Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech
from the your-right-to-say-it dept
As strong proponents of free speech, we've made the point in the past that protecting the freedom of speech is going to necessitate protecting it for the kind of speech you wouldn't typically like to exist. Put another way, it's quite easy to be in favor of free speech when you aren't the one offended. It takes much more mental courage to stick up for the protected speech of a Nazi, a bigot, a sexist, or an idiot.
Or, as in this case, someone who ascribes to religious thoughts with which you may not agree. The story of then high school student Daniel Glowacki, who was kicked out of class simply for saying that his Catholicism didn't allow him to accept homosexuals, acts as a lesson in protecting the speech of others. It began, as you'd never expect, in a Michigan classroom, with a child wearing confederate flag belt. When the teacher, Johnson McDowell asked her to remove the belt, Glowacki pointed out that the teachers were all wearing purple for "Anti-Bullying Day." That's when things took a turn:
The teacher testified that he gave Glowacki an explanation on the difference in symbolism between the confederate and rainbow flag, to which Glowacki responded, "I don't accept gays because I am Catholic." Glowacki was instructed to leave and another student who shared the same belief asked to leave with him. According to affidavits from other students in the classroom, McDowell told them that "students cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another."Which, for those of you who may not remember what school was like, is complete and utter nonsense. More to the point, speech is absolutely protected. That's why the fact that McDowell then kicked the students out of the class was a massive misstep. Despite the myth, students do not leave their constitutional rights at the doorway of their public school.
Now, it would be quite easy for me, and many like me, to say that Glowacki's beliefs are bigoted, homophobic, wrong, and outdated. And I do say every single one of those things. But I'd be damned before I allow his right to say exactly what he said to be infringed upon. The thing about insisting that free speech is afforded the right to offend, regardless of any discomfort for those around us, is it cuts both ways. If we're going to insist that we keep any sort of mandatory religion out of public schools (and we should), and if we're going to insist the curriculum be secular (and we should), then we also have to afford those that don't agree their right to voice their opposition.
Here's the good news: it seems like nearly everyone involved in this case agrees, and they even did so without resorting to over-the-top punitive nonsense.
However, the school district disagreed with his reason of reprimand, stating that it was based on McDowell's own personal offense [and] Judge Duggan held that the teacher violated the student's First Amendment rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
"As a reasonable teacher, McDowell should have known that Daniel's protected speech could not serve as the basis for discipline or as the basis for believing a school district policy was violated," the judge said.McDowell's punishment? $1 in damages to Glowacki. It might seem like a small amount for having violated a child's constitutional right to speech, but come on, this ended perfectly. The lesson isn't in the punishment. The lesson is that the enlightened position on speech is the protection of unenlightened speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: daniel glowacki, free speech, religion, schools
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Please tell me how homosexuals instigate the religious. Do they take any rights away from the religious?If anything, the religious are the bullies, pushing their irrational and childish beliefs in non-existent anthropomorphic man-in-the-sky on people who are minding their own business in the privacy of their own home. Keep in mind that it was the religious people who pushed for laws making same-sex marriage illegal.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship is for the spoiled.
Every time you silence a hateful opinion you stop me from knowing if and when there is a spread of hate taking place around my community and you deny me the right to do something about it.
Every time you stop the guy who insists there was no Holocaust, or Armenian genocide, or Rwandan genocide, or al-Anfal campaign, or Srebrenica massacre from speaking out, you make the entire community ignorant of the truly evil attitudes of the world that we must be prepared to fight against.
Because getting high on capitalism and becoming isolated from and ignorant about the evils of the world is surely a healthy, moral course of action. Right?
This is what absolutely, conclusively demolishes the claim that we must be shielded from uncomfortable opinions: knowing what is not true is in itself a form of knowledge. The knowledge of lies is just as important as the knowledge of truths. We can best protect ourselves by knowing what to resist. Do not tell me for one second that profoundly offensive human behaviours that exist in this world must be censored for our supposedly childish eyes in the name of securing our own selfish, utopian, comfortable and quiet lifestyles.
In order to know thy enemy, and therefore fight thy enemy, one must know he is an enemy. And restricting the laws that make enemies voluntary show themselves as the miserable targets of discredit and humiliation that they are, is an impulse that exists from spoiled children who suffer from too many First World Problems and too much historical ignorance.
Stop watching fucking American Idol, read a history book or (gasp!) two, contemplate if you can the mass killings that take place on a daily basis on this planet with little or no outcry, wake up, and smell the fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anwyay, yeah, contrary to what most people (read: district superintendents, principals, and some teachers) like to think, students do not check their right to free speech at the door. There are limits imposed (see: wearing a fake swastika armband at school, calling people racial slurs), but no where even in the same universe as what McDowell was claiming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation(s) please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about these 'gems'?
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Leviticus 25:44-45
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Conrinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
Conrinthians 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:14(threw this one in just because of the silly factor, those poor rock stars...)
Doth not even nature herself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about these 'gems'?
Plus I imagine you'll have a hard time finding a priest/minister/preacher who gives sermons on those particular verses today, roughly two millennia later, even among the hardcore fringe fundamentalist Christians.
Actually, the last verse is kinda funny, considering that Jesus is usually depicted with shoulder-length hair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
So no haircuts and don't shave!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Defending or preaching those verses? Probably not, however the same book that those come from also contains the ones that the zealots bring out when they claim gay people are 'bad/wrong', so I was just providing the citations that Avantare was asking for, about how it was unlikely that the other laws/rules from those books were taught alongside the 'gays are bad' one.
Hadn't thought of the long-haird Jesus angle when I posted that one, but you're right, almost all depictions of him show him with shoulder length-ish hair. Talk about awkward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proper context
The standards given are impossible for anybody to achieve by their own efforts. No particular person's sin is worse than anyone else's. Death is the required punishment for all and any failure.
However, one man Jesus Christ (who for those who assume otherwise, was a Jew) did what no other could do and paid the penalty for all and provided a way, that if chosen by an individual, would remove the applicable penalty from an individual's life. Choosing this option does have consequences and for many, the consequences are just too hard to take.
So homosexual activity is just as wrong as telling "white lies" or thinking angrily of harming someone (even if you have no intention of actually carrying out the harm, Jesus classified this as the spirit of murder) or being greedy or jealous of what another has. All of these things harm people and those who are around them.
On the other point, if one has a look at the images depicting Jesus Christ (with long hair), many of them show him not as a Jew but as a feeble Italian looking man. This was initially pointed out to me by my Roman Catholic teachers oh so many years ago. From their perspective, it was an anti-Semitic reaction due to a belief in those days that the Jews were the ones who had murdered Jesus. What many don't seem to realise was that neither the Jews or Romans killed Jesus. The biblical records states that Jesus chose the moment when he died and not anyone else.
Some time ago, I read a book called:
"THE JESUS DISCOVERY - ANOTHER LOOK AT CHRIST’S MISSING YEARS" by Dr. A. T. Bradford.
This book puts an interesting perspective on the man Jesus Christ and who he was in the context of his Jewish society.
Just a side note, Dr Bradford is a Jewish Christian.
Another side note, the first Christians were predominantly Jews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper context
This is partially untrue. There are lesser (venial) sins and then there are mortal sins, the latter which can condemn body and soul for eternity.
"On the other point, if one has a look at the images depicting Jesus Christ (with long hair), many of them show him not as a Jew but as a feeble Italian looking man."
Artistic depictions of Jesus are manifold and are dependent upon interpretation. His appearance changed after His resurrection, so it's unknown whether or not He still 'looks Jewish.' However, it goes without saying that when Jesus stripped Himself of His Divinity to become human, He chose to become a Jew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proper context
Scriptural reference Rom 6:23Not withstanding your comment, my comment about the depiction of Jesus Christ in art was based on what I was taught in school by Roman Catholic Brothers and Priests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proper context
Consider also that in its original context the term Christian is a term of derision for those who were disciples of Jesus Christ, in much the same way a white supremacist would call a person with dark skin colouration a "nigger".
So I would not expect to see a Christian Muslim, but I might expect to see a Jewish Buddhist or German Baha'i.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proper context
How come no one has mentioned them?
*ducks*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proper context
As a bumper sticker I saw states, "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
"To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Matthew 5:17-19
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Luke 16:17
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."
2 Peter 20-21
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Which brings me to John 7:19
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law.
You're talking about Transcendental Morality. This is a very, very frightening concept. Is something moral because God said it is? The Old Testament is rife with genocide, rape, murder, and infanticide. All of it based on God's morality.
Since I mentioned John 7:19, here's a section reference from Exodus 32:27-28:
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
It was moral for Moses to order his men to kill around 3,000 people because they were offering prayers and sacrifices to a golden idol. He had men kill their own brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers and children. Why? Because God commanded him to give that order. It was a moral imperative.
Then after the slaughter Moses delivered the Commandments. He ordered the deaths of hundreds of people who were following old traditions without even knowing God's Law since it had yet to be proclaimed to the people.
What's worse is before this merciless act, Moses dared question God:
Exodus 32:11-12
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.
Even Moses knew that it was an immoral act to kill his own people. Yet because it was commanded by God to do so, he relented and followed suit.
God's morality has been a justification for inhumane acts for thousands of years. Chronicled in the holy texts of three major religions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
With regards to slavery in the Old Testament, 'slavery' was not the same thing per se as the 'racial slavery' we're more familiar with. Back in old times, some people willfully sold themselves into slavery, often to pay off debts and whatnot.
As for your Exodus quote where God was telling Moses how He wanted to kill the idol worshippers, He had a reason. The Levites were told to wait while Moses went up to the mountain but grew impatient and Aaron couldn't control them. They decided to create their own false deity -- a golden calf, and that made God angry.
Besides, does not God, the Author of Life, both give and take all life and all things?
As for people using religion in order to justify murder and war, guess what? People will use ANYTHING as justification: land/territory, race, religion, money, "security," etc. Anyone can go and murder someone, then blame it on Christianity, but there's an inherent flaw: Jesus commanded us to love one another, not to go around killing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
You say this despite all the verses Liz just pointed out that suggest the exact opposite, I'm curious as to your reasoning here. Also, I'm curious as to how you're defining 'ceremonial requirements'.
'With regards to slavery in the Old Testament, 'slavery' was not the same thing per se as the 'racial slavery' we're more familiar with. Back in old times, some people willfully sold themselves into slavery, often to pay off debts and whatnot.'
And you've moved on to defending slavery, thereby losing any right to be taken seriously ever again. Let me make this clear: owning another human being as property is never a moral or acceptable thing to do.
Also just in case you missed it above, along with a few other verses:
Leviticus
25:44-45
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Exodus
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
' They decided to create their own false deity -- a golden calf, and that made God angry.'
So god ordered 3,000 men, woman and children killed because they made him angry/jealous, over breaking a rule they were unaware existed at the time... not a big fan of the 'mercy and forgiveness' stuff is he?
'Besides, does not God, the Author of Life, both give and take all life and all things?'
So 'might makes right, I made you, I can kill you'... and you don't see any problem with that way of thinking?
'Anyone can go and murder someone, then blame it on Christianity, but there's an inherent flaw: Jesus commanded us to love one another, not to go around killing.'
Which sounds nice in theory, but doesn't in the slightest excuse the fact that the one who claimed the most lives, men women and children alike in the bible is god, not man.
Sorry to break it to you, but for those that don't follow one of the christian/catholicism/judaism religions, we look at the actions described in the bible through the lens of our own morality, and a great many of them are vile and evil in the extreme, both the actions committed directly by god, and committed indirectly by what he orders done. A moral book it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
The ceremonial requirements of the OT were done to distinguish between clean/unclean persons. Christians do not make the same distinction today; instead, we are to avoid sin (i.e. corrupting the soul). How to accomplish this? Living in Christ.
Again, slavery was more akin to a servant, a maid (i.e. indentured servitude), rather than the (racial) slavery we're more familiar to, or the slavery in Egypt which was allowed by God as a form of punishment.
For more on this subject:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=7464128&postcount=1
As for the 3,000 put to death, you seem to be unaware that all life is a gift from God; He does not owe us anything. That being said, our souls are eternal. Therefore, we all live for the same amount of time anyway -- it is only our time living in the physical world which varies. Some people live for not even a day, some for well over a century. The question becomes, where do we spend that eternity?
(BTW, self-correction: Cannanites, not Levites.)
Here's a great explanation with regards to the genocide in Exodus:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
It's rather sad that you accuse God of being cruel and unjust. Again, God does not owe us anything -- He created us and paid the price Himself for our eternal salvation. He gave us free will; WE chose to disobey Him. I believe that the suffering in this short life does fulfill a greater purpose, that life isn't some mere cosmic accident, a purposeless existence which so many attempt to portray it as being. If it really were "survival of the fittest," we'd life would be devoid of meaning and we'd all end up losing in the end. With Jesus, we can attain eternal life and eternal joy.
Finally, I'll reiterate: people will use any scapegoat they can to justify their actions. It's disingenuous of you to sit there and blame religion (esp. Christianity) for wars and such. How many stores have I read where somebody killed someone because of a movie, a game, a song, the media, the dog told 'em to do it, the color of their skin, literally ANY excuse they can find?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Man, you suck at debates.
I mean, yr a total and utter failure.
Think about what you said at the end. And then think about the crusades. The most Almighty Asshole, God, did not give us life. Biology did. So some glowing man in the sky TOOK peoples lives. And you defend that?
Further, selling yourself into servitude doesn't make it better. It doesn't even change it at all. You are working backwards. You are taking the conclusion and making it work.
As I said, you suck at debates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
In modern society, they would be given a little thing you might have heard of. It's called a wage. In previous centuries, yes, they would have been happy to just get room and board in exchange for their labour, but today, they'd be earning money. So, I don't know why you bring them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Given how much you spoke of context, this is an incredibly silly argument to make. When the bible discusses and advocates the enslavement of others, it does so in the same language as it discusses the Jews' enslavement in Egypt. We're not talking about willful bondage, though that obviously is a core religious concept. We're talking about the active enslavement of a previously free people. Don't dodge the facts.
"As for your Exodus quote where God was telling Moses how He wanted to kill the idol worshippers, He had a reason. The Levites were told to wait while Moses went up to the mountain but grew impatient and Aaron couldn't control them. They decided to create their own false deity -- a golden calf, and that made God angry."
And that's apparently reason enough to commit mass murder? Wonderful God you have there. I notice further down you mention how people will use ANY justification for war and murder, even crazy bullshit justifications. How can you POSSIBLY not believe that the murder of the Levites wasn't one of these cases?
The good news is, you'd be correct that it WASN'T a bullshit excuse, because it never happened. Or, rather, the entire Exodus story of the Jews escape from Egypt never happened. This has been proven by Israeli archaeology teams years ago.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
And let's not forget why we don't see many Amalekites these days, who were murdered for the same made-up Exodus story....or not, their murder might have been simply made up as well, another pretend victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
Here's the wonderful thing about being a deist: I don't do either, so I guess I'm not harming myself.
I don't disbelieve in a creative force and I don't believe any creative force that might exist has any impact or interest in our lives or his/her/its creation. You know, because there's no evidence that that's the case. In one fell swoop, I've solved most of the ontological problems of existence without having to buy into any of the nonsense of prayer and mythos around certain personalities.
Ah, neat and tidy little boxes. How I love thee....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about these 'gems'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Corinthians 14:33-35
We of the western world assume we understand the context and so often miss it. I have a close friend who is a middle-eastern bible scholar and when he talks about these verses, he places them in context of the times and in relation to the surrounding verses. Once an understanding of the context is achieved, it becomes simply a matter of appropriate meeting management.
He describes it as follows: During the meetings in those days, it was a cultural situation that the women were in a separate room to the men. The rooms were often above (an overlooking balcony if you like) and if there was conversation going on in that room, it would be difficult for the women to hear what was being said below to the men. Apparently, in those days, some of the women would be calling out things like "what did he just say?", etc, and interrupting the meeting.
The instruction was given to keep the meetings orderly, which is the topic of the context of the verses surrounding.
There have been many today and in the past who have used these verses out of context to say that women are of less importance than men and that are women are subject to all men. The proper context does not say this.
