event. The same bakery hat is having to come up with 135K has served other gay people. Just not a gay wedding.

Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 can be taken out of context in favour of segregation, which is what many pro-segregation Christians did in the 1950s as demonstrated creatively by this pastor several years ago.

Now that it's been established that segregation very much had religious backing (no matter how out-of-context it may have been), what do you think would happen if an interracial couple was refused service today on religious grounds?

 

[LeMansAid]

Trust me, we're not interested in making other people gay. Homophobes are only interested in making other people homophobes.

Not necessarily. The shoe often fits - maybe primarily because of the religious thing - but by it's nature, a non-activist homophobe won't really show up on the radar at all. Sure, they have an illogical fear - but illogical fears are no scarce phenomenon. We're often at pains to insist that gay people generally just want to be left alone to live their lives. I don't see why we can't extend that grace to those that cause others no grief, despite having some suspect internal dialogue.

 

[Swift]

Their believes? Oh you poor ignorant thing.

Really? Redefining what marriage is. That is a belief. If the government didn't discriminate against single people,it wouldn't even be an issue.

Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 can be taken out of context in favour of segregation, which is what many pro-segregation Christians did in the 1950s as demonstrated creatively by this pastor several years ago.

Now that it's been established that segregation very much had religious backing (no matter how out-of-context it may have been), what do you think would happen if an interracial couple was refused service today on religious grounds?

I don't care what any private company does as far as service or hiring when it comes to race, gender etc. Because once it gets out that they are racists or whatever, chances are they'll go out of business.

Its very ironic that the only entity that can truly be entirely discrimatory is the federal government. But there are very few that acknowledge this and even few that attempt to address it.

 

[Swift]

Not necessarily. The shoe often fits - maybe primarily because of the religious thing - but by it's nature, a non-activist homophobe won't really show up on the radar at all. Sure, they have an illogical fear - but illogical fears are no scarce phenomenon. We're often at pains to insist that gay people generally just want to be left alone to live their lives. I don't see why we can't extend that grace to those that cause others no grief, despite having some suspect internal dialogue.

Very well said, sir. Just because someone may think a certain way doesn't mean they will have negative behavior.

 

[Denur]

Really? Redefining what marriage is. That is a belief.

An opinion maybe, certainly not a believe.

 

[Swift]

An opinion maybe, certainly not a believe.

Semantics. Basically, one community wants to change the definition of a word for all other communities. To me, that's pushing your beliefs/opinions on me.

I do believe that gay couples should be recognized on insurance and other legal docs. But that doesn't mean we have to change the language.

 

[FoolKiller]

think about business owners that wouldn't serve people with different ethnicities or skin color because it went against their religious beliefs.

what do you think would happen if an interracial couple was refused service today on religious grounds?

I don't even need the religious belief qualifier to accept it. It is their property, their labor, their bodies, and their business. To force someone to use their property to perform labor they do not want to do is serfdom.

Take out all your race, gender, and sexual preference qualifiers and all you have is someone being forced to perform work. Would you allow for that in any context or only when their reasoning is one you don't agree with?

 

[Denur]

Semantics.

I was under the impression that you were using the word believe in a religious way.

Basically, one community wants to change the definition of a word for all other communities. To me, that's pushing your beliefs/opinions on me.

Not for all communities, only in the legal sense. I don't care what you do within your religious community. If you only want to marry men with women, that's fine by me. I couldn't care less. If you don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, no problem. If you don't want to give a marriage license to a gay couple, no problem, but you will have redirect the request to a civil servant who will, once gay marriage has been democratically sanctioned.

 

[Famine]

Semantics. Basically, one community wants to change the definition of a word for all other communities. To me, that's pushing your beliefs/opinions on me.

But since one community already changed the definition of that word to one to suit its beliefs/opinions for all other communities, changing it back again doesn't seem to be so terrible.

 

[huskeR32]

Really? Redefining what marriage is.

Basically, one community wants to change the definition of a word for all other communities.

The original definition of marriage was unconcerned with the genders of those involved. Christians have spent several centuries acting like they've dominion over a word that they themselves redefined. Are you equally outraged with that?

 

[FoolKiller]

I am noticing a bit of a trend here. And I am guilty of it myself. Every now and then someone comes into this thread and expresses that they might have some moral or religious reason to not approve of homosexuality, but do not express a wish to limit their legal rights or to personally discriminate against them.

The result is to still try and go after them. Not violently, not calling them names, but just a fierce determination to change their mind. Why do we do this? People are absolutely free to not condone an action while not condemning it.


