The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

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

In light of recent cases, and even discussions in this very thread, regarding cases where a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding was sued and had to choose to either shut down or perform work that they did not want to do, and then how the LGBT community tends to react publicly to those businesses, it is possible to make a connection between the rainbow flag and forced labor.

I have repeatedly said that those cases are asking for nothing short of serfdom.

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.

No, I agree that the rainbow flag and the cross can be seen in the same context, although many associate a cross with bigotry and hate, but as I said, I was working to keep it relevant to current events and point out that a flag is a flag is a flag. What you see in it is your own problem. Some US citizens are offended by the US flag.

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.

Just to refresh:

I have to echo this. Honestly, still not a fan of gay marriage. But I have zero right to tell two consenting adults how to live.

So, back on topic...be gay. That's your right as a person and as an American. Just don't put your homosexuality in my face and I won't pit my heterosexuality in yours.

Context is everything. Swift never once asks for the removal of a single right, but people still went into SJW mode.

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?

This is the same argument used to defend proselytizing. Do you enjoy having religious people telling you that you are a bad person because you don't think like them, even though you have never done a thing to harm them?

Out of curiosity, how is Swift being harmful to society by having a personal opinion on what he thinks the best way to lead your life is and just using that as a guide for his own life?

 

[Swift]

I have no issue with that sentiment.

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

That was specifically tied to the 14th and 15th amendments. As a violation of citizenship rights. So the law that was enacted by those states was unconstitutional. So, it is not the same thing since there is no reference to gender when it comes to marriage in the constitution. Though I think there should be if the federal government is going to continue to discriminate against single people.

 

[Swift]

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.

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?

Well, I'm talking American history. Though I'm sure there have been other definitions throughout history.

 

[Swift]

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

In regards to marriage, yes. But not in regards to how people should behave in other orginaztions. This is a HUGE problem and why this should've been done through legislation. It opens up a huge can of worms that may not be addressed for some time.

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

I have a distinct problem with this and it goes back to my original statement. Don't shove your homosexuality in my face. If you say I need to reevaluate my position. That means you think you're right and I'm wrong and I need to change. IF there is no removal of rights or violence, why should I change? It's hard enough for people to change their behavior, now you're suggestion they change their faith. That's an unfair request in my opinion for citizens in a free nation.

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

Because you like it. If it was the cross or something else, I doubt you would feel the same way.

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.👍

So, why is it that it's offensive later and not immediately? Seriously. You said it would eventually become a symbol of pushing a certain agenda. I find it to be doing just that. Especially considering this president was firmly against gay marriage as recently as 2012.

But again, you're currently ok with it because it's something you like. I'm not trying to get personal. Just illustrate how emotion can go into our decisions and reactions to our governments actions.

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.

Sorry, that's not a good comparison. Unless you despise baseball, why would you care that the champs get to see the president? Even if you did, it's a team that won it all. He does the same for most sports I believe. It's part of them winning the title, a perk. I don't think he didn't doe it when the yankees won and then did for the SF giants.

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.

Fair enough. Though, Christmas is a national holiday. So I can see why it make sense. I can also see how it would annoy the crap out of you!

Respectfully,
GTsail

Very much so!

 

[huskeR32]

Out of curiosity, how is Swift being harmful to society by having a personal opinion on what he thinks the best way to lead your life is and just using that as a guide for his own life?

I meant that as more of a general statement, rather than a comment on Swift in particular. I think the harm lies is saying that a symbol that's largely free of hateful connotations (like a rainbow flag or a cross) can be guilty of shoving views into people's faces.

The people bearing those symbols, on the other hand, can certainly be guilty of being obnoxious and crossing that line.

If I ever get to the point where I direct my displeasure at the cross, rather than the pompous evangelist who wields it, then I'd hope somebody would point out to me that I was focused on the wrong thing. Which serves as my response to this:

This is the same argument used to defend proselytizing. Do you enjoy having religious people telling you that you are a bad person because you don't think like them, even though you have never done a thing to harm them?

There's a huge difference between a symbol, and the person waving it around. Taking displeasure with a few individuals, and dumping it all on the symbol itself is how we end up stuck in ineffective arguments instead of constructive conversations about how to remedy regrettable behavior.

Everything that @Swift has to say on this matter is completely fine, and I don't begrudge him any of it; you rightly point out that he has explicitly expressed tolerance on the matter. I'd just make the small suggestion that he stop viewing the rainbow flag itself as shoving homosexuality down this throat. That predisposition may prevent him from recognizing that most people flying it have no desire to disrupt his life or his beliefs whatsoever.