Having done further study myself into this matter, I find that I am of the same opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Corinthians 14:33-35
1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Titus 2
2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Corinthians 14:33-35
My wife is the pastor of our congregation. It is not a job I envy anyone for. She has the calling and gifting for it. I most assuredly do not, the function would kill me. She relies on me to keep her focused and centred. In the parlance, I provide her with covering to do what she has been called to do. We depend upon each other to do the respective functions we are called to. I am the head of my house and I take that responsibility seriously. Neither of us could do what we do without the full wholehearted support of the other. There is no dichotomy here, it is our life.
We live within the principles given because we also understand that in Christ these is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek.
Unfortunately, there are many who have abused and twisted the good news of Jesus Christ to further their own ends and agendas to the detriment of those around them. From the political agendas of the Crusades to Westboro, we have so many examples of this. Were these or are these following the principles and requirement of discipleship to Jesus Christ. Bluntly, No.
You can accept or you can decline, that is your one God-given unalterable right. To choose, to make your own decisions. Every decision, every choice has consequences. Choosing to accept means you are accepting all of the consequences of following Him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I Corinthians 14:33-35
Rather surprised, pleasantly so, to hear about a female pastor though, nice to see at least one church actually believing in equality like that.
I suppose to sum up, and get to the point I was originally aiming for, is that while there are good things/lessons in the bible, there are also some pretty nasty/evil things as well, so while I have no problem with the people who take the good bits and base their lives around them, the people who go around claiming that 'The bible is the word of god, and therefor everything in it is true!'... well, they either tend to ignore the nasty bits(while still claiming that Everything in the book is true of course), or tend to be decidedly unpleasant people on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Corinthians 14:33-35
When people attack the Qu'ran as saying it's okay to kill infidels, do you insist on checking the context?
For that matter, if the times they are a-changin', and context is required to understand why something was "immoral" in that day but not immoral today, then please explain why homosexuals are not given this preferential context treatment.
Because from where I'm standing, it looks like people who preach "context!" about bible statements often selectively apply whether they care about context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder
Everyone is a bigot.
Let's specialise the statement.
Two standard definitions: Your statement/comment is no less bigotry than the ones you are commenting about.The first note is that you are assuming that the young person in question has not thought deeply about his particular beliefs. As we do not know him, nor have we attempted to understand or know him, we do not know on what basis he holds these particular beliefs.
Secondly assigning the term bigotry to his particular stance is making the assumption that by him taking that stance he is automatically a bigot. Just because he doesn't agree with a particular standpoint, it does not mean that he doesn't allow others to have their own point of view.
Hence, your statement is, of itself, bigotry. My own response will be classified as bigotry. That is the nature of the game.
I find it very interesting that when a person who is not a member of a particular "community" makes a comment/statement that is "against" that community, he/she is classed as a bigot. But if a member of that "community" makes the exact same comment/statement they are not a bigot.
If I make the following statement:
I will be classified as a bigot and homophobe.
But if a homosexual male makes the statement:
it will either be ignored, or whatever. But he won't be classified as a bigot.
It doesn't matter what you replace LGBT lifestyle with, whether it be young blacks or hispanics or koori's, the dichotomy will be there.
The problem is that all people are bigots in some form or another. That is the nature of being human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder
You've just demonstrated Deflection and set up a strawman.
I was going to address several points you've tried to make, but looking into the context, you're saying just one thing which was nicely summarized in your closing statement:
This is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum.
Just because "everyone does it" does not make the instance of this one child and his actions acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder
The biggest problem in any discussion is the unstated assumptions being made on both sides. If these can be brought to the surface, understanding becomes possible even if agreement is not.
Secondly show me where "the logical fallacy" is untrue. I have yet to come across any person in all my years of living and interacting with people from the around the world where my statement is not true.
Lastly, what is acceptable and what is not is a matter for each of us to decide as individuals. Again, you are painting this young person as a child who is incapable of having the ability to make up his own mind about what he has chosen to do. He may not yet be an adult but this does not mean that he cannot as yet think logically about his choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder
There are a number of types of logical fallacies and a quick google search will direct you to a number of resources that can explain them in detail.
For instance, this statement is a logical fallacy:
This is an example of Confirmation Bias. It might be a good anecdote to illustrate a point, but it does not actually prove one.
I disagree to an extent. There is a consensus among a group which drives our decisions on what is and is not acceptable. People who do not conform to group think are punished or otherwise guided towards conformity. An individual can decide what is acceptable to them but if it doesn't conform with their group, then conflict can arise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,54144.0.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's actually not a myth. Students have been getting the short end of the stick for decades. While at school, they're better off than, say, federal prisoners, but not by as much as one might expect. Some schools are probably worse.
In this case, the student was making a simple statement of fact, and the overall outcome here was correct. But if he had, for instance, directly named another student as being unacceptable, then I think it's extremely unlikely he'd have won his case. School administrators have ridiculous latitude.
I think that's very wrongheaded, but it seems to be quite rare for courts to override administrative decisions about things that happen on school grounds. Typically, administrators only get slapped when they try to control kids off school grounds.
This case came out well, but from what I've seen, the kid got lucky to get a discerning judge. Perhaps his family was able to hire a good lawyer, something that's not really an option for so many of the kids abused by our educational systems. And, from the sound of his name, he probably had a huge advantage over many of the other abused students: not much melanin in his skin.
This is what happens to black students:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/16-year-old-girl-arrested-and-charged-felony-sc ience-project-mistake
She ended up okay, but only because of the media attention. If this had stayed off the larger radar, her school record would have been ruined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Students Recall Special Schools Run Like Jails
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/us/students-recall-a-school-run-like-a-prison.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be not unlike saying "I don't use birth control because I am Catholic" is a fact. It's not a fact, because many Catholics DO use birth control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confederate Flag?
He was basically saying, "I support the enslavement of blacks." That doesn't warrant removal from school on policy grounds? How about a shirt that says, "Kill Niggers"?
This, BTW, is why all schools should just have uniforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confederate Flag?
If it was a Confederate Flag with a shirt that said white power it would be a lot closer to wearing Nazi-styled belt buckle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confederate Flag?
Symbols have power; that's why people use them. It is childish in the extreme to feign ignorance of this power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad rulling
See there are tests for this type of thing that follow common sense.
Second the student knew that this particular day was about tolerance. And decided to turn it into a day of confrontation by wearing the belt.
Third, and this is a hard one for libertarians to grasp since they have not experienced it themselves, but words can damage a person in a physical and mental way even if they do not harm themselves.
You do not have the right to harm others because they where born black or gay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's good for the goose...
(That was sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear enough.)
You see how that works? If someone can be forced to be silent based simply on 'it might offend someone', then there's no limit as to what can be silenced, because look hard enough and you can find someone that will be offended by anything.
Now, to be clear, while I very much disagree with his position(I find bigotry in any form to be, at best pitiable, but more often simply an affront against rationality) he still deserves the right to hold it.
I get that certain things can be harmful to the groups they are aimed at, I really do, but the proper response to them isn't to silence the ones saying those things, it's to counter them with rational, logical discussion, or if that fails, let societal pressures take care of it(how many friends do you think an openly racist/sexist person would have in normal society?).
Alongside that, and this is probably going to sound harsh, as well as being rather tough considering how sheltered people are getting these days, is that people need to grow some thicker skins. People have all sorts of different views and beliefs, and a whole lot of them will differ, sometimes greatly, which will cause people to get offended.
There is nothing wrong with that.
You run across a position that you disagree with for whatever reason, talk it out. Find out why the other person holds that position, tell them why you hold yours, and maybe they'll change their mind, maybe you'll end up changing yours, but the second someone pulls the 'you can't say that because it offends me' card, then any discussion, and any potential gains there could have been from it, are gone.
And that, the death of progress because the discussion needed for it was killed because it 'might have offended someone', I find far more offensive than any bigot could ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's good for the goose...
Who cares what society thinks? It's more important to follow Jesus. Glowacki is not a "bigot" for upholding his faith. If anything, the homosexual movement bullies anyone who refuses to accept their deviant lifestyle. They're the instigators.
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Matthew 5:10-12
By the way, what is the school doing pusing forced 'tolerance' of homosexuality on children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That's your opinion and while I vehemently disagree, I still respect your right to say it. See how that works?
By the way, what is the school doing pusing forced 'tolerance' of homosexuality on children?
Isn't tolerance one of the basic tenets of most religious teachings? Or is that one of those hypocritical aspects of religion I often witness: "You should always be tolerant of everyone (as long as they hold the same views as us, that is!)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Funny you should mention that as that pretty much sums up the strategy of the homosexual movement. "Agree with us or else you're a *attach label* and we'll try to punish you (read: thought crimes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
And by 'agree' you mean 'treat like human beings with the full, equal rights heterosexuals enjoy' and by 'punish' you mean 'continue to exist and refuse to pretend otherwise', yes?
Believing that homosexuals, for whatever reason, are wrong/lesser/sinful/whatever is one thing, it's when people treat them as such that the problem comes into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
If by shoving the lifestyle into everyone's face you mean convincing society to welcome homosexuals as full and complete members of society with equal rights, then yes, that's true. As they should be.
"Also, the state altering the definition of marriage is in no way an equal rights issue."
Excuse me, but we live in a secular society. Ergo, the state cannot rule with a nod to ANY religion. Therefore, if the state is going to be involved in marriage at all, and by regulating licenses and benefits for married couples they are, then they MUST do so in a secular way. That means God doesn't enter into the equation. Ergo, marriage is open to all. It's really just that simple. Private religions don't have to do so, since the state can't infringe upon their separation either, but from the state's perspective, homosexuals are simply citizens and ought be afforded all of a citizen's rights.
"Nobody is allowed to disagree with their lifestyle without being labeled a bigot or homophobe (which BTW is a nonsensical term: a phobia is a fear)."
Sure you can, but you have to do it scientifically. If your statement is, "God does not agree with homosexual's lifestlye", or "Homosexual sex is a sin", that is an obviously bigoted statement that doesn't even jive with general religious thought as is. An example I gave in another thread:
"For this belief to make even a lick of sense, you have to dismiss the science. Follow along the religious thought here if you did accept scientific evidence:
1. God created all beings in their total
2. Some beings (not just humans) are inherently homosexual, meaning they were created that way, or else developed that way long before any choice in sexual preference could be made (i.e. some scientific thought suggests that homosexuality develops between the ages of 3-5)
3. The religions of man say God says some of these inherently gay beings are not sins in and of themselves, but their natural inclinations are.
4. Conclusion #1: God created some beings flawed at their most basic level and commands them not to be who he created them to be.
5. Conclusion #2: If #1 is true, God is MASSIVELY capricious and cruel on a level shared by young children frying ants with a magnifying glass or torturing animals. This is a SHITTY God.
Or, you can take the coward's way out, throw away the scientific evidence on sexuality, and wave your hands around about faith and sin and choice and blah, blah, blah, all while the rest of the sane world passes you by.
Either way, things don't look too good for religion on the question of homosexuality. There's a good reason for this: religion is made by scared, poorly evolved primates that are subject to their own prejudices, fears, and fallacies. The problem is they seem to think they have the divine on their side, which is a kind of hubris normally reserved for sociopaths...."
"If anything, they are treated as exceptional, special-class, protected citizens, and all for what? Their perverse sexual preference?"
This is an INSANE thought. Homosexuals are still a minority that suffers. Not as much as in the past, but they are SPECIFICALLY a disadvantaged minority because of the way the majority treats them. To insinuate otherwise is done absolutely without merit.
In addition, homosexuality cannot be perverse when it exists naturally. And it does. This is inarguable. It is a naturally occurring thing, not only in our species, but in other animals as well. It has not been shown in any way to be harmful in and of itself. Ergo, it cannot be perverse.
Your statement, on the other hand, CAN be described as bigoted. Calling something perverse just because you don't like it? Perhaps your time would be better spent with the WBC cretins....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
The very fact that they attempt to indoctrinate children into thinking homosexuality is normal proves my point. It has nothing to do with being treated equally and everything to do with force-feeding what many consider to be an immoral lifestyle on unsuspecting children. Who is the state to take taxpayer money and use it to push something that goes against many people's beliefs?
"Either way, things don't look too good for religion on the question of homosexuality. There's a good reason for this: religion is made by scared, poorly evolved primates that are subject to their own prejudices, fears, and fallacies. The problem is they seem to think they have the divine on their side, which is a kind of hubris normally reserved for sociopaths...."
Quite honest of you to expose your own bigotry against religious people, calling them "poorly evolved primates," strikingly similar to the communist/Darwinian technique to deal with dissidents and religious people: ridicule them, label them mentally ill, unfit for society. This process of vilifying dissidents would eventually pave the way to mass genocide, the murdering of those deemed undesirable by the state.
"This is an INSANE thought. Homosexuals are still a minority that suffers. Not as much as in the past, but they are SPECIFICALLY a disadvantaged minority because of the way the majority treats them. To insinuate otherwise is done absolutely without merit."
Bull. By that same token, Christians are being persecuted around the world simply for their beliefs, yet I don't hear a peep about it in the mainstream. (Do we get to lobby for special rights on account of our suffering?) Nowadays, it's considered 'cool' to spew hatred at religion, all the while demanding tolerance.
"In addition, homosexuality cannot be perverse when it exists naturally. And it does. This is inarguable. It is a naturally occurring thing, not only in our species, but in other animals as well. It has not been shown in any way to be harmful in and of itself. Ergo, it cannot be perverse."
The risks of sexually transmitted diseases are much greater within the LGBT community. Also, just because animals do something doesn't suddenly make it OK if we, being CIVILIZED creatures, do likewise. e.g. In five species of praying mantis, the female consumes the male after mating. Shall we consider cannibalism normal? After all, it "naturally occurs in nature."
"Your statement, on the other hand, CAN be described as bigoted. Calling something perverse just because you don't like it? Perhaps your time would be better spent with the WBC cretins...."
All you're showing is that your opposition is against Christianity. Guess what? We're not going to change our beliefs to validate a deviant lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
And the fact that you refuse to understand that homosexuality is a naturally occurring event, MAKING it normal, proves mine about you.
"Who is the state to take taxpayer money and use it to push something that goes against many people's beliefs?"
Uh, you do realize they do this ALL THE TIME, right? How many people disagree with socialized medicine? They're still implimenting it with your tax money. Get serious.
"Quite honest of you to expose your own bigotry against religious people, calling them "poorly evolved primates,"
Way to miss the point, friend. We're ALL poorly evolved primates. I was describing humanity, not just the religious.
"Christians are being persecuted around the world simply for their beliefs, yet I don't hear a peep about it in the mainstream. (Do we get to lobby for special rights on account of our suffering?)"
We're talking about American government, not the world. Describe how Christians are "suffering" in the same way as homosexuals and I'll defend the hell out of you from that suffering. And, no, being told your beliefs are silly is not the same as having your life, livelihood, or rights threatened.
"The risks of sexually transmitted diseases are much greater within the LGBT community."
Patently false. The demographic with the lowest risk of STD infection are lesbians. The highest risk is homosexual men. Straight couples are right in the middle. If you can't see what the major factor in STD infection rates are from that evidence, you need remedial logic. Either way, it ain't the homosexuality aspect.
" Also, just because animals do something doesn't suddenly make it OK if we, being CIVILIZED creatures, do likewise. e.g."
No, it just makes it NATURAL. Something that occurs naturally and doesn't harm in and of itself simply CANNOT be perverse. Also, as a theist, you must believe that God created all things that are natural. Why are you railing against God's creations?
"All you're showing is that your opposition is against Christianity."
100% correct. I find your beliefs to be distasteful. That said, I'll defend your rights to believe what you like and practice any religion you like to my death. That's the secular humanist way. It also SHOULD be the way of the religious. Sadly, that often seems to be not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
If you call that socialized medicine... ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
So, you're comparing the largest religion in the world in terms of members (if we use the all inclusive term Christian which includes all denominations like Catholic, Protestant, Jesuit, Coptic etc) with the minority that is homosexuals?