All @Swift has basically asked is that people show some courtesy toward his beliefs. Don't try to offend him. While I personally don't agree with his statement about the flag, I can see how someone feels that way in a world where we are currently in a big debate about the confederate flag and southern Civil War figures. If you believe the confederate flag can be offensive, then it applies the same to the rainbow flag. Both are meant to be symbols of pride in who the person displaying it is. Both have people who oppose the activities that it is associated with. The reason why I disagree with Swift's statement about the flag is because I find nothing offensive about any flag. Burn it, fly it, stick it up your butt, I don't care. Just stay off my property while you do it.

Ultimately, people are taking aim at others that they have no real reason to have an issue with. So what if they don't approve of you acting a certain way in public? I don't approve of people burping or picking their nose in public, but that doesn't mean I need a long back and forth about how they are the result of natural bodily functions.

Here is the real issue I see. Someone states, "Live your life the way you want, have all the same rights as everyone else, be who you are, but don't involve me in it." The next thing is people are saying, "What do you mean, 'don't involve me in it?'" and arguing that their personal view is wrong.

We are arguing with the accepting, but not condoning, guy while there are still plenty out there who want to kill, imprison, or disenfranchise homosexuals. It's the equivalent of arguing with the neighbor who asks you to keep your dog off his lawn while your other neighbor is breaking into your house.

 

[Dennisch]

I need more likes to give for that post, @FoolKiller.

 

[Ken]

@FoolKiller, bravo.

 

[huskeR32]

If you believe the confederate flag can be offensive, then it applies the same to the rainbow flag.

One of those flags was flown by people willing to kill their (former?) countrymen over the right to enslave other human beings. The other wasn't/isn't. Once context is considered, it's apples to oranges.

A better comparison to make, I think, is between the rainbow flag and religious symbols like the cross, since belief in the latter is the a common reason for opposing the former.

If you think it's okay to ask LGBT folks to not fly the rainbow, then I'd like to hear your thoughts on telling Christians that crosses should only be hung in private.

Me, personally? I don't think a cross shoves religion into my face any more than the rainbow shoves homosexuality into @Swift's. Expecting folks to not display either one of them is an undue limit on their right to express themselves. Which is, I suppose, my way of answering this:

The result is to still try and go after them. Not violently, not calling them names, but just a fierce determination to change their mind. Why do we do this? People are absolutely free to not condone an action while not condemning it.

 

[Swift]

I was under the impression that you were using the word believe in a religious way.

Not for all communities, only in the legal sense. I don't care what you do within your religious community. If you only want to marry men with women, that's fine by me. I couldn't care less. If you don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, no problem. If you don't want to give a marriage license to a gay couple, no problem, but you will have redirect the request to a civil servant who will, once gay marriage has been democratically sanctioned.

But the federal government effects all communities. This is why I'm against government discrimination based on marital status.

Also, gay marriage was not democratically sanctioned on a national level.

 

[Swift]

@FoolKiller, that was amazing. I'll keep that attitude in mind for future posts.

 

[Swift]

My main thing with he flag isn't the regular display, but that they put it on the white house! That's public federal property. Some if the same people would lose their lunch at a nativity scene on federal property.

All I'm saying is that if one can, we all can.

 

[Denur]

But the federal government effects all communities. This is why I'm against government discrimination based on marital status.

I have no issue with that sentiment.

 

[DK]

Also, gay marriage was not democratically sanctioned on a national level.

TBF, nor was interracial marriage when anti-miscengenation laws were struck down.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The public support gay marriage, but the minority have spoken - no conscience vote on gay marriage, which makes it extremely unlikely that any legislation in support of it will pass:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...ty-room-votes-in-favour-of-status-quo/6689678

Today is a great day for narrow-minded ultra-conservatives who are terrified that somebody might want to make a decision that offends them even if it doesn't affect them on any level except for the abstract notion that their values may be cheapened.

Screw it, we're going backwards anyway - our politicians have rejected clean energy in favour of coal to the point where not mining it is a Shakespearean tragedy, so why not take a dump on marriage equality at the same time?

It's like they're trying to do exactly the opposite of what the people want and then calling it "good governance".

 

[FoolKiller]

One of those flags was flown by people willing to kill their (former?) countrymen over the right to enslave other human beings. The other wasn't/isn't. Once context is considered, it's apples to oranges.

A large portion of the people that fly the confederate flag do not do so in order to support the return of slavery. Their purpose is to display pride in their southern heritage, as they lack any other symbol to represent the south as a whole. Context considered.

Both are pride flags. Both are opposed by people who interpret their message in their own way.


Plus, I was keeping it relevant to current events.

A better comparison to make, I think, is between the rainbow flag and religious symbols like the cross, since belief in the latter is the a common reason for opposing the former.

LGBT support groups should buy property on the opposite side of porn stores from the crosses that have been setup and fly a giant rainbow flag. It would make me giggle every time I saw it.