And with that, if I steered things too far OT, then I apologize. Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Swift]

I

There's a huge difference between a symbol, and the person waving it around. Taking displeasure with a few individuals, and dumping it all on the symbol itself is how we end up stuck in ineffective arguments instead of constructive conversations about how to remedy regrettable behavior.

Everything that @Swift has to say on this matter is completely fine, and I don't begrudge him any of it; you rightly point out that he has explicitly expressed tolerance on the matter. I'd just make the small suggestion that he stop viewing the rainbow flag itself as shoving homosexuality down this throat. That predisposition may prevent him from recognizing that most people flying it have no desire to disrupt his life or his beliefs whatsoever.

And with that, if I steered things too far OT, then I apologize. Back to regularly scheduled discussion.

I think you may have a point. It tends to be more the people with the flag than the flag itself(with the exception of the white house). I know and work with gay people right now. One guy I brought on myself and getting married next year(to which I am invited). So the institution isn't my issue. You know, I'll be completely honest. I'm totally pissed at the way this was done. It is something that is needed in this day and age with everything connected to marriage in this society. But to just flip a switch on a major social issue with NO plan on implementation was just stupid. That, more than anything, is what upsets me when I see that rainbow flag. That and it was stolen from Jesse Jackson.

 

[BobK]

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

Right.

 

[huskeR32]

So the institution isn't my issue. You know, I'll be completely honest. I'm totally pissed at the way this was done.

Fair enough.

It is something that is needed in this day and age with everything connected to marriage in this society.

Very much agreed!

But to just flip a switch on a major social issue with NO plan on implementation was just stupid.

I'd disagree with you here, as I it should have never been a major social issue in the first place, but that's not a point worth haggling over

That, more than anything, is what upsets me when I see that rainbow flag.

I see where you're coming from on that. I'd just hope you take a moment to consider the joy that flag currently represents for a lot of folks too, who just wanted the right to love who they want to love.

Cheers to ya on showing tolerance of a viewpoint you disagree with. If my exchanges with FoolKiller seemed like I was attacking you personally, then please accept my apologies. In reality, I'm just enjoying a good discussion, and have learned quite a bit from you both!

---

View attachment 429082

Right.

What do the Crusades have to do with the rainbow flag?

 

[BobK]

What do the Crusades have to do with the rainbow flag?

Nothing whatsoever, but an awful lot to do with the Christian cross complete with violence and hatred.

 

[GTsail]

View attachment 429082

Gay knights displaying their religious crosses while riding their KKK horses?

Confused

 

[Swift]

Nothing whatsoever, but an awful lot to do with the Christian cross complete with violence and hatred.

When were the crusades again?

 

[GTsail]

In regards to marriage, yes. But not in regards to how people should behave in other orginaztions. This is a HUGE problem and why this should've been done through legislation. It opens up a huge can of worms that may not be addressed for some time.

What kind of legislation would you recommend? What would it try to allow or outlaw?

In the past, as you are aware, same-sex marriages have been addressed by legislation when various discriminatory laws were passed by various States, which outlawed same-sex marriages. The US Supreme Court unwound these laws since the SC deemed the laws to be un-constitutional. Are you recommending that these laws be reinstituted because you agree with them or would you re-write them in some way? Or are you talking about some other kind of legislation?

Because you like it. If it was the cross or something else, I doubt you would feel the same way.


So, why is it that it's offensive later and not immediately? Seriously. You said it would eventually become a symbol of pushing a certain agenda. I find it to be doing just that. Especially considering this president was firmly against gay marriage as recently as 2012.

But again, you're currently ok with it because it's something you like. I'm not trying to get personal. Just illustrate how emotion can go into our decisions and reactions to our governments actions.

Yes and no:

Lets say that an American is elected to be the next Pope, a couple of years from now.

And whoever is the President at that time wants to celebrate/honor this historical occasion by flying the Vatican flag over the White House for a week.

Would I recommend this if I were advising the President? No, I would consider it to be promoting a specific religion. And it would be setting an un-welcome precedence.

Would I protest if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton decided to fly the Vatican flag? No, I would understand that the main intention of the flag flying was to celebrate the historic occasion, and that they weren't specifically trying to convert the entire nation into following a specific religion. However, if after a suitable period they didn't take down the Vatican flag, then I would find it in-appropriate.

How about you, would you think it appropriate if the White House flew the Vatican flag for a week?

Would you care if it would offend non-religious types? Or would you consider the occasion historic enough to warrant overriding any non-religious sensibilities put forth by GTsail?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Daniel]

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.

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?