Also, it is correct to say that religious people are mentally ill. They believe in something that has no logical base. What does a Christian believe? That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Why does he believe that? Because the Bible says so. Why does this Christian person trust the word of the Bible? Because it's the word of God...no wait, it isn't. It's a collection of writings written and collected hundreds of years before and after this man Jesus lived and died. There's nothing in there Jesus wrote himself: funny, could've sworn he was a teacher of some kind. The proofs that the Bible say that Jesus is the Son of God? The miracles he is said to have performed...events which cannot be reproduced today and proven or disproven.
Sorry, but when someone walks up to me and says he believes in a man who can raise the dead, who lived 2,000 years ago and promised to return, but is taking his damn time in doing so, all on the word of something that has been proven to be hypocritcal, error-ridden etc, I can rightfully call that person mentally ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
There is no medical definition of mental illness that includes all religious people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
To be adopted by all would doom the species. It would be good for the planet, but not for us homos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
In general Christian doctrine holds that all people are flawed, and cannot meet God's standards without help. We're just flawed in slightly different ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Be like programming a true AI to only be able to see red, and then blaming and berating it for not being able to see blue; it's the fault of the creator, not the creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
It depends what they're being condemned for. It seems the ones who get the most press really are blaming gay people for the feelings, desires, whatever you want to call it that they feel. There is no justification for that. Condemning behaviors (not people) is a different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
We're not born with behaviors, we choose behaviors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Sexual orientation is no more a behavior than skin color is. It's just the way a person is, not a behavior. Condemning someone for either is wrong. Condemning choices is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I guess the biggest problem I have with the condemning of homosexuality, whether orientation or actions, is the fact that I have yet to see a credible, or even non-religious explanation as to why it's something that should be considered even nearly as bad as they portray it as, or even 'immoral/objectionable' at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
When does the straight pride parade begin? Ironically, many homosexuals would claim it was discrimination, similar to like how you can have a black/hispanic/asian/etc. activist group (which is an act of discrimination [exclusion] in and of itself), history month, pride march, whatever, but never a white one as that's considered racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Why do you think you need one? Are millions of people all over the country denied jobs or housing because they have straight sex? Are they harassed or assaulted or even murdered because they have straight sex? Are bars and churches bombed because the people who gather there engage in straight sex? Are they forbidden from being at their lover's deathbed because they have straight sex? Are civil rights are denied to straight people that are enjoyed by others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Even should the above have factual merit, it derails from the underlying point, that being that there shouldn't be any prerequisite requirements, such as being a minority group, in order to hold a parade (i.e. free speech and expression) ...and yet there is, because you know full well that if anyone tried to have a straight parade or a white parade, people would accuse them of being bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
The problem is, what reason is there to have a straight pride parade, or a white pride parade, other than to denigrate or attack the minorities that aren't being celebrated? You could also have a telethon to raise money for rich people, but you would be similarly criticized for that, because rich people already have what the telethon is supposed to give them, in the same way white people and straight people already have what those parades are supposed to accomplish.
So why would you want to see or go to a white parade or a straight parade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/pride_week/overview.html (view photos)
"Gay Pride Week in Boston was officially ten days (June 3-12) of public events, block parties, festivals, and parades celebrating every kind of homosexual activity imaginable. As in recent years transgenderism and cross-dressing have been taking a more prominent role, as well as BDSM (bondage, sadomasochism, "leather culture"). There is also a big dose of anti-religious (particularly anti-Catholic) fervor. Besides homosexual Catholic groups, the offensive and blasphemous "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" -- a group of homosexual men dressed up as nuns to mock the Church -- marched in the Gay Pride Parade this year. But even they were dwarfed by the overwhelming number of depraved and perverted groups in the parade along with them.
...
Some of it was pretty mind-numbing. At the "festival" on City Hall Plaza following the Gay Pride Parade, Walgreen's Drug Stores had a booth giving out packets of lubricant for homosexual sex. Not far away was the New England Leather Alliance booth giving out sado-masochism literature, and the polyamory and witchcraft groups.
The major homosexual public events during the week were: (1) the rainbow flag raising at Boston City Hall, featuring Boston elected officials; (2) the Dyke March through downtown streets of lesbians holding depraved signs and screaming angry chants; (3) the Gay Pride Parade; and (4) the gay "festival" at City Hall Plaza right after the Parade. There was a lot more, but how much can anyone take?
It's really about power over us
One didn't have to be there very long to get a sense of what these kinds of events are really all about. They're about staging a huge in-your-face gesture of power over anyone with traditional values. Thus, they know they can do anything they want -- whether kids or anyone else are watching or not -- and we can't do anything but meekly watch.
For the homosexual movement and their supporters in politics and in corporate boardrooms, this is a public display of the dominance of their movement over traditional society and any individual who still supports traditional values. They know that no one would dare interrupt or criticize them without fear of swift and unflinching reprisal. They also know (and they know that WE know) that if we ever attempted to do any pro-family events downtown on that scale, the homosexual (or other mind-numbed leftist) activists could freely disrupt and harass us without any fear."
Explain how by dressing up as nuns in order to mock the Church, men dressing in speedos humping each other's asses and handing out packets of lubricants to attendants has anything whatsoever to do with equal rights. I defy you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
No. Perhaps if you read my comment again you'll see that I'm not.
Also, tell me: why should it be prerequisite that every minority be represented/included in every organized social-political event?
I didn't say that either. Are you bad at reading comprehension, or don't want to have an honest debate, or what?
So why would you want to participate in or go to a white parade or a straight parade?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the gay parade other than you find it offensive.
Explain how by dressing up as nuns in order to mock the Church, men dressing in speedos humping each other's asses and handing out packets of lubricants to attendants has anything whatsoever to do with equal rights. I defy you.
The nuns thing pretty clearly sounds like a protest against the Catholic church's position on homosexuality and gay marriage. The rest of it I assume is an effort to celebrate their sexual freedom and create discussion and perhaps controversy about gay rights. I can't say for sure since I don't really pay attention to gay parades. Which, despite all this talk about having it shoved in our faces and not having any choice but to watch, is very much an option.
I'm not sure any of this is going anywhere as long as you continue to insist that sexual orientation is a choice, though. How would you feel if it were proved to your satisfaction that it is not? Would that change any of your positions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"The *problem* is, what *reason* is there to have a *straight* pride parade, or a *white* pride parade, other than *to denigrate or attack the minorities that aren't being celebrated?* You could *also* have a telethon to *raise money for rich people,* but you would be *similarly criticized for that,* because *rich people already have what the telethon is supposed to give them,* *in the same way white people and straight people already have what those parades are supposed to accomplish.*"
Yeah, you did. You're saying that if somebody already has something, whatever the heck that might be, they shouldn't be having a parade. Using this logic, I supposed that when other races hold festivals in their own countries, they're celebrating bigotry and exclusion.
"I didn't say that either. Are you bad at reading comprehension, or don't want to have an honest debate, or what?"
You DID say that.
"The problem is, what reason is there to have a straight pride parade, or a white pride parade, other than TO DENIGRATE OR ATTACK THE MINORITIES THAT AREN'T BEING CELEBRATED?"
You're proving my point, that you feel that only minority groups ought have their free speech and expression rights, and if anything involving a majority were to do similar, the only purpose would be to "denigrate or attack the minorities." By default, you're putting the onus on the majority to AFFIRM everyone else.
"So why would you want to participate in or go to a white parade or a straight parade?"
Same reason you'd go to a festival or other such event: for fun and celebration. Oh wait, I almost forgot: I'm white and therefore NOT ALLOWED to.
"I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the gay parade other than you find it offensive."
Yes, I see -- religious people don't count, only when a minority group is offended must there be change, censorship, people losing their jobs/income, et al. all to protect the "feelings" of those who live a decadent lifestyle (i.e. thought crimes). Homosexuals claim that they're not hurting anyone, that they just want equal rights and to be left alone, then go out of their way to antagonize, attack, slander and punish anyone who disagrees with them.
"The nuns thing pretty clearly sounds like a protest against the Catholic church's position on homosexuality and gay marriage. The rest of it I assume is an effort to celebrate their sexual freedom and create discussion and perhaps controversy about gay rights. I can't say for sure since I don't really pay attention to gay parades. Which, despite all this talk about having it shoved in our faces and not having any choice but to watch, is very much an option."
Except for anyone who happens to live in close proximity, run a nearby business, or has children in school with homosexual indoctrination masquerading as "tolerance."
"I'm not sure any of this is going anywhere as long as you continue to insist that sexual orientation is a choice, though. How would you feel if it were proved to your satisfaction that it is not? Would that change any of your positions?"
It's already been verified that homosexuality is not an genetic trait, so that ends that. Biology, theology, morals and traditions are not on your side. All you've got are pleas to emotion, with the backing of corrupt government officials and media elitists who want depopulation and moral degradation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
My church doesn't particularly emphasize the homosexuality aspect of it, rather that 1) for God, marriage is between a man and a woman and 2) sex outside marriage is a sin. So in the eyes of God, any homosexual sex is sinful. However, I don't support banning gay marriage any more than I support banning premarital sex, because God's laws and man's laws cannot be the same. I'm not quite sure why so many Christians think that all God's commandments should also be US laws. If anyone could explain that I'd appreciate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Not much that could be done about the 'sin' parts from a religious point of view, but it seems that the way to deal with the second bit at least would be to allow secular marriage, something with plenty of historical precedent(secular marriage that is, though same-sex marriage does have precedent as well), as equal rights regarding marriage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I like Ron Paul's idea: get government out of marriage entirely. Anyone who wants a civil union can get one, and if you want to be married go to your church.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Oh, come on now. You can't be both arguing for religion AND arguing against thought crimes. Religion is the mother of all punishing thought crime. It was mentioned higher up in the thread: adultery isn't when you bang your neighbor's wife, it's when you THINK about banging your neighbor's wife.
Pick a lane, TRM. Either we can punish thought crimes or we can't....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Right, because gays haven't been persecuted just for their being gay. What the fuck are you talking about?
"yet if someone protests at a gay pride parade by holding up a sign with a quote from scripture on it, the police might come over and attempt to take it away, perhaps even charge with a 'hate crime.'"
Citation needed. As someone who has attended gay pride parades and has seen protesters, I've never seen this. Nor have I ever heard of it happening, so please cite an instance. If you do cite an instance, I'll criticize the police action. Free speech should be protected for all, even when I disagree with the speakers. Doesn't mean they aren't bigots, just means they're allowed their bigotry.
"Homosexuals like to preach tolerance while themselves being intolerant of anyone with a dissenting opinion of their lifestyle."
You like to claim that you aren't a bigot and then you make sweeping generalizations about an entire group. Hypocritical irony at is finest....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
TRM's comments make me think about this PSA from the 70's for some reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJXtTIbDTo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzS-QuSttfs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That's proves meaning tests, as in proving ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
No one should not tolerate the removal of rights from anyone due to pure animus. It is not the dissenting opinion that is not tolerated, but it is the attack on the fundamental civil rights of human beings, who are all created equal, which is not tolerated.
For instance, I think religious people who condemn gays and lesbians have stunted personalities that never fully matured. That's my opinion. And I'm allowed to have it. But I do NOT try to pass laws that make opposite-sex intercourse illegal - unlike your kind, who had made it illegal in Texas as recently as 10 years ago, and it was actually enforced as well, and made it all the way to SCOTUS as Lawrence vs. Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
If anything, the religious are the bullies, pushing their irrational and childish beliefs in non-existent anthropomorphic man-in-the-sky on people who are minding their own business in the privacy of their own home. Keep in mind that it was the religious people who pushed for laws making same-sex marriage illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
http://catholicexchange.com/christians-persecuted-through-a-tyranny-of-nice/
"Amer icans are not the only ones facing an election this fall. Their neighbors to the north also head to the polls on October 14 as Canada holds its federal election. Yet one of the biggest issues of the past year — the right to practice one’s Christian faith unmolested by the state – remains untouched by Canadian politicians from all parties. And the persecution is spreading to the United States, as seen in several instances noted below. Sound like exaggeration? Think religious persecution is not possible right next door to America? Well think again. Canada’s human rights commissions and tribunals, originally founded to help socially-disadvantaged minorities seek redress against racism in government housing and services, have now turned their sights on Christians and pro-lifers. All this is done in the name of being nice and tolerant. Hence the title of my new book co-authored with Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle in which we document many of these cases: The Tyranny of Nice.
In the name of nice, Canada’s government is silencing Christians and pro-lifers from voicing opinions that others might find offensive. This prohibition applies even when one’s opinion is grounded in Christian truth and charity. Stating that the child in the womb is a human being is one such opinion being floated as potentially hateful. And now that Canadian law has redefined marriage to include same-sex couplings, to state publicly that marriage is between a man and a woman can lead to thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail sentences.
And Americans are not immune from this tyranny of nice. Similar cases are popping up south of the border as well. For instance, Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin was fined $6,500 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for crimes of conscience. Mrs. Huguenin declined, for reasons of faith, to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony between two lesbians. Since photography is an art form that requires a certain photographic eye, the New Mexico government agency was essentially compelling speech in violation of a private citizen’s conscience and First Amendment protections. In so doing the New Mexico Human Rights Commission used language similar to that of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Another case involves Marcia Walden, a licensed associate counselor in Georgia and an African-American Christian. She was fired from a government contract for following her profession’s code of ethics. When she sensed a personal conflict between her religious convictions and an individual seeking same-sex relationship counseling — a conflict that would prevent Ms. Walden from giving the potential client the best treatment possible — the counselor politely referred the client to another counselor in her office who did not share her religious convictions, and who could see the client the same day. Despite admitting that the counseling from this second counselor had been superb, Ms. Walden needed to be fired because her religious convictions as a Christian were deemed ‘not nice.'
Yet the tyranny of nice is even more entrenched in Canada. Many CE readers have heard of the case against Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a founder of Canada’s pro-life movement and the publisher of Catholic Insight magazine. For the past year Father has been fighting a human rights complaint because he dared uphold the teachings of the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church during Canada’s contentious debate over same-sex marriage. Not content with having won the political war to re-define the world’s oldest and most sacred institution, homosexual activists are now attempting to silence the 76-year-old Basilian priest from the pulpit. What’s more, Father has been forced to pay $20,000 in legal expenses to defend himself, while the costs incurred by the government in its persecution of this priest are picked up by the taxpayer."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
"Chris Kempling delivered this address on March 4, 2005 in New York City to a United Nations Commission on Human Rights Delegate Briefing. He received a standing ovation."
"Canada is a country which prides itself on religious freedom and religious tolerance. And in many respects that is true. Citizens are free to practice their faiths according to their traditions, generally without interference from the government. And even when someone's religious beliefs conflicts with a long established Canadian tradition, great tolerance can be shown, as was the case with the first Sikh Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer permitted to wear a turban instead of the regulation hat. That constable started his career in my home town of Quesnel, and he was accepted and appreciated by the community.
Unfortunately, there are two primary areas of conflict between religious freedoms and government policy in Canada: abortion and homosexuality. A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime — he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the 'bubble zone' of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it — Thou shalt not kill.
A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public."
"Then there's the term 'hate.' If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is 'promoting hatred.' If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is 'promoting hatred.' If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people. Apparently Canadians can hold religious beliefs, but if they tell anyone else in a public forum, such as a newspaper, they are 'promoting hatred.'
How about 'homophobia.' It literally means an irrational fear, even terror, of homosexual persons. A phobia is a mental illness, which can be successfully treated. In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are 'mentally ill' and require re-education. One homosexual activist, John McKellar, who opposes the Gay Pride movement, calls the use of the word homophobia, 'a contrived slander' against religiously conservative people. But activists realize that religious people are unlikely to change, which is why they are focusing a tremendous amount of attention on re-educating children in public schools."
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html
"Th e commissions and tribunals are “quasi-judicial bodies” that have the full power of government behind them, but they operate separately from the court system and do not provide their victims even the basic due process protections that rapists and murderers enjoy in the courts. All an activist must do is file a complaint claiming that his feelings have been hurt and that he is offended by something that a Christian has said or done, and the tribunals bring governmental authority to bear against the 'offender.' There is no cost to the complainant, but the accused is forced to pay his own legal costs, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If found guilty he must pay 'damages' to the offended party, plus he must pay his accuser’s legal fees. There is a presumption of guilt and the accused must labor under adverse circumstances to prove his or her innocence.