If you think it's okay to ask LGBT folks to not fly the rainbow, then I'd like to hear your thoughts on telling Christians that crosses should only be hung in private.

Um...OK. You're not new here, so you should know what my answer will be by now. Ask away. I may choose to ignore you, because I have that right, but so long as you don't try to use force to make me do things your way then feel free to ask anything you want. I might see things from a POV that I hadn't considered and alter my actions.

Me, personally? I don't think a cross shoves religion into my face any more than the rainbow shoves homosexuality into @Swift's. Expecting folks to not display either one of them is an undue limit on their right to express themselves. Which is, I suppose, my way of answering this:

When did @Swift propose limiting the right? Saying you prefer someone not do something is not the same as proposing it be enforced as a law or by other means.

And this gets back to my point: Why can't someone say, "I prefer X," or, "I feel X is wrong," without those who disagree going, "Why do you want to limit my rights and treat me unfairly? Prepare to defend yourself" and then a long, drawn-out debate is had with a person who never wishes to restrain your rights.

Why are you arguing with someone who isn't trying to stop you from living your life how you want and even defends your right to do so?

 

[huskeR32]

A large portion of the people that fly the confederate flag do not do so in order to support the return of slavery. Their purpose is to display pride in their southern heritage, as they lack any other symbol to represent the south as a whole. Context considered.

I didn't intend to suggest that all people flying the Confederate Flag advocate a return to slavery. But that part of the flag's history can't just be completely discarded either.

The rainbow flag does not have a remotely comparable history of violence or hatred tied to it. It's a bad comparison.

LGBT support groups should buy property on the opposite side of porn stores from the crosses that have been setup and fly a giant rainbow flag. It would make me giggle every time I saw it.

Um...OK. You're not new here, so you should know what my answer will be by now. Ask away. I may choose to ignore you, because I have that right, but so long as you don't try to use force to make me do things your way then feel free to ask anything you want. I might see things from a POV that I hadn't considered and alter my actions.

Actually, I don't. And I honestly wasn't trying to force you into doing things my way, apologies if it came off that way. I was simply curious if you saw any major difference between a rainbow flag and a cross that I'm just not seeing.

When did @Swift propose limiting the right? Saying you prefer someone not do something is not the same as proposing it be enforced as a law or by other means.

Usually, when I hear somebody complaining that something is being "shoved in their face," they're arguing for the removal of whatever that thing is. Maybe I presumed too much on @Swift's part there. If so, retracted.

And this gets back to my point: Why can't someone say, "I prefer X," or, "I feel X is wrong," without those who disagree going, "Why do you want to limit my rights and treat me unfairly? Prepare to defend yourself" and then a long, drawn-out debate is had with a person who never wishes to restrain your rights.

If we never try to change the minds of those who hold views that we consider harmful to society, then how do we ever get better? Indeed, what's the point of discussing this at all?

 

[GTsail]

My main thing with the (Rainbow) flag isn't the regular display, but that they put it on the White House! That's public federal property. Some of the same people would lose their lunch at a nativity scene on federal property.

I understand your feeling that the Government (by displaying the Rainbow colors) is pushing a specific agenda. And that this could be taken to mean that the Government is "requiring" this agenda, even though this agenda might conflict with some citizens personal religious beliefs. IMO, the White House is trying to push three agenda's:

1) The Supreme Court has said that's it time to end discrimination against Lesbians and Gays

2) That religious organizations should take another look at their current doctrinal teachings towards gays and lesbians.

3)

Celebrating an achievement of a group that has been marginalized for decades****

IMO, this was a reasonable Governmental response to such a momentous event in US history.

Because I recognize that displaying the rainbow colors conflicts with some religious doctrine, and I believe that the Government shouldn't be trying to impose any particular religious doctrine, I wouldn't want the White House to keep displaying the rainbow colors indefinitely because it would eventually be seen to be trying to impose a certain set of religious beliefs. But, IMO, temporarily showing the rainbow colors was an excellent way to show of support for the LGBT community.👍

This temporarily show of support is somewhat similar to how it is now common place for the White House to invite the most recent World Champions to a dinner and photo-shoot. The San Francisco Giants were recently invited to the White House for their 2014 World Series win, even after also being invited to the White House after their 2010 and 2012 World Series wins. As a Red Sox fan, do I take this to mean that the President is telling me that I should switch allegiance and support the SF Giants? No, I take it that the White House is just celebrating an achievement by a bunch of baseball players who were able to put together an impressive season.

And yes, I frequently lose my lunch as we near Christmas due to all the nativity scenes that I've seen over the years on Governmental property.

Respectfully,
GTsail