For what it's worth, I completely disagree with how the bakery owners were treated and shouldn't have made to pay out.

 

[Swift]

What kind of legislation would you recommend? What would it try to allow or outlaw?

In the past, as you are aware, same-sex marriages have been addressed by legislation when various discriminatory laws were passed by various States, which outlawed same-sex marriages. The US Supreme Court unwound these laws since the SC deemed the laws to be un-constitutional. Are you recommending that these laws be reinstituted because you agree with them or would you re-write them in some way? Or are you talking about some other kind of legislation?

Ok, you're kinda all over the place here. I'm saying laws that would spell out the responsibilities of citizens and businesses. We have religious freedom and personal freedom. We should have safe guards to make sure that we preserve rights for all. Not just the recently oppressed. If equality is he goal, than everone should be respected. To shutdown or reclassify a church would be unconstitutional.

Yes and no:

Lets say that an American is elected to be the next Pope, a couple of years from now.

And whoever is the President at that time wants to celebrate/honor this historical occasion by flying the Vatican flag over the White House for a week.

Would I recommend this if I were advising the President? No, I would consider it to be promoting a specific religion. And it would be setting an un-welcome precedence.

Would I protest if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton decided to fly the Vatican flag? No, I would understand that the main intention of the flag flying was to celebrate the historic occasion, and that they weren't specifically trying to convert the entire nation into following a specific religion. However, if after a suitable period they didn't take down the Vatican flag, then I would find it in-appropriate.

How about you, would you think it appropriate if the White House flew the Vatican flag for a week?

Would you care if it would offend non-religious types? Or would you consider the occasion historic enough to warrant overriding any non-religious sensibilities put forth by GTsail?

Respectfully,
GTsail

I would think that flying the Vatican flag at the white house would be horrific. Especially because the Vatican is another country. But honestly, any other flag than that of a visiting statesman.[/QUOTE]

 

[BobK]

Gay knights displaying their religious crosses while riding their KKK horses?

Confused

I'm just showing that the Christian cross is also associated with violence and hatred.

When were the crusades again?

Admittedly a while ago, but then there's the Klan with their cross burnings.

 

[Swift]

Admittedly a while ago, but then there's the Klan with their cross burnings.

So, since the Klan is still actively pushing for their racist, bigoted,antisemitic and homophobic rhetoric for the end of all other people then themselves, let's not put Christians in the same boat.

 

[BobK]

So, since the Klan is still actively pushing for their racist, bigoted,antisemitic and homophobic rhetoric for the end of all other people then themselves, let's not put Christians in the same boat.

Of course not. That does not change the fact that the Christian cross has been and is still being used as a symbol of hatred and violence.

 

[Swift]

Of course not. That does not change the fact that the Christian cross has been and is still being used as a symbol of hatred and violence.

A burning one, sure. But other than that its used as a reference to Christ's sacrifice. Albeit some love to use it to belittle others into feeling guilty, it hasn't been used for violence in centuries.

 

[Liquid]

it hasn't been used for violence in centuries.

That's not the point. The point is that in of itself, the cross has not always been a sign of peace and tolerance and has very actively been used in ethnic cleansing campaigns.

To say that the Christian cross has no bad stigma attached to it, or has never been used as a symbol of violence and hatred, is simply not true.

And just to jump into this:

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.

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.

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?

Well, I'm talking American history. Though I'm sure there have been other definitions throughout history.

The American definition of marriage has changed in the past. Marriage was redefined in the 17th century, confirmed in the 19th century before being redefined again in the 20th century.

There were anti-miscegnation laws preventing marriage between whites and blacks from the Colonial era right up until 1967; this was reaffirmed when Alabama's interracial marriage bans were deemed constitutional in Pace vs Alabama in 1883. It wasn't until Loving vs Virginia in 1967 that it was deemed unconstitutional and the definition of marriage in American law was changed again.

 

[Joel]

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.

I don't think that's the same thing as saying you wish gay people didn't push their lifestyle in your face, claiming you wouldn't shove your heterosexual lifestyle in theirs, and then citing people flying a rainbow flag or white house being lit up in rainbow colours for one day on a historic court decision as examples of this happening.

In keeping with your dog analogy, it's not about asking someone to keep their dog of your lawn, it's about asking someone to keep their dog inside their house and refrain from talking about their dog, having the white house refrain from commenting on dogs or dog ownership, never having public dog shows, and not publicly displaying anything that would mark you as a dog owner.

But to just flip a switch on a major social issue with NO plan on implementation was just stupid.

What issues with implementation do you see? In pretty much every other country the process was basically the same, where a court decision ruled the existing laws which limited marriage to a man and a woman as unconstitutional and essentially flipped a switch.