An outspoken Christian has no real protection under this system. It is a grossly discriminatory, lose-lose situation from beginning to end.
As Ezra Levant, a lawyer who is defending himself before a human rights tribunal, observes, 'Even if we win, we lose--the process has become the punishment. It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin.'"
"If anything, the religious are the bullies, pushing their irrational and childish beliefs in non-existent anthropomorphic man-in-the-sky on people who are minding their own business in the privacy of their own home. Keep in mind that it was the religious people who pushed for laws making same-sex marriage illegal."
This is patently misconstrued logic. There never was same-sex marriage to begin with, so how are Christians to blame for "taking away" something which never existed in the first place (and for good reason)?
While we're at it, why not allow kids to marry, or for people to have multiple partners (polygamy)? After all, you people are fond of altering the definition of the word 'marriage' to suit your phony "pursuit of happiness" at your leisure. Marriage isn't an 'absolute right,' as you'd like to twist it to be. The states may change the law but not without the consent of the people, yet that didn't stop California from adopting same-sex marriages. Apparently all that's need to trump the will of the majority is one homosexual activist judge. And you call Christians bullies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
For example, Bill Whatcott, the nurse who was fired? In the brief paragraph about him, one can be forgiven for thinking he merely said on Facebook "Abortion is wrong" and that his bosses fired him for that alone, or something to that effect.
No.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Whatcott
"On January 25, 2005, the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses suspended Whatcott's nursing licence for 45 days and ordered him to pay a $15,000 fine. They asserted that Whatcott had intimidated patients and staff outside a Regina Planned Parenthood clinic by picketing and referring "to its workers as murderers, abortionists and disseminators of AIDS""
A nurse can say all he wants that abortion is wrong. But, if he stands outside the clinic where he works, and calls the patients and staff murderers and disseminators of AIDS, then yes, he has to be let go. Last I heard, if you call someone a murderer or as being complicit in spreading a disease, you've got to have something to back that up, or you can get yourself in a lot of trouble. If I were the manager or boss of that clinic, I'd have fired Whatcott too. If I'd been a patient at the clinic, gotten treatment from Whatcott only to walk out later on to find him calling me a murderer, I'd have pressed management to fire his ass.
Elaine Huguenin, the photographer who refused to shoot the lesbian couple...I'd wonder what you'd have to say if she were conscientiously opposed to heterosexual couples? If a man and a woman turned up at her studio and she refused service because she was opposed to straight marriage, what would you say?
Basically, TRM, from the posts you've made on Techdirt, you're arguing that the world should be tolerant of Christians. The funny thing is, that's exactly what Christianity is NOT. For centuries, Christianity has been intolerant towards anyone they didn't like, such as homosexuals. Now do you understand what being persecuted feels like? You have no right whatsover to call for tolerance for your beliefs, when a core part of your beliefs call for intolerance towards others who have done you no harm whatsoever.
"While we're at it, why not allow kids to marry, or for people to have multiple partners (polygamy)?"
You seem to have this irrational belief that all pro-homosexuals are sexual deviants. They're not. Just because someone is for homosexual marriage doesn't mean that they'd be okay with kids marrying. More than likely, they wouldn't, because kids are young and naive, and not adults. As for polygamy...why not? Your marriage (if you have one) isn't harmed. The fact the dude down the street has a husband or three wives has no impact whatsoever on your own marriage. Why do you get so worked up over it?
If you're worried about your kids being taught that homosexuals exist, maybe try putting them in a religious school.
Hard question for you - Let's assume you have a son. Let's assume he turns out to be gay. What do you do? According to your beliefs, he's evil. Should he live a chaste life, simply because you say so? Should he attempt therapy, and more than likely undergo years of pain and torment in trying to cure what isn't actually a disease? Or do you shun him, disown him?
Or do you do the humane thing and accept him for who he is? If he comes home with a boyfriend, do you accept the boyfriend for who he is, and merely demand of him that he love and treasure your son?
If you do anything else, you are destroying your family. I should know. My mother and sisters believed (wrongly) that I was gay, and that played a large part in their disowning of me. Their persecution of me, even though I actually wasn't gay, was horrible to go through. In the end, it wasn't my supposed deviant lifestyle that broke up the family. It was them and their irrational hatred that did the deed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marriage
'Redefining' suggests that it has always been one way throughout history, and even the barest glance at actual history will show otherwise, as 'marriage' has meant a whole range of things through history, with the reasons being just as varied, though mostly focused on practical/political, rather than religious, reasons.
Most of the cases you list are wrong, and attacks at free(if personally offensive/disagreeable) speech, so in those instances I'd agree with you and say that those were miscarriages of justice.
The Marcia Walden one however I'd say was correct, if you can't do your job, you shouldn't hold it. The same 'my religion prohibits this' excuse has also been used by individuals who refused to perform life saving blood transfusions for example, would you say they should retain their jobs, even though to do so could threaten the health and safety of patients?
Regarding your 'homophobia is a loaded term', you say you're a mental health professional, say you had someone come to you who believed totally and utterly that blacks, or women, or asians, or (just to give it a personal punch) christians were immoral, and therefor lesser, for no other reason than their 'holy book' of choice told them so.
Despite questioning, despite trying to find out the 'real' reason, the only one they could give was that their holy book of choice said that (blacks/woman/asians/christians) were immoral.
Are you really going to say that you would look at a person like that, see that their belief in the immorality of a group was based entirely on a book, and say that there is nothing wrong with them? Because make no mistake, for those that don't share your religion, that's all the bible is, a book. It's got some good advice, it's got some bad advice, but it still remains nothing more than just a book written a great time ago.
'While we're at it, why not allow kids to marry, or for people to have multiple partners (polygamy)?'
Both examples with reams of historical evidence and precedent, so at most it would be 'altering' the definition to match what marriage has been in the past. I am surprised you left out 'interracial couples' there though, given all your reasons and excuses were used to argue against that being recognized and accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
"Despite questioning, despite trying to find out the 'real' reason, the only one they could give was that their holy book of choice said that (blacks/woman/asians/christians) were immoral.
Are you really going to say that you would look at a person like that, see that their belief in the immorality of a group was based entirely on a book, and say that there is nothing wrong with them? Because make no mistake, for those that don't share your religion, that's all the bible is, a book. It's got some good advice, it's got some bad advice, but it still remains nothing more than just a book written a great time ago."
Doesn't matter what you think of the Bible; we're talking about the law and the redefinition of an institution which affects the greater society. Now that they've gone over the heads of the public and made same-sex marriage legal, it's only a matter of time before some homosexual couple goes into a religious/private institute and doesn't get their way, then claims discrimination and takes legal action for their "hurt feelings," violating the 1A rights of the accused party.
"Both examples with reams of historical evidence and precedent, so at most it would be 'altering' the definition to match what marriage has been in the past. I am surprised you left out 'interracial couples' there though, given all your reasons and excuses were used to argue against that being recognized and accepted."
You're moving the goal post. If what you're saying were really the case, morals would be purely subjective, nothing more than the artificial construct of whoever happens to be codifying laws (i.e. moral relativism) and to hell with the will of the people. Getting away with rape, theft, euthanasia, etc. is little more than a definition-change away by some overbearing judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
You know that's what they did with civil rights for minorities too, right?
it's only a matter of time before some homosexual couple goes into a religious/private institute and doesn't get their way, then claims discrimination and takes legal action for their "hurt feelings," violating the 1A rights of the accused party.
Somebody is probably going to try, but I would be very surprised if it got very far. No law that for example forces a church to perform gay marriages is going to withstand first amendment scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
You are aware that word definitions can change, right? Saying 'this is what it has been, so this is what it's always going to be' is a sign that someone is stuck in the past, unwilling to let progress take it's course, and is the exactly same argument that has made racial and gender equality such a difficult thing to reach.
After all, by that logic for the longest time(even longer than your 'centuries') woman were considered essentially second class citizens(if that), property of their fathers or husbands, and most certainly not equal to men, but (I would hope) I doubt you share that same view yourself, as society has grown up, slowly but surely, to accept that something as simple as having different bits downstairs doesn't make someone lesser; an equality that, whether you like it or not, will happen regarding same-sex couples and homosexuals.
'...institution which affects the greater society.
Alright, how?
How would legalizing same sex marriage negatively affect 'the greater society'? I keep hearing how much havoc would ensue should such a thing ever happen, how marriages would be ruined(though really, if anyone's marriage is that weak, that something as simple as two people of the same gender getting married was enough to ruin it, it was a sham marriage in the first place), but so far all the 'predictions of doom!' like 'next thing you know people will be wanting to marry a dog!' haven't even passed the laugh test, so please, enlighten me, what is the great 'harm' that would befall society should same-sex marriage become widely accepted?
Now that they've gone over the heads of the public and made same-sex marriage legal...
I guess you might have missed out on this little tid-bit, but those states that have legalized same-sex marriage, have done so by bills voted on by the people, which means the majority of 'the public' in those states at least see no problem in same-sex marriage, so there was no 'going above their heads'.
And even if it had been the government, whether state or country wide that legalized it against the will of the majority, guess what? The government is not supposed to be a tyranny of the majority, it's supposed to represent and serve the people as a whole. As an example, how well do you think racial equality would have managed in the southern states, had it not been forced on them by the government as a whole? They fought tooth and nail for segregation, if it had been left up to them it's quite possible it would still be that way in a number of states.
... it's only a matter of time before some homosexual couple goes into a religious/private institute and doesn't get their way, then claims discrimination and takes legal action for their "hurt feelings," violating the 1A rights of the accused party.
(Assuming my often spotty memory serves) It has happened, it was shot down, and I notice you objected quite strongly when the the situation was reversed, where someone lost their job due to being incapable or unwilling to perform it due to religious reasons. So I take it 'hurt feelings' only count when the reason for them is religious based?
You're moving the goal post. If what you're saying were really the case, morals would be purely subjective, nothing more than the artificial construct of whoever happens to be codifying laws (i.e. moral relativism) and to hell with the will of the people.
How am I moving the goal posts? You're claiming that people are trying to 're-define' marriage, and yet both of the examples of 'what could happen' you provided(child marriage and polygamy) have historical precedent regarding marriage, so in the case that those two things were allowed, it wouldn't be 're-defining' anything, but merely going back to what marriage has included in the past.
As far as morals changing, what is considered 'moral' does change as time passes. For a good while it was considered 'moral' to keep slaves, now we know better. For a good time it was considered immoral for a woman to expose pretty much any part of her body other than hands or face, now it is no longer the case.
Now laws can be 'moral' or 'immoral', but their primary concern should always be about what is just, with morality taking a back seat, given how it can change.
Morals can change, and like it or not, as slow as the progress may be, the 'morality' consensus among the population at large is sliding more and more towards equality for homosexuality.
Getting away with rape, theft, euthanasia, etc. is little more than a definition-change away by some overbearing judge.
And yet again the examples given don't even pass the laugh test. If you want to convince people, try using realistic examples of possible outcomes, not ridiculous extreme ones like those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Complete nonsense. People are born one race and gender. A sexual preference is nowhere near the same. Agree or not, all actions are not equal.
"Alright, how?"
I've already explained it. With same-sex marriages codified into law, they will use their newfound social status to target religious and private institutes for discriminatory actions. It's happening in Canada and, to a certain degree, here as well (read below).
"I guess you might have missed out on this little tid-bit, but those states that have legalized same-sex marriage, have done so by bills voted on by the people, which means the majority of 'the public' in those states at least see no problem in same-sex marriage, so there was no 'going above their heads'."
That's a lie! The majority of voters in California, New York and elsewhere were strongly OPPOSED to allowing same-sex marriages, yet the states pushed it through anyway.
"And even if it had been the government, whether state or country wide that legalized it against the will of the majority, guess what? The government is not supposed to be a tyranny of the majority, it's supposed to represent and serve the people as a whole. As an example, how well do you think racial equality would have managed in the southern states, had it not been forced on them by the government as a whole? They fought tooth and nail for segregation, if it had been left up to them it's quite possible it would still be that way in a number of states."
Well look at this, an emotionally charged ploy. Stop equating a sexual preference to race, let alone the plight of blacks during the civil rights movement. Nowhere NEAR the same.
"(Assuming my often spotty memory serves) It has happened, it was shot down, and I notice you objected quite strongly when the the situation was reversed, where someone lost their job due to being incapable or unwilling to perform it due to religious reasons. So I take it 'hurt feelings' only count when the reason for them is religious based?"
I should be telling that to you. In fact, if an employer has to fill one position and he's got three prospective employees, one of them a homosexual, he is compelled BY LAW to hire the homosexual, otherwise face a potential lawsuit for discrimination. If anything, homosexuals are given preferential treatment.
"How am I moving the goal posts? You're claiming that people are trying to 're-define' marriage, and yet both of the examples of 'what could happen' you provided(child marriage and polygamy) have historical precedent regarding marriage, so in the case that those two things were allowed, it wouldn't be 're-defining' anything, but merely going back to what marriage has included in the past."
In your first paragraph you state that I'm stuck in the past (presumably because I refuse to go along with the government redefining marriage), yet you yourself have no qualms about highlighting the past to set a precedent for why same-sex marriage should be considered socially acceptable.
"As far as morals changing, what is considered 'moral' does change as time passes. For a good while it was considered 'moral' to keep slaves, now we know better. For a good time it was considered immoral for a woman to expose pretty much any part of her body other than hands or face, now it is no longer the case."
Slavery never went away, it just assumed a different form. Most Americans are tax/debt slaves. People in foreign countries are indentured servants, forced to live in horrendous conditions. The irony is that the root cause for much of it is right here: corporations.
BTW, morals do not change.
"And yet again the examples given don't even pass the laugh test. If you want to convince people, try using realistic examples of possible outcomes, not ridiculous extreme ones like those."
Ok, here's a nice article.
http://www.infowars.com/the-name-of-jesus-has-become-a-dirty-word-in-politically-correct -america/
"Evidence of this war on Christianity is everywhere these days. The following are just a few examples…
-An elementary school in North Carolina ordered a little six-year-old girl to remove the word “God” from a poem that she wrote to honor her two grandfathers that had served in the Vietnam War.
-The Ohio Statehouse banned Christian pastors from using the name of Jesus when they open up the daily sessions with prayer.
-The use of the name of Jesus was also forbidden in all prayers opening sessions of the North Carolina State-House.
-Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that prayers before commission meetings in Forsyth County, North Carolina that included the name of Jesus were unconstitutional.
-Earlier this year, a Florida Atlantic University student that refused to stomp on the name of Jesus was banned from class.
-A student at Sonoma State University was ordered to take off a cross that she was wearing because someone “could be offended“.
-A teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving his own Bible to a student that did not own one.
-An open air preacher in Illinois was recently threatened with arrest for “scaring people” with the message of the gospel.
-A high school track team was disqualified earlier this year because one of the runners “made a gesture thanking God” once he had crossed the finish line.
-Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus in their public prayers. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Chaplains all over the nation are now being banned from using the name of Jesus.
-In recent months, daredevil Nik Wallenda has walked a tightrope across Niagara Falls and has walked a tightrope across the Grand Canyon, and yet both times the mainstream media has gone out of the way to keep the name of Jesus out of news reports…
...
A recently released 140 page report entitled “The Survey of Religious Hostility in America” included some more examples of how Christianity is being systematically oppressed in America today…
A federal judge threatened ‘incarceration’ to a high school valedictorian unless she removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech.
City officials prohibited senior citizens from praying over their meals, listening to religious messages or singing gospel songs at a senior activities center.
A public school official prevented a student from handing out flyers inviting her classmates to an event at her church.
A public university’s law school banned a Christian organization because it required its officers to adhere to a statement of faith that the university disagreed with.
The U.S. Department of Justice argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government can tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and fire.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned the mention of God from veterans’ funerals, overriding the wishes of the deceased’s families.
A federal judge held that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to Allah but not to Jesus.
...
Right now, there are some very powerful forces that are trying to eradicate all expressions of the Christian faith from the U.S. military. It has gotten so bad that a 23 year Air Force veteran was recently ordered to remove his Bible from his desk, and the Air Force recently came out and announced that service members are only allowed to talk about their faith if it “does not make others uncomfortable“.
...
The MRFF is a very insidious organization. It is headed up by a man named Mikey Weinstein. He has called Christians “human monsters” and “enemies of the United States Constitution“. Weinstein is convinced that sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ while in the military is “sedition and treason” and should be punished as such.
You would think that people like Weinstein would be dismissed as lunatics, but unfortunately under the Obama administration he has been brought in as a special adviser to the Pentagon.
...
A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions"
Christianity must be silenced, oppressed, removed from the public because it might "hurt someone's feelings" or "offend someone," but anything which Christians might find offensive is protected free speech -- a blatant double-standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
No, of course, not, unlike skin color and gender people choose their sexual orientation, often at puberty, but sometimes sooner... /s
I'm not sure who told you otherwise, but sexual orientation is not something a person 'chooses', any more than they can 'chose' how tall they grow or what race they are born as.
I've already explained it. With same-sex marriages codified into law, they will use their newfound social status to target religious and private institutes for discriminatory actions. It's happening in Canada and, to a certain degree, here as well (read below).
'Newfound social status'? You mean being treated as equal to heterosexual couples? indeed, how dare those uppity gay people demand religious organizations stop characterizing them as sinful, immoral, lesser people!
That's a lie! The majority of voters in California, New York and elsewhere were strongly OPPOSED to allowing same-sex marriages, yet the states pushed it through anyway.
(With the exception of the NY one, all numbers are from the public voting on the bills/propositions)
California, Prop 8(same-sex marriage ban):
52.24% For
47.76% Against
(Never mind that this one was massively funded by out of state money such as from the LDS church, to the tune of $20 million from them alone...)
Washington, Ref 74(legalize same-sex marriage):
53.7% For
46.3% Against
North Carolina, Amendment 1(same-sex marriage ban):
64.04% For
38.96% Against
(Of course the whopping 34.66% voter turn out doesn't exactly suggest 'overwhelming support', or even interest)
Maine, Question 1(legalize same-sex marriage):
53% For
47% Against
Maryland, Question 6(legalize same-sex marriage):
52.43% For
47.57 Against
New York, 'Marriage Equality Act'(legalize same-sex marriage):
New York Senate passed 33-29 For.
Poll after it was passed showed 55% Support, 65% Don't want it overturned(not sure why those were two separate categories).
Those were the ones I could find information on with a simple search, so what was it you were saying about 'strong opposition' to same-sex marriage?
Well look at this, an emotionally charged ploy. Stop equating a sexual preference to race, let alone the plight of blacks during the civil rights movement. Nowhere NEAR the same.
Yes, of course, because as everyone knows no homosexual person has ever been discriminated against, harassed, beaten, killed, or otherwise been treated unfairly simply for being gay. You're right, totally different. /s
I should be telling that to you. In fact, if an employer has to fill one position and he's got three prospective employees, one of them a homosexual, he is compelled BY LAW to hire the homosexual, otherwise face a potential lawsuit for discrimination. If anything, homosexuals are given preferential treatment.
Well considering there is no spot in an application that asks for sexual orientation, and interviewers aren't allowed to ask about it, you'll excuse me if I rather doubt that claim. Might want to check your sources on that one.
Right now, there are some very powerful forces that are trying to eradicate all expressions of the Christian faith from the U.S. military. It has gotten so bad that a 23 year Air Force veteran was recently ordered to remove his Bible from his desk, and the Air Force recently came out and announced that service members are only allowed to talk about their faith if it “does not make others uncomfortable“.
Might want to make sure your own examples aren't shooting yourself in the foot before posting, replace 'their faith' with 'their sexual orientation' and that still wouldn't even come close to how the military treated homosexuals until very recently. They might get a talking to for being vocal about their religion, but it's only recently that a homosexual person wouldn't have been kicked clean out of the military for daring to go public.
A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups
Check the following for a number of examples as to why pro-life groups could be considered threats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States
Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions
Given the location, I'm guessing that one was less 'we should avoid displays that might seem to disrespect other religions' and more 'having this in plain sight might get a fanatic pissed off enough to bomb the place, might want to avoid that.'
Regarding the rest of the examples, funnily enough most of those I also disagree with, as examples of squashing the free speech rights of the individuals involved, and therefor miscarriages of justice. The price of the increasing (and stupid) drive towards 'Politically correct, and non-offensive speech for all' I guess...
The exceptions being government people or groups, as the separation of church and state means that the government can't be seen to be promoting any religion, and especially one religion over another, so in those cases I'd say that while those involved should have the freedom to practice and believe their religions on their own, when acting as government representatives it's a no-go.
I do have a question I'd like you to think on though: assume for a moment that 'God' and 'Jesus' in the examples you listed above were replaced with say 'Allah' and 'Muhammad', or the gods and holy figures from another religion, rather than christian ones.
In the situation like that, where it was a religion not your own, what would be your reaction towards people saying 'No, you cannot preach or promote your religion and beliefs in public like that, and you especially are not allowed to demand that others adhere to your beliefs whether they want to or not'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Michael, that's why Christianity is a "dirty word" according to you. Your religion has for so long been intolerant of others that you have no right to call foul.
As for your arguments about employment, if an employer found out one of her employees was gay, she would have no right whatsoever to fire that worker. That's unfair discrimination, as the worker's sexuality has no impact on the workplace. If one were to proselytize their religion on company time, I'd expect for that worker to be fired, as they're not doing the job they were hired to do.
Michael, do us one thing. Go to a gay bar, sit down with some homosexual men or women and talk with them. Tell them that you're so afraid for your marriage that you must discriminate against them in public, that you believe that merely for their sexuality, they must be denied the same rights you have. Then quote your list of grievances like you have above, and then wait for their sympathy.
You won't get it off them. Ask them why they're unsympathetic towards you, and you must believe every word they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Sexual orientation isn't a 'built-in feature'; it's a selective choice, whereas with race you are born one way and that's it.
"'Newfound social status'? You mean being treated as equal to heterosexual couples? indeed, how dare those uppity gay people demand religious organizations stop characterizing them as sinful, immoral, lesser people!"
Again with the emotional ploy. Unlike your side of the argument, I've shown multiple examples where Christians have had their 1A rights violated, for the sake of "tolerance," political correctness, etc. Equality? More like bullying everyone into agreeing.
"California, Prop 8(same-sex marriage ban):
52.24% For
47.76% Against
(Never mind that this one was massively funded by out of state money such as from the LDS church, to the tune of $20 million from them alone...)"
Funny how people incessantly bring up the LDS church's (supposed) financial contribution for Prop 8, yet fail to mention all the financial contributions for same-sex marriages.
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/11/02/2306757/although-it-lacks-presidential.html
" The country will be glued Tuesday night to a presidential contest that once again has bypassed the Evergreen State.
But more than a few eyes are bound to turn this way to find out what happened in a nail-biter of a governor’s race and to see if Washington makes historic decisions to legalize marijuana use and give an electoral endorsement to same-sex marriage.
Those questions, along with education and tax initiatives, vacant positions up and down the ballot and control of the Legislature at stake, have drawn roughly $40 million in out-of-state money to Washington’s biggest-spending political committees and independent-spending efforts here, according to an analysis by The News Tribune. That doesn’t even count direct contributions to candidates.
National state-employee and teachers’ unions, beer makers, oil companies and partisan groups funded by the likes of Koch Industries and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals all have poured money into influencing the outcome. So have actor Brad Pitt and billionaires such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Walmart heiress Alice Walton and Progressive Insurance Chairman Peter Lewis.
Lewis is among those who want Washington, Colorado, Oregon or all three to allow some possession of marijuana. And if Initiative 502’s lead in the polls translates into votes, pot users on the East Coast could wake Wednesday to headlines that make them jealous of Washingtonians.
“This has the potential to be the most significant development we’ve ever had in the legalization movement,” said Keith Stroup, who founded the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in 1970.
Also leading in the polls and commanding national attention is the same-sex marriage law the Legislature passed last winter, now the subject of Referendum 74.
It’s a four-state contest for national groups on both sides, with opponents airing some of the same footage in Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington ads. Both the Human Rights Campaign, in support, and the National Organization for Marriage, in opposition, have a presence here. Bloomberg and Pitt are among those whose money is paying for supporters’ ads.
In a state where voters don’t feel very influential in the presidential race, supporters of R-74 are reminding potential allies they have a reason to vote.
“It’s something we are concerned about, that a younger, urban voting bloc may not be energized to cast their ballot,” said Zach Silk, the campaign manager for the pro-R-74 forces, “so we’re spending a lot of time talking to those folks and reminding them they have a chance to make history here.”
No state has ever approved same-sex marriage with a public vote, and 32 states have voted against it in some form."
That's a nice touch, tacking same-sex marriage in with legalizing marijuana. Then again, it's no coincidence that same-sex marriage is approved at a time when the government is at its most corrupt in the nation's history.
Also, I'm curious where you got your poll figures from. Maine, Maryland and Washington are the only states to have approved of it via popular vote, far as I know.
"Yes, of course, because as everyone knows no homosexual person has ever been discriminated against, harassed, beaten, killed, or otherwise been treated unfairly simply for being gay. You're right, totally different. /s"
Just the same, no Christian has ever been discriminated against, harassed, beaten, killed, or otherwise been treated unfairly simply for being Christian, right? BTW, you make it sound like a plight of people in indentured servitude or something. I've never heard of gays being brought over in slave ships and forced to sit in the back of the bus.
I can show ample evidence of Christian persecution throughout the world, but that still doesn't entitle us to a role of special-class citizens. All you've got are empty appeals to emotion.
"Check the following for a number of examples as to why pro-life groups could be considered threats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States"
I'll give you that there's some loony fanatics, but that still doesn't excuse their lumping Christianity in with terrorism.
"I do have a question I'd like you to think on though: assume for a moment that 'God' and 'Jesus' in the examples you listed above were replaced with say 'Allah' and 'Muhammad', or the gods and holy figures from another religion, rather than christian ones.
In the situation like that, where it was a religion not your own, what would be your reaction towards people saying 'No, you cannot preach or promote your religion and beliefs in public like that, and you especially are not allowed to demand that others adhere to your beliefs whether they want to or not'?"
Did everything I just posted fly right by you or what? That's precisely what is happening right now, suppressing Christianity, often while giving other religions a free pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That statement alone proves you've never so much as had a single conversation with a homosexual or bisexual person. Try it one day. Go to a gay bar and ask them whether their sexuality was a choice...or are you afraid you'll catch a disease just by talking to them? (since you kept going on about the transmission rates of AIDS for some fucking reason)
"I can show ample evidence of Christian persecution throughout the world, but that still doesn't entitle us to a role of special-class citizens. All you've got are empty appeals to emotion."
But that's what you're arguing for! You want only the Christians (or just religious people if you don't want to use the C word) to have the right to marry whomever they wish, with homosexuals being denied that right. Who the fuck do you think you are to come out and say that Man A should not be legally allowed to marry the love of his love, who turns out to be Man B?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
After all, to use your own argument, who are you to decide how someone else may live their life?
This whole charade isn't really about equal rights, it's about attempting to force society to affirm their deviant lifestyle. Oh, who am I kidding? These are the same people who want to replace both Mother's Day and Father's Day with Parent's Day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
No just some future step down the road.
I'm simply highlighting the arbitrary redefinition at play.
Except it's less arbitrary than what you want.
Also, I didn't make the same argument against interracial marriage so your argument is moot.
Go back and read it again. I said the same argument would apply to interracial marriage. Ideally, this should cause you to rethink that line of argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Boy, you must be desperate to resort to putting words in my mouth.
"Except it's less arbitrary than what you want."
I'll tell you what I really want: for the government to get out of our personal lives and go do their job.
"Go back and read it again. I said the same argument would apply to interracial marriage. Ideally, this should cause you to rethink that line of argument."
But only because YOU'RE applying it in such a manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Boy, you must be desperate to resort to putting words in my mouth.
"So then Mr. Equality, if we can dismiss 'man and woman,'...how about animals?"
How is that putting words in your mouth?
I'll tell you what I really want: for the government to get out of our personal lives and go do their job.
Nice dodge.
But only because YOU'RE applying it in such a manner.
I don't even know what you mean by that. I'm pointing out that there is little if any difference between your argument against gay marriage, and historic arguments against interracial marriage. A point you have not so far refuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Yes, *now* that is the case. It wasn't always. You do know that, right?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/Interracial-Marriage-Laws-History -Timeline.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Time for more reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Cause
Also, saying it's a choice... you do know there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, yes? Are you really going to tell me that animals are smart enough to make conscious decisions like that?
Funny how people incessantly bring up the LDS church's (supposed) financial contribution for Prop 8, yet fail to mention all the financial contributions for same-sex marriages.
Supposed? So I guess when they were being investigated, and eventually fined for not accurately reporting how much money they were pumping in, that was just a figment of everyone's imagination?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/mormon-church-to-be-fined-by-state-pol itical-commission-over-proposition-8.html
That's a nice touch, tacking same-sex marriage in with legalizing marijuana. Then again, it's no coincidence that same-sex marriage is approved at a time when the government is at its most corrupt in the nation's history.
For someone who's throwing accusations of 'emotionally charged comments' around a lot, you sure seem to have no problem doing the same, blaming a corrupt government for increasing equality, as though that's the only possible reason such a thing could be happening.
Also, I'm curious where you got your poll figures from. Maine, Maryland and Washington are the only states to have approved of it via popular vote, far as I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_74
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_C arolina_Amendment_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Question_1,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Maryland_Question_6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Equality_Act#Enactment
Just the same, no Christian has ever been discriminated against, harassed, beaten, killed, or otherwise been treated unfairly simply for being Christian, right? BTW, you make it sound like a plight of people in indentured servitude or something. I've never heard of gays being brought over in slave ships and forced to sit in the back of the bus.
Ah yes, the good old 'it doesn't count, other people have had it worse'... what were you saying about emotionally charged statements?
See, this is why it's so impossible to take your outrage seriously, you keep going on about how persecuted christians are, how horrible they've had it, but just wave off any similar suffering by homosexuals with a 'eh, others have had it worse'.
I can show ample evidence of Christian persecution throughout the world,
Indeed, I could probably spend 5-minutes and find a whole slew of examples of christians persecuting people and groups too.
...but that still doesn't entitle us to a role of special-class citizens. All you've got are empty appeals to emotion.
And yet, contrary to your claim, you apparently think it does, by insisting that everyone has to follow your particular brand of morality, and to do otherwise is to be an immoral, corrupt individual.
I'll give you that there's some loony fanatics, but that still doesn't excuse their lumping Christianity in with terrorism.
As a whole, probably not, but ask yourself this: how many of those that were bombing clinics, killing or threatening to kill doctors, and doing all those other things listed in that page were doing so due to what they felt were religious reasons? If you've got a group who's fanatics have a tendency to threaten others, it makes sense to watch the group as a whole, as it better allows you to track the more extreme breakaway groups, whereas focusing on one group means you're likely to miss others.
Did everything I just posted fly right by you or what? That's precisely what is happening right now, suppressing Christianity, often while giving other religions a free pass.
Well I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another being that christianity is being told that no, they are not allowed to go around forcing others to follow their ideas on morality, especially if it means passing laws to make it illegal to do otherwise.
Also, you didn't seem to answer the question, so I suppose I'll rephrase it: if a religion not your own, say Islam, were to go around demanding that everyone follow their religious rules or be punished, and were even passing laws, or trying to pass laws to this effect, would you still be defending their actions, given they were doing them solely for religious reasons, or would you object?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
This is an invalid argument. Who cares what goes on in the animal kingdom? (Talk about defeating the whole 'civil' part of being human.) Lions have prides with one dominant male lording over several females. Cats and dogs lick their genitals in order to keep themselves clean. Certain species kill their own kind for food. Should we emulate their behavior?
"Supposed? So I guess when they were being investigated, and eventually fined for not accurately reporting how much money they were pumping in, that was just a figment of everyone's imagination?"
So what do I care? Are they also going after the financial supporters of the homosexual movement or is this yet another example of the state discriminating against anyone it views as a political threat, much like the IRS?