 

[Touring Mars]

Christian cross... stigma attached to it...

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think that's the same thing as saying you wish gay people didn't push their lifestyle in your face, claiming you wouldn't shove your heterosexual lifestyle in theirs, and then citing people flying a rainbow flag or white house being lit up in rainbow colours for one day on a historic court decision as examples of this happening.

In keeping with your dog analogy, it's not about asking someone to keep their dog of your lawn, it's about asking someone to keep their dog inside their house and refrain from talking about their dog, having the white house refrain from commenting on dogs or dog ownership, never having public dog shows, and not publicly displaying anything that would mark you as a dog owner.

Not sure when he indicated the desire to force homosexuals to never mention it and only be gay when in their houses. Kind of weird thing to take from saying they can get married.

Maybe it is more like hating the stupid "I heart my Snickerpoodle" stickers on the back windows of cars.

And as a cat lover, I would absolutely hate the White House decked in dog flags. It sends a message to cat lovers that not only does the administration have a philosophical difference with them, but that they are making a giant show of it.

I will be honest, even I thought that this was going a bit overboard, especially considering that the White House played almost zero role in the decision.

It is treating policy decisions like it is a sporting event. We already do that with elections to a disgusting level. Gloating over victories is unbecoming. To be honest, this is George W Bush level stuff.

If making the entire building into a rainbow isn't in your face, what does it take? Getting on TV and saying, "Neener neener boo boo, we are better than you hoo?"

 

[Swift]

That's not the point. The point is that in of itself, the cross has not always been a sign of peace and tolerance and has very actively been used in ethnic cleansing campaigns.

To say that the Christian cross has no bad stigma attached to it, or has never been used as a symbol of violence and hatred, is simply not true.

And just to jump into this:

I didn't say never, but come on. You're going to go back 500 years? Seems rather pointless

The American definition of marriage has changed in the past. Marriage was redefined in the 17th century, confirmed in the 19th century before being redefined again in the 20th century.

There were anti-miscegnation laws preventing marriage between whites and blacks from the Colonial era right up until 1967; this was reaffirmed when Alabama's interracial marriage bans were deemed constitutional in Pace vs Alabama in 1883. It wasn't until Loving vs Virginia in 1967 that it was deemed unconstitutional and the definition of marriage in American law was changed again.

Addressed already. Because it was completely against the 14th amendment. The scotus also upheld slavery...twice! Just because the SCOTUS says something dowsnt make them right all the time.

 

[Swift]

What issues with implementation do you see? In pretty much every other country the process was basically the same, where a court decision ruled the existing laws which limited marriage to a man and a woman as unconstitutional and essentially flipped a switch.

Because they don't have the same freedoms as us when it comes to private property and liberty. Look at the cases for services to gay weddings. It's so ridiculous that if a person wants an adolf hitler cake, they can be refused and most people are fine. But if someone refuses a gay wedding cake then somehow they are horrible people and should be sued out of existence. These things are happening now and need to be addressed. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean I should be forced to do it. Private people should have the liberty to serve those they wish to serve.

 

[Famine]

Because they don't have the same freedoms as us when it comes to private property and liberty. Look at the cases for services to gay weddings. It's so ridiculous that if a person wants an adolf hitler cake, they can be refused and most people are fine. But if someone refuses a gay wedding cake then somehow they are horrible people and should be sued out of existence. These things are happening now and need to be addressed. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean I should be forced to do it. Private people should have the liberty to serve those they wish to serve.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this is to do with homosexuality though. It's to do with people being assholes.

 

[Swift]

It's disingenuous to suggest that this is to do with homosexuality though. It's to do with people being assholes.

Yep, people have the right to be assholes in this country.

 

[Famine]

Yep, people have the right to be assholes in this country.

I think you've misinterpreted which group I'm saying are being assholes.

 

[Swift]

OK, well. Too me there are two groups of assholes. 1 people who don't serve gay weddings. 2 people who want to force others to serve gay weddings. Who did I miss?

 

[LeMansAid]

And as a cat lover, I would absolutely hate the White House decked in dog flags. It sends a message to cat lovers that not only does the administration have a philosophical difference with them, but that they are making a giant show of it.

It says NOTHING to cat lovers - and certainly not "We H8 Cats!!"

 

[Famine]

OK, well. Too me there are two groups of assholes. 1 people who don't serve gay weddings. 2 people who want to force others to serve gay weddings. Who did I miss?

Just the second group. The first group is entirely entitled to their opinion and to limit their own business on their principles.