"For someone who's throwing accusations of 'emotionally charged comments' around a lot, you sure seem to have no problem doing the same, blaming a corrupt government for increasing equality, as though that's the only possible reason such a thing could be happening."
What a way to blatantly ignore the fact that same-sex marriage comes along at a time when the government is more corrupt and morally bankrupt than ever before, lying, stealing, secret courts and laws, wars to exploit other countries, rampant attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to say nothing of how they disregard the will of the people on a routine basis. Before you even try to say it, marriage isn't an absolute right.
"Ah yes, the good old 'it doesn't count, other people have had it worse'... what were you saying about emotionally charged statements?"
What, I'm just using your own argument against you.
"See, this is why it's so impossible to take your outrage seriously, you keep going on about how persecuted christians are, how horrible they've had it, but just wave off any similar suffering by homosexuals with a 'eh, others have had it worse'."
Actually, no. I'm showing how the homosexual movement uses emotional arguments about being discriminated against and persecuted in order to gain political leverage, whereas discriminating against religions, particularly Christianity, occur on a far more frequent basis.
"And yet, contrary to your claim, you apparently think it does, by insisting that everyone has to follow your particular brand of morality, and to do otherwise is to be an immoral, corrupt individual."
So what are you saying, that you're upset because I stand for traditional moral values? You fail to mention that the ones doing all the forcing on the rest of society are the gay activists.
"As a whole, probably not, but ask yourself this: how many of those that were bombing clinics, killing or threatening to kill doctors, and doing all those other things listed in that page were doing so due to what they felt were religious reasons? If you've got a group who's fanatics have a tendency to threaten others, it makes sense to watch the group as a whole, as it better allows you to track the more extreme breakaway groups, whereas focusing on one group means you're likely to miss others."
Not sure where you're coming from. These acts were perpetrated by individuals, not sanctioned by religious institutes. The government/mainstream media say that we shouldn't profile people according to race, sexuality or religious beliefs, then turn around and do exactly that.
"Well I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another being that christianity is being told that no, they are not allowed to go around forcing others to follow their ideas on morality, especially if it means passing laws to make it illegal to do otherwise."
The law isn't supposed to be a weapon, it's supposed to be a shield to protect greater society from bad (illegal) actions. It would be better if government weren't involved in any way, shape or form with marriage.
"Also, you didn't seem to answer the question, so I suppose I'll rephrase it: if a religion not your own, say Islam, were to go around demanding that everyone follow their religious rules or be punished, and were even passing laws, or trying to pass laws to this effect, would you still be defending their actions, given they were doing them solely for religious reasons, or would you object?"
I would object, depending on the law.
Then again, I've yet to hear of a homosexual couple being punished by the state for getting married, so that's a non-starter. Besides, this whole debate has nothing to do with 'passing religious laws.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Except that you have yet to offer any reason why gays should be allowed to marry other than religious ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Of course you don't need to, but it's stupid to say "gays shouldn't marry because God says so" and then say "this isn't about passing religious laws". I mean if you want to be stupid go ahead, I'm just pointing it out.
Unless you're trying to get by on a technicality - it's not about passing religious laws, it's about keeping the ones we already have. In which case I'm still not impressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Excuse me, but precisely what law is anyone trying to change? We're arguing over the interpretation of laws, not any changes. In fact, the only ones trying to change laws in any serious way are religious factions attempting to outlaw gay marriage at the constitutional level, which is INSANE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That longstanding definition of marriage you keep referring to is neither long nor standing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Try again.
"I've already proven how certain states used the redefinition to violate the Catholic Church's religious freedom by mandating that their adoption agencies either cater to homosexual couples, which blatantly contradicts their faith, or else they wouldn't be allowed to, so they were forced to close."
Bullshit. You've proven that the Catholic Church has to abide by secular law or they don't get federal funding. The church has no claim to the freedom (i.e. right) to own and operate adoption centers. The violation of freedom would be for the Catholic Church to get public money, including from non-Catholics, when they don't abide by the public's laws. If the Church wants to operate adoption centers within the oversight of the State, fine, but don't expect to be religious AND get secular money. It don't work that way.
"This was a direct attack caused by the homosexual movement, the same people who claim that they're "not bothering anyone.""
No, this was an attack from those of us that believe in the longstanding tradition in this country of the separation of church and state. You seem to gloss over the fact that Catholic Church groups getting federal money but not operating within federal procedures. That would be the violation of EVERY OTHER religion's freedom, but you don't seem to care. You must be Catholic....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Try again."
It was never allowed here in the western world until just recently. Every civilization which adopted same-sex unions perished.
"Bullshit. You've proven that the Catholic Church has to abide by secular law or they don't get federal funding. The church has no claim to the freedom (i.e. right) to own and operate adoption centers. The violation of freedom would be for the Catholic Church to get public money, including from non-Catholics, when they don't abide by the public's laws. If the Church wants to operate adoption centers within the oversight of the State, fine, but don't expect to be religious AND get secular money. It don't work that way."
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the state CHANGED THE LAW in an attempt to force the Church to service homosexual couples. Forget about this "state funding" bullshit because the Church's adoption agencies could've been maintained just fine with public funding. Both the state and homosexual activists are responsible for violating their religious freedom. Then again, that seems to be their sole purpose, to shove their immoral, deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
"No, this was an attack from those of us that believe in the longstanding tradition in this country of the separation of church and state. You seem to gloss over the fact that Catholic Church groups getting federal money but not operating within federal procedures. That would be the violation of EVERY OTHER religion's freedom, but you don't seem to care. You must be Catholic...."
Gee, you think? And so what about federal money, i.e. bribery? The real issue is that the state infringed upon freedom of religion and completely shut out the public from having a say in the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Ah, I see, so by longstanding you meant the short time America has been around. You really should probably be a Mormon with that kind of philosophy....
"Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the state CHANGED THE LAW in an attempt to force the Church to service homosexual couples."
No, the State changed the law in recognition of the studies that homosexual parents are every bit as capable as heterosexual parents. That science is all that matters. Religion never enters the equation, until a religion wants federal funding. Put better, why SHOULDN'T homosexuals be allowed by the secular law to adopt children, keeping in mind that morality doesn't enter into the equation and the parenting capabilities are provably equal?
"Forget about this "state funding" bullshit because the Church's adoption agencies could've been maintained just fine with public funding."
Did you mean *without public funding? If you didn't, that's my entire point. If you did, then why didn't they give up the funding and carry on as they had been?
"Then again, that seems to be their sole purpose, to shove their immoral, deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces."
Yes, the scary gays are out to get you, with their tastefully decorated pitchforks and their booga-booga devil masks. Get over yourself.
"The real issue is that the state infringed upon freedom of religion and completely shut out the public from having a say in the matter."
Okay, you say the funding question isn't important. So, other than federal funding, in what way at all did the State impact religious group adoption centers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
-Catholic Charities had been running their adoption agencies for decades.
-The state redefines marriage to include same-sex couples, then essentially gives the Church an ultimatum: either violate the tenets of their faith or close their adoption agency, knowing full well that the Church will not violate its conscious.
-Catholic Charities has no other choice but to end its adoption.
I've proven time after time how the government, colleges and other institutes violate the 1A rights of Christians on a routine basis, whereas homosexuals are treated like special-class citizens who can do no wrong, so I don't even need bother continue at this point.
BTW, how convenient of you to blatantly ignore the fact that the state went over the heads of the public to push through same-sex marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I notice you either didn't read the page I linked to, or otherwise ignored it due to it differing from your claim that 'homosexuality is a choice'. To save you the effort, I'll just post a few snippets from it.
'Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.'
-Royal College of Psychiatrists
'Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.'
-American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers
Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."
The American Psychological Association says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".
Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.
So what do I care? Are they also going after the financial supporters of the homosexual movement or is this yet another example of the state discriminating against anyone it views as a political threat, much like the IRS?
Shifting the goal-posts much? First you cast doubt on the idea that they'd donated any money at all, and then when proven wrong, and in fact pointed to the fact that they'd tried to hide exactly how much, you act like it's not important. And it's not 'discrimination', the church was caught trying to mask how much they were donating, and rightly called out and punished for it.
What a way to blatantly ignore the fact that same-sex marriage comes along at a time when the government is more corrupt and morally bankrupt than ever before, lying, stealing, secret courts and laws, wars to exploit other countries, rampant attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to say nothing of how they disregard the will of the people on a routine basis.
So if the government were to pass a law that say caused a significant drop in crimes, you would automatically assume it was bad, simply due to how corrupt the system is? If they were to pass a law that made drug companies more responsible for side-effects of their drugs, and therefor resulted in safer drugs, you would see it as bad, simply because of who made the law?
The saying that seems to fit here is 'Tossing the baby out with the bathwater', where you are assuming that just because the source is mostly bad, that means everything that comes from it is also likewise bad.
Equality is never bad, whether gender, race or sexual orientation.
Before you even try to say it, marriage isn't an absolute right.
As far as the practice itself, no, it isn't, but I bet you would throw the mother of all fits if the state were to decide that a marriage license required a significant fee, background checks, or some other time and effort consuming action before being considered legal, as 'infringing on your rights'.
What, I'm just using your own argument against you.
No, there's a rather large difference here. You point out injustices committed against blacks and the religious, and I agree that they are injustices. When I try and point out similar injustices committed against homosexuals however, you just wave them off with a 'doesn't count, others have had it worse'.
Basically, from my point of view, you are showing that you care about injustice, but only if you agree with the group being affected, which isn't true justice in any real sense of the word.
Actually, no. I'm showing how the homosexual movement uses emotional arguments about being discriminated against and persecuted in order to gain political leverage, whereas discriminating against religions, particularly Christianity, occur on a far more frequent basis.
So all that talk about the 'destruction of morality' and 'death of traditional marriage' aren't emotional arguments then?
So what are you saying, that you're upset because I stand for traditional moral values? You fail to mention that the ones doing all the forcing on the rest of society are the gay activists.
'Traditional moral values'... And again you fall back onto the idea of 'this is how it's been in the past, so this is how it should always be'.
It wasn't that long ago that 'traditional moral values' would have said that women working alongside men was wrong, as the 'traditional place for women' was taking care of the household.
It wasn't that long ago that 'traditional moral values' would have said that people of two races shouldn't marry, as 'mixing the races' like that was wrong.
Tradition isn't always a good thing.
Not sure where you're coming from. These acts were perpetrated by individuals, not sanctioned by religious institutes. The government/mainstream media say that we shouldn't profile people according to race, sexuality or religious beliefs, then turn around and do exactly that.
I'm saying that when you've got very high odds that the people committing such crimes are doing so due to religious motivations/reasons, it's not surprising that they'd look into the religions themselves.
Now while I don't personally agree with this practice(a simple look would have shown that the vast majority of members in any religion aren't likely to go on a shooting/bombing spree), it is perfectly consistent with governmental thinking.
Then again, I've yet to hear of a homosexual couple being punished by the state for getting married, so that's a non-starter.'
How about being denied the ability to get married in the first place? Being denied the ability to adopt due being considered 'unfit parents'? Being denied the legal rights that regular married couples have? That 'punishment' enough for you?
Besides, this whole debate has nothing to do with 'passing religious laws.
Given the reasoning behind prohibiting homosexual marriage is entirely religious based, you'll excuse me if I find that statement less than accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
*snip*"
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was obligated to respond to every minute detail of whatever you decide to post, but then neither did you. Who cares what psychologists *think* about anything? As far as science is concerned, once again, there exists no "gay gene," just as there exists no "prostitution gene" or "transgender gene." You've proven nothing.
"Shifting the goal-posts much? First you cast doubt on the idea that they'd donated any money at all, and then when proven wrong, and in fact pointed to the fact that they'd tried to hide exactly how much, you act like it's not important. And it's not 'discrimination', the church was caught trying to mask how much they were donating, and rightly called out and punished for it."
So the LDS church hid their financial involvement, did they? Great. All I said was "(supposed) financial contribution," because I didn't know ...nor care. Besides, whether someone puts $1 or a million towards XY cause shouldn't matter. After all, going by the government's definition, money is "free speech."
"So if the government were to pass a law that say caused a significant drop in crimes, you would automatically assume it was bad, simply due to how corrupt the system is? *snip*
The saying that seems to fit here is 'Tossing the baby out with the bathwater', where you are assuming that just because the source is mostly bad, that means everything that comes from it is also likewise bad."
Just pointing out the fact that same-sex marriage comes along when corruption in government is at all-time record highs and not by sheer coincidence either.
"As far as the practice itself, no, it isn't, but I bet you would throw the mother of all fits if the state were to decide that a marriage license required a significant fee, background checks, or some other time and effort consuming action before being considered legal, as 'infringing on your rights'."
Government should even be involved in marriage to begin with.
"No, there's a rather large difference here. You point out injustices committed against blacks and the religious, and I agree that they are injustices. When I try and point out similar injustices committed against homosexuals however, you just wave them off with a 'doesn't count, others have had it worse'."
Homosexuals are not in some isolated box where only they have experienced discrimination and hate crimes. Prostitutes are discriminated against, raped, beaten and killed (well, in some places they are). Does that fact suddenly make prostitution morally ok? Maybe we should "educate" (social engineering) our children to affirm prostitution through forced indoctrination in schools.
I only brought up black slavery because earlier you attempted to lump homosexuality in with their plight when it's FAR from the same thing.
"Basically, from my point of view, you are showing that you care about injustice, but only if you agree with the group being affected, which isn't true justice in any real sense of the word."
Keep putting words in my mouth.
"So all that talk about the 'destruction of morality' and 'death of traditional marriage' aren't emotional arguments then?"
No, because I'm not attempting to use either one to ask the government for special privileges, nor am I looking to garner sympathy.
"'Traditional moral values'... And again you fall back onto the idea of 'this is how it's been in the past, so this is how it should always be'.
It wasn't that long ago that 'traditional moral values' would have said that women working alongside men was wrong, as the 'traditional place for women' was taking care of the household.
It wasn't that long ago that 'traditional moral values' would have said that people of two races shouldn't marry, as 'mixing the races' like that was wrong.
Tradition isn't always a good thing."
Once again you're attempting to equate a deviant perversion with the color of people's skin and gender. They're not even remotely the same.
"I'm saying that when you've got very high odds that the people committing such crimes are doing so due to religious motivations/reasons, it's not surprising that they'd look into the religions themselves.
Now while I don't personally agree with this practice(a simple look would have shown that the vast majority of members in any religion aren't likely to go on a shooting/bombing spree), it is perfectly consistent with governmental thinking."
I agree with that.
"How about being denied the ability to get married in the first place? Being denied the ability to adopt due being considered 'unfit parents'? Being denied the legal rights that regular married couples have? That 'punishment' enough for you?"
If anything, in the name of "tolerance," homosexual activists, along with government officials, are stomping on religious freedom.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Ca tholic-Adoption-Services.pdf
"In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston, which had been one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, faced a very difficult decision: violate its conscious, or close its doors. In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state law barring "sexual orientation discrimination." And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state for religious exemption but were refused. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services.
Later that year, Catholic Charities San Francisco faced a similar untenable choice and was forced to end its adoption services as well.
In Washington, D.C., Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington--which has provided support to children and families for over eighty years--had a partnership with the District of Columbia for its foster care and public adoption program. However, in 2010, a law redefining legal marriage to include two people of the same sex took effect in the District. The District then informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner. Why? Because, as a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities was committed to placing children with married couples so that each child would have the experience of a mother and a father. Concerned District residences appealed to bring the issue of marriage before voters so that they could have a voice in the debate, but the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics repeatedly denied voters' request to put marriage on the ballot.
In 2011, Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois closed down instead of complying with a new requirement that they can no longer receive state money if they refuse to place children with persons in same-sex relationships as foster or adoptive parents. "In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated," said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, a civil and canon lawyer who fought for Catholic Charities to retain religious freedom in Illinois."
Speaks for itself, really.
"Given the reasoning behind prohibiting homosexual marriage is entirely religious based, you'll excuse me if I find that statement less than accurate."
Even if I weren't a religious person, I'd still be opposed to homosexuality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Speaks for itself, really."
First thing's first: adoptions aren't a ward of any religion. They are necessarily regulated by the state. Our state is a secular state. If a religiously affiliated adoption service can't abide by the laws of our land, they don't get money from the state (they probably shouldn't anyway). This is really simple: Catholic institutions offering Catholic-bent services don't get public money because the state isn't fucking Catholic, Christian, or even religious. This is a stupid, STUPID argument.
Second, pick a better source to quote. Bishop Paprocki is the same clown that claimed the source of the lawsuits against the Church for they SYSTEMIC pedophilia was "the devil". He refused to take responsibility for the Church's crimes and cried Satan when the Church had to pay for them. I almost wish there was a Hell for His Worship to go to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Complete BS. The state was attempting to FORCE HOMOSEXUALITY on the Church by demanding that either they service homosexual couples or close their operation altogether. The Catholic Church had no other choice but to do the latter. The state cannot bribe them into doing something which violates the tenets of their faith. Besides, none of this would've happened had it not been for gay marriage. Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves: this constitutes a direct violation of the Church's 1A rights. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics even had the audacity to intentionally prevent voters from deciding on the issue.
"Second, pick a better source to quote. Bishop Paprocki is the same clown that claimed the source of the lawsuits against the Church for they SYSTEMIC pedophilia was "the devil". He refused to take responsibility for the Church's crimes and cried Satan when the Church had to pay for them. I almost wish there was a Hell for His Worship to go to."
Actually, less than 1% of all priests in the US were ever accused of any form of sexual abuse, much less proven it in court. Sexual abusers aren't relegated to the priesthood; it's rampant in all walks of life and it isn't going to just go away with a lawsuit. BTW, is it just a coincidence that most acts of pedophilia are homosexual in origin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Where did they say they had to close the organization? Unless I missed something, you showed evidence that they'd remove federal funding if they didn't operate in a secular fashion. How the fuck is that not appropriate? The State cannot publicly fund religious institutions or practices? What the shit are you talking about?
"Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves: this constitutes a direct violation of the Church's 1A rights."
I must have missed where the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits federal funding for church organizations, required federal funding for church organizations.
"Actually, less than 1% of all priests in the US were ever accused of any form of sexual abuse, much less proven it in court."
Are you REALLY claiming there wasn't a systemic cover up of Church crimes against children? The problem, OF COURSE, isn't just the pedophile priests, but every single person in the Church that knew about the crimes and did nothing about them. This should be obvious....
"BTW, is it just a coincidence that most acts of pedophilia are homosexual in origin?"
Oh, no, it's not a coincidence, it's flatout NOT TRUE. Depending on what numbers you include, the most liberal percentage of pedophiles that are homosexual in nature is 40%, and the low estimates are 9%. Way to be completely wrong...again.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/p essimism-about-pedophilia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Boy, you're dense, aren't you? Let's try again: "In order to be LICENSED BY THE STATE, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state law barring "sexual orientation discrimination." And because MARRIAGE HAD BEEN REDEFINED in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could NOT simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state for RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION but were REFUSED. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was FORCED TO SHUT DOWN its adoption services."
"I must have missed where the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits federal funding for church organizations, required federal funding for church organizations."
Hey, the state can keep its dirty money. We'd rather have freedom anyday.
"Are you REALLY claiming there wasn't a systemic cover up of Church crimes against children? The problem, OF COURSE, isn't just the pedophile priests, but every single person in the Church that knew about the crimes and did nothing about them. This should be obvious...."
That is a problem, certainly, but not relegated to the Catholic Church. It exists in every religion and occupation. The media chose to attack the Church precisely at the same time that they began pushing for same-sex marriages.
"Oh, no, it's not a coincidence, it's flatout NOT TRUE. Depending on what numbers you include, the most liberal percentage of pedophiles that are homosexual in nature is 40%, and the low estimates are 9%. Way to be completely wrong...again."
Even if I were to take the lowest percentage at face value, only 1-2% of the population identifies as being homosexual, so even 9% would automatically correlate to mean that pedophilia is about 4 & 1/2x more likely to happen among homosexuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
And you're dense, too. The State is secular and they regulate adoption. If you can't provide a secular service as regulated by the State, you can't provide it at all. That's ENTIRELY appropriate.
"Hey, the state can keep its dirty money. We'd rather have freedom anyday."
Fair enough, assuming you abide by the laws of the secular state, I have no problem with any religious institution.
"That is a problem, certainly, but not relegated to the Catholic Church. It exists in every religion and occupation. The media chose to attack the Church precisely at the same time that they began pushing for same-sex marriages."
I'm sorry, but I must have missed how an organized cover up of pedophilia was a problem that exists in every religion and occupation.
"Even if I were to take the lowest percentage at face value, only 1-2% of the population identifies as being homosexual, so even 9% would automatically correlate to mean that pedophilia is about 4 & 1/2x more likely to happen among homosexuals."
Uh, learn science and math. First, pedophilia and sexual preference are ENTIRELY unrelated. Second, those numbers suggest that if you come across a pedophile, they're 4x more likely to be HETEROSEXUAL, not homosexual. How the hell did you reach your conclusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
The state REDEFINED marriage and then attempted to force their views on the Church. And no, that's not "ENTIRELY appropriate" anymore than it is for the state to decide what you can wear or what you can eat. They've become too invasive.
"Fair enough, assuming you abide by the laws of the secular state, I have no problem with any religious institution."
Wrong. The state isn't religions' master; the state has no business regulating religious affairs. That is a violation of their 1A rights. The Catholic Church shouldn't have to change how it runs its organization at the whim of the state. (Had I been in charge of one of the charities, I would've defied the state to try and do something about it.)
"I'm sorry, but I must have missed how an organized cover up of pedophilia was a problem that exists in every religion and occupation."
Maybe because you listen to whatever the mainstream media tells you.
"Uh, learn science and math. First, pedophilia and sexual preference are ENTIRELY unrelated. Second, those numbers suggest that if you come across a pedophile, they're 4x more likely to be HETEROSEXUAL, not homosexual. How the hell did you reach your conclusion?"
Here are your words: "Depending on what numbers you include, the most liberal percentage of pedophiles that are homosexual in nature is 40%, and the low estimates are 9%."
You said the most liberal estimate of pedophile of a homosexual nature is 40% and low 9%. I correlated the 9% estimate to the population (I used 2%). Therefore, if out of all pedo cases 9% are homosexual in nature: 2 / 9% = 4 & 1/2 , that means by default that the risk is much greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Yes, that happens from time to time. The secular State makes/changes a law and religions w/i the state have to get in line. For instance, churches should not be performing marriages between two 8 year olds. That would be child abuse. You can cry all you want about how the State shouldn't tell the Church not to marry those darling little children, but it doesn't matter. The Church has to abide by the law. After all, the religious wouldn't want to be "asking for special privileges", would they?
"Wrong. The state isn't religions' master; the state has no business regulating religious affairs."
Interesting. That must be why polygamy isn't illegal in the United States. Oh, wait, it totally is. That must also be why an employer can apply religion as a test for employment. Oh, wait, they totally can't. That must be why no state has outlawed or regulated snake-handling for religious purposes. Oh, wait, they totally have.
Sorry, but in a secular state, the State's rules come first and religion must operate within them. That's how you get many religions flourishing in a secular state. It's frankly something you should be grateful for.
"Maybe because you listen to whatever the mainstream media tells you."
I see. So you have non-mainstream media reports about how the cover up by the Church of its pedophiles was absolutely the norm in terms of how every other religion and occupation handles pedophiles? Interesting, feel free to share these reports.
"You said the most liberal estimate of pedophile of a homosexual nature is 40% and low 9%. I correlated the 9% estimate to the population (I used 2%). Therefore, if out of all pedo cases 9% are homosexual in nature: 2 / 9% = 4 & 1/2 , that means by default that the risk is much greater."
Sigh, let's try to make this simple. Something like a quarter of all pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles (not the same thing as being homosexual). Again, if you run into a pedophile, chances are they're straight, not gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Neither the state nor the Church accepts marriage between minors, so that is a fallacious argument. What we're discussing is how the state intruded upon the Church's religious rights by attempting to force their redefinition of marriage on them or demand that they close. That constitutes a VIOLATION of their 1A rights. You can divert away all you want but the truth is plain as day. That the state would even attempt to force something which goes against the Church's religious beliefs says all that needs to be said about their intrusive, bullying behavior as of late.
"Interesting. That must be why polygamy isn't illegal in the United States. Oh, wait, it totally is. That must also be why an employer can apply religion as a test for employment. Oh, wait, they totally can't. That must be why no state has outlawed or regulated snake-handling for religious purposes. Oh, wait, they totally have."
Strawman arguments to divert the conversation -- a far stretch from the state attempting to impose an immoral, intrusive law upon a charity service run by the Church.
"I see. So you have non-mainstream media reports about how the cover up by the Church of its pedophiles was absolutely the norm in terms of how every other religion and occupation handles pedophiles? Interesting, feel free to share these reports."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
"The Report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time covered by the study.[2] Roughly 4% of the priests were accused, therefore. However, of these 4392 accused, only 252 were convicted. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[3]
The surveys filtered information provided from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. So in total, out of the 109,694 priests who were surveyed, only 252 were convicted.
Thus, 6% of the 4,392 priests against whom allegations were made (252 priests in total) were convicted and about 2% of the 4,392 accused priests (100 priests) received prison sentences .[4][2] According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003 and another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[3]
Of the accusations that were investigated (due to the accused being still being alive), 93% were reported, of these reports 37% were charged and of those 66% were convicted. This makes a total of 23% of the still alive were convicted. Of the convictions 40% received prison sentences.
In summary, over a 50 year period, out of 4392 priests accused of sexual abuse, 252 were convicted and 100 sentenced to prison, 3300 of the accusation were not investigated due to the accused having already died."
IOW, sex abuse is nowhere near as widespread as the mainstream media tries to portray it as being within the Church.
"Sigh, let's try to make this simple. Something like a quarter of all pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles (not the same thing as being homosexual). Again, if you run into a pedophile, chances are they're straight, not gay."
Except the inconvenient fact that homosexuality literally means being attracted to members the same sex; age has nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Jesus Christ, it's not a 1A violation because the Church has no inherent right to run an adoption service. That's a regulated function. The Church still has all their 1A protection to preach their bigotry. They've lost no speech rights. Running an adoption agency isn't speech and it isn't a de facto right to practice for a religion in this country. This 1A argument is completely without merit.
The State didn't infringe on their speech, they infringed on their running an adoption service, which isn't a right.
"Strawman arguments to divert the conversation -- a far stretch from the state attempting to impose an immoral, intrusive law upon a charity service run by the Church."
Cry all you want, the Church has no inherent right to run a service that the State regulates outside of those regulations. This really shouldn't be that tough to understand.
"IOW, sex abuse is nowhere near as widespread as the mainstream media tries to portray it as being within the Church."
Sigh, you are terrible at reading. What your linked showed was that pedophilia in the Church isn't all that much different by the percentages than the rest of society. I don't dispute that. What's different about the Church is the widespread COVER UP of those actions. You link did nothing to address that.
"Except the inconvenient fact that homosexuality literally means being attracted to members the same sex; age has nothing to do with it."
I'll take this to mean you agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are completely unrelated, which contradicts your earlier allusion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I missed this one the first time through but all the sources I've seen on the matter put it between 5 and 10 percent. By your numbers, there could be as few as 3 million gays in the US, including closeted gays. Sounds way low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Where do you get that idea? "Nobody has yet identified genes contributing to homosexuality" is not at all the same as "there is no gay gene". And again I ask you, if at some point there is a gay gene (or genes) discovered, how will you respond to that? "Who cares what scientists think?"
Even if I weren't a religious person, I'd still be opposed to homosexuality.
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I swear I feel like I'm arguing with AJ here... 'Oh that's some nice counter-evidence you've presented there, I'll just ignore it and move on shall I?'
You know, you could have saved me a whole lot of time and effort if you'd just said from the get-go 'I will ignore any evidence you present, no matter the source, if I don't agree with it'.
Also, as awesome as it must be to know more about science and psychology than, you know, actual scientists and psychologists, which you would have to be to claim that all of them are wrong, you'd think you would have led with that little tidbit first.
Annoyance aside, had you actually read the wiki page(which I'm 97% sure wouldn't have caused you to spontaneously combust), you'd have found out that the general consensus as to 'cause' of sexual orientation is thought to be a range of things, none of them 'choosing to be X/Y/Z'.
Here, have another relevant quote to ignore:
'Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.'
-The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004
After all, going by the government's definition, money is "free speech."
Oh now you're going to say that something the government decided is okay, when it supports your argument, handy that.
Just pointing out the fact that same-sex marriage comes along when corruption in government is at all-time record highs and not by sheer coincidence either.
That loud 'whoosh!' noise would be the point sailing clean over your head. Saying 'the government is corrupt means everything that comes out of it is also corrupt' is just cheap cop-out, in an attempt to ignore or paint anything they pass that you don't agree with as 'corrupt or not mattering'.
Government should even be involved in marriage to begin with.
Fair enough, so the religious can have their religious marriage, and others can have their secular marriage, and you would have no objections to that, right?
Homosexuals are not in some isolated box where only they have experienced discrimination and hate crimes.
And I said they were when? I'm merely pointing out that injustice and persecution doesn't stop being injustice and persecution if you don't happen to like the group in question.
Also, comparing homosexuals to prostitutes, classy, real great argument there. /s
Keep putting words in my mouth.
Considering what you said right above this this comment is all sorts of funny, not to mention hypocritical.
I only brought up black slavery because earlier you attempted to lump homosexuality in with their plight when it's FAR from the same thing.
Have homosexuals had it as bad? No, but to pretend that there are no similarities is to demonstrate a great ignorance(whether willful or otherwise) of history.
-Considered immoral and 'lesser' due entirely to something they had no choice over? Check.
-Beaten, harassed, killed and otherwise treated differently due to their 'difference'? Check.
-Had laws specifically targeting them passed to deprive them of equal treatment, including right to marry who they wish to? Check.
No, because I'm not attempting to use either one to ask the government for special privileges, nor am I looking to garner sympathy.
Yeah... about that. Considering you apparently object strongly to the orphanages you list as your example below getting the same treatment any other group who refused to follow the state laws would, you obviously do think the religious deserve special privileges.
And if all the cries of 'Persecution!' that occur any time the religious are told that they have to stop treating certain groups like, oh, how did you put is 'deviant perverts' and deserving of less rights aren't attempts to garner sympathy for your cause, then obviously I've been going off the wrong definitions of those words.
Once again you're attempting to equate a deviant perversion with the color of people's skin and gender. They're not even remotely the same.
'Deviant perversion'? According to who?
According to science(which you appear to ignore when convenient) homosexuality is a natural occurrence, nothing deviant or perverse about it.
According to the dictionary, 'deviant' is simply 'deviating from the norm', which would make something as simple as being left-handed qualify someone as a 'deviant'.
As far as 'perversion', something that happens naturally cannot in any way shape or form be a 'perversion', even if it does offend people like you.
"How about being denied the ability to get married in the first place? Being denied the ability to adopt due being considered 'unfit parents'? Being denied the legal rights that regular married couples have? That 'punishment' enough for you?"
If anything, in the name of "tolerance," homosexual activists, along with government officials, are stomping on religious freedom.
I notice you didn't answer the question, so I'll ask again: regarding the examples I listed, are they or are they not punishments for nothing more than the 'crime' of being gay, the punishments that you claimed you'd never heard of happening?
Speaks for itself, really.
Yes, it does, but more about what you consider 'religious persecution' than the point you were trying to make.
You seem to be saying that it's 'religious persecution' for a group(in this case the catholic run orphanages) to be denied state funding or recognition after having refused to follow state laws, when all it really is is a natural consequence of their actions.
Refuse to follow the laws of the state? Guess what, you will no longer be recognized by the state or receive state funding. This should not be a hard concept to grasp, and yet the fact that you consider such a thing as 'religious persecution' would certainly explain why you are seeing it everywhere, as you appear to believe that religious institutions should get a 'get out of consequences free' card when it comes to following the laws.
Even if I weren't a religious person, I'd still be opposed to homosexuality.
Yeah, I'm sure. /s
Here's a challenge for you then: give a non-religious or non-emotional based reason that homosexuals should be treated different with regards to rights and equal treatment.
To save time:
'It's immoral': Religious argument, as morality/sin are primarily religious concepts.
'It's disgusting': Emotional argument on it's own, usually based on unfamiliarity and the fact that the 'strange/different' cause people instinctive unease/fear.
'It's unnatural': Emotional/religious argument, as something that occurs in nature is by definition not unnatural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That "thought to be" says it all right there.
"'Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.'
-The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004"
Once again, zero conclusive evidence.
"Oh now you're going to say that something the government decided is okay, when it supports your argument, handy that."
Nope, just highlighting the hypocrisy.
"That loud 'whoosh!' noise would be the point sailing clean over your head. Saying 'the government is corrupt means everything that comes out of it is also corrupt' is just cheap cop-out, in an attempt to ignore or paint anything they pass that you don't agree with as 'corrupt or not mattering'."
It really speaks for itself. The government is beyond corrupt.
"Fair enough, so the religious can have their religious marriage, and others can have their secular marriage, and you would have no objections to that, right?"
No, why should I? It's their belief.
"And I said they were when? I'm merely pointing out that injustice and persecution doesn't stop being injustice and persecution if you don't happen to like the group in question.
Also, comparing homosexuals to prostitutes, classy, real great argument there. /s"
Once again, pointing out the hypocrisy on display. Just because they've experienced hate crimes shouldn't give them a moral blank check. Christians have also suffered persecution, far moreso than homosexuals on a worldwide scale, yet I don't see anyone doing much about it.
"Considering what you said right above this this comment is all sorts of funny, not to mention hypocritical."
Non-argument.
"Have homosexuals had it as bad? No, but to pretend that there are no similarities is to demonstrate a great ignorance(whether willful or otherwise) of history.
-Considered immoral and 'lesser' due entirely to something they had no choice over? Check.
-Beaten, harassed, killed and otherwise treated differently due to their 'difference'? Check.
-Had laws specifically targeting them passed to deprive them of equal treatment, including right to marry who they wish to? Check."
*sigh* Here we go with the emotional ploy. A few isolated hate crime incidents is a far cry from being forced into indentured servitude. Western civilization has defined marriage as a union between a man and woman for centuries.
"Yeah... about that. Considering you apparently object strongly to the orphanages you list as your example below getting the same treatment any other group who refused to follow the state laws would, you obviously do think the religious deserve special privileges."
No, because the state has no business dictating to the Church how it should run its operations, anymore than the Church should be allowed to dictate how the state run its operations. Seperation of Church and State -- remember?
"And if all the cries of 'Persecution!' that occur any time the religious are told that they have to stop treating certain groups like, oh, how did you put is 'deviant perverts' and deserving of less rights aren't attempts to garner sympathy for your cause, then obviously I've been going off the wrong definitions of those words."
The state has no business dictating what the Church defines as moral and immoral, including homosexuality. Even if the state wants to accept same-sex marriages as legal, they had no right to force their newfound definition of marriage on the Church. Period.
"'Deviant perversion'? According to who?
According to science(which you appear to ignore when convenient) homosexuality is a natural occurrence, nothing deviant or perverse about it."
I do not look to science for moral truth.
"According to the dictionary, 'deviant' is simply 'deviating from the norm', which would make something as simple as being left-handed qualify someone as a 'deviant'."
Deviant as unnatural, correct. Being left-handed has nothing to do with morality.
"As far as 'perversion', something that happens naturally cannot in any way shape or form be a 'perversion', even if it does offend people like you."
Believe what you will.
"I notice you didn't answer the question, so I'll ask again: regarding the examples I listed, are they or are they not punishments for nothing more than the 'crime' of being gay, the punishments that you claimed you'd never heard of happening?"
Not being allowed to marry isn't a "punishment" because marriage isn't an absolute right. I don't have the right to walk into X institute and demanded service. As for adoption, it's up to the agency to determine who is fit. If a religious-based adoption agency won't cater to them, they can go find another. They're not "owed" children.
"You seem to be saying that it's 'religious persecution' for a group(in this case the catholic run orphanages) to be denied state funding or recognition after having refused to follow state laws, when all it really is is a natural consequence of their actions."
From an above-post: "The Catholic Church shouldn't have to change how it runs its organization at the whim of the state." The state attempted to FORCE the Catholic Charities to service same-sex couples, a violation of both 1A rights and Church conscious, or close down their operation.
"Refuse to follow the laws of the state? Guess what, you will no longer be recognized by the state or receive state funding. This should not be a hard concept to grasp, and yet the fact that you consider such a thing as 'religious persecution' would certainly explain why you are seeing it everywhere, as you appear to believe that religious institutions should get a 'get out of consequences free' card when it comes to following the laws."
This is about states changing the law and then attempting to force an immoral choice on a religious institution.
"Here's a challenge for you then: give a non-religious or non-emotional based reason that homosexuals should be treated different with regards to rights and equal treatment.
To save time:
'It's immoral': Religious argument, as morality/sin are primarily religious concepts.
'It's disgusting': Emotional argument on it's own, usually based on unfamiliarity and the fact that the 'strange/different' cause people instinctive unease/fear.
'It's unnatural': Emotional/religious argument, as something that occurs in nature is by definition not unnatural."
I don't play by your rules, but I'll oblige you anyway.
Are you calling a guy ramming his penis up another man's asshole 'natural behavior?' Are you serious? Ditto for two women having intercourse. Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise. We're not mere animals; we're civilized creatures. Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
That's the point. Despite numerous studies on the matter, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that being gay is a choice. So why do you continue to believe it?
No, because the state has no business dictating to the Church how it should run its operations
Except for following the law. There are some exceptions, such as drugs used in religious ceremonies, but in general a church cannot use the 1st Amendment to violate laws. If a church tried to practice human sacrifice* for instance, clearly its 1st Amendment rights would not permit that.
* Before you make an ass of yourself, consider carefully whether I just compared denying gays adoption rights to human sacrifice. Then think about it again. Then if you want to make an ass of yourself, go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I don't play by your rules, but I'll oblige you anyway.
Are you calling a guy ramming his penis up another man's asshole 'natural behavior?' Are you serious? Ditto for two women having intercourse. Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise. We're not mere animals; we're civilized creatures. Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?
Do you even realize you completely failed to "give a non-religious or non-emotional based reason that homosexuals should be treated different with regards to rights and equal treatment"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Seeing as how it happens, you know, IN NATURE, then the answer to that is obviously yes.
"Ditto for two women having intercourse."
Also happens in nature. I know, I know, it's icky and it makes your pee pee hurt, but that's nature for you.
"Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise."
Sure, but a naturally occurring disposition that does not harm in and of itself is OF COURSE allowed in that civilized society you keep referencing. What you don't get to do as a member of a secular society is try to apply your completely allowed religious views to a public that doesn't share them. Start being a contributing citizen and stop bashing others just because they don't share your conservative religious belief.
"Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?"
If that "perverse" behavior is allowed by society and its laws, yes. Of COURSE yes. That's the whole point of tolerance. You tolerate even that with which you don't agree, assuming it's not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Yeah, that's kind of how science works, 'This is the best estimate/theory we have regarding X, until some new evidence comes along to change or modify it'. Only the very foolish would claim an absolute on something as complex as human development/psychology.
Once again, zero conclusive evidence.
As opposed to your evidence which is... oh right, the fact that you have to believe that it's a choice, because otherwise that would mean you were hating and discriminating against someone for something they couldn't control, just like the bigots who think skin color determines a person's worth.
Nope, just highlighting the hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy? While I agree that the government is corrupt, I also believe that good can still come from it, judging actions/bills on an individuals basis rather than just assuming the worst each time.
It really speaks for itself. The government is beyond corrupt.
Only to those that automatically equate equal treatment of homosexuals as a bad thing.
No, why should I? It's their belief.
Well at least we're getting somewhere.
Once again, pointing out the hypocrisy on display. Just because they've experienced hate crimes shouldn't give them a moral blank check. Christians have also suffered persecution, far moreso than homosexuals on a worldwide scale, yet I don't see anyone doing much about it.
A 'moral blank check'? Well considering that would require the action to be considered 'immoral' in the first place, which differs depending on who you ask, that's irrelevant.
The issue at hand here, and one you keep trying to dodge, is that it doesn't matter 'who's suffered the most', or some rot like that, a group doesn't have to suffer 'X amount of persecution' to qualify for equal rights, it should be a given.
Something you might find interesting, but will undoubtedly ignore:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/december/annual-hate-crimes-report-released/annual-hat e-crimes-report-released
As for adoption, it's up to the agency to determine who is fit. If a religious-based adoption agency won't cater to them, they can go find another. They're not "owed" children.
No, no one is 'owed' children. On the other hand though, no religious based and run agency is 'owed' state funding or recognition.
From an above-post: "The Catholic Church shouldn't have to change how it runs its organization at the whim of the state." The state attempted to FORCE the Catholic Charities to service same-sex couples, a violation of both 1A rights and Church conscious, or close down their operation.
You seem to have a very strange reading of the first amendment and what rights it allows. DH covered it fairly well below, so I'll just touch on the main points.
-People have a right to their beliefs.
-People do not have a right to state funding.
-People especially do not have the right to state funding for purely religious expenses.
-People do not have a right to run orphanages.
-People do not have a right to ignore state laws because it 'conflicts with their religious beliefs'.
Though I'm sure you'll ignore it, from an outside perspective, refusing to let same-sex couples adopt because your religious beliefs consider them to be unfit as parents(when all the science says otherwise) is no different than refusing to allow interracial couple to adopt for the same reasons.
This is about states changing the law and then attempting to force an immoral choice on a religious institution.
The state 'forced' nothing more than adherence to their laws, lest the church lose state funding and state recognition, neither of which are 'rights' the ones running the orphanages are owed.
Are you calling a guy ramming his penis up another man's asshole 'natural behavior?' Are you serious? Ditto for two women having intercourse. Once again, just because certain animals behave a certain way doesn't make it alright for people to behave likewise. We're not mere animals; we're civilized creatures. Also, are you suggesting that I eschew my moral character for the sake of tolerating perverse behavior?
Let's see, emotional argument, emotional argument, emotional argument, emotional argument, emotional argument, and religious argument.
No apparently you don't follow by the parameters I set forth, which was simply give a logical, rational reason, rather than an emotional and/or religious reason.
As you failed utterly to do so, I believe I can safely assume you lack a non-emotional or religious argument against homosexuality, which was all I was curious about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Ahem, I'm not sure if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but it's worth noting that the "tradition" argument is complete bullshit. The Catholic Church, hallmark of Christian theology for the majority of Christianity's existence, originally ALLOWED same-sex marriage, as well as married priests, female priests, and a host of other things today's religious would rail against.
Find another argument, because the tradition one isn't very good. Homosexuality has been around since long before your religion and it will exist long after your religion disappears, because it is a biological reality....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
God is eternal; homosexuality will perish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
Bzzzzt, wrong again.
http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/06/did-the-early-church-perform-same-sex-weddings/
"God is eternal; homosexuality will perish."
Nobody cares about your bigot God and, if homosexuality is going to perish, it's sure taking its sweet time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
I'm still paying attention. Watching you poke holes in all of TRM's arguments is very entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's good for the goose...
When did you choose to be straight? And what pros and cons did you consider when you were making your decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad rulling
You do not have the right to harm others because they where born black or gay!"
You presume to know about me and then complain that I know nothing about you. Interesting.
What do you know about growing up poor and white or heterosexual? How many programs are out there for a poor young white man that wants to go to college? Do I get extra points because I was unlucky enough to be born white? No. Somehow my skin color (magically) means I have the world by the balls. I'm on easy street. Yes sir, life sure is grand if you're a white heterosexual male.
I am so tired of everyone telling me how I don't know what they went through. The facts is, no matter race, or sexual preference, or friggin eye color, comparing any 2 lives is apples to oranges. You have no idea what anyone other than YOU has been through - unless you can read minds.
Get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad rulling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad rulling
It's like the whole "I'm being persecuted because I'm not allowed to persecute blacks/gays/women/muslims/catholics" argument.
The 'liberals' no more have an agenda than the conservatives or the fundamentalists or in fact any other human collective. It's just slapping the label 'agenda' on it, like that is a bad thing, dehumanises them so you can broad-brush ignore them.
And as for Mr "I'm White and Underprivileged", all I can say is stop voting for people who give money to big companies and big banks, and instead on those who might actually spend money on relieving poverty or paying for education or healthcare for all.
And no, the Democrats have their heads up the bankers' arses too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad rulling
If you are speaking about the AC above, you missed the point of what "Mr. White and Underprivileged" said.
It wasn't a complaint as much as it was holding up a mirror to those that whine about how unfair the world is and how it's always somebody else's fault.
Deal with reality, there MUST be winners and losers. There MUST be failures, and there MUST be differing ideas and opinions if we are to survive as a species, let alone a nation or community. Work hard and do you best, give your all and if you are lucky and in the right place at the right time, you MAY come out ahead. Most of us won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad rulling
Since when does the Confederate Flag mean that someone who adorns the flag a racist piece of white trash? The Confederate flag is often used as the Anarchy flag in the UK. It's a symbol of teenage rebellion now...not hatred. Your fear of it only spreads hatred.
McDowell was teaching symbolism according to his perception and not according to the school books.
"You do not have the right to harm others because they where born black or gay!"
You have no right to say that to someone who nonviolently expressed and explained his religious beliefs. I don't know of any Catholic induviduals who are against any color of skin...but as far as homosexuality, Catholics do not believe in it.
"Third, and this is a hard one for libertarians to grasp since they have not experienced it themselves, but words can damage a person in a physical and mental way even if they do not harm themselves. "
You must be an Obamcrat...and not Libertarian and not a Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad rulling
That's your post in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad rulling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad rulling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad rulling
So I should not have a right to verbally express my religious views? How about my views as a male; a woman; an american; a muslim; a black, a Caucasian; an asien; a homosexual; a straight person? I could go on, surly you get the point. Others have inalienable rights that you surely choose to 'speak against' so you must be silent as well. Except that causes a problem, then no one can say anything, because someone could always invoke some inalienable right that you are speaking against.
Wearing a belt buckle does not a confrontation make. The confrontation started when the student was told to remove the belt buckle. I will concede that wearing the belt buckle could have been to provoke a response, but the confrontation was not started by the student wearing the belt buckle any more than it was by others wearing purple.
(Not certain why you think no libertarians have been subjected to hater or ridicule, but I assure you they have to at least some degree)This relates to my earlier point, if you don't learn as a child that 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me' then you are going to have a very rough life indeed. I was subjected to a LOT of hate and ridicule as a child, and even some physical confrontations. All it did was strengthen my resolve and make me a stronger person, though much less trusting of others. That probably has a lot to do with the way I was raised by my parents as well.
I agree, nor because they are straight, white,... but you may need to learn the definition of harm:
-----
harm
Noun
Physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted.
-----
Wearing a belt buckle or verbalizing a position harms no one (there is no physical injury). Harm comes from taking physical action against those who espouse an opposing position.
As others have pointed out you must allow people their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and religion. (The point of the article, which you turned a blind eye to)
Free Speech is important to a Democracy for one simple reason. It allows everyone to express and exchange ideas; to understand differing opinions, exchange them, and learn from them; to discuss them and understand that one person's (or group's) opinions might not be that different from another's when they find a common interest.
Preventing Free Speech only serves to drive a wedge between people or groups of people who do not share the same viewpoint. Which is exactly the wrong approach, especially when youth are learning about society and the world in which they will live out their lives. If you drive a wedge between groups at that young age it will likely stay there for life.
You seek to silence the majority while you allow the minority to speak, that will not sway many to your point of view and will solidify the opposing viewpoint in those who already oppose your view.
Sorry but your thoughts are narrow minded and wrong headed. You can't build consensus without allowing everyone to express their points of view, even if those points of view are vile and hateful. (Incidentally, when people hear unreasonable, vile and hateful speech it often drives them away from that point of view).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad rulling
The only solution to hateful speech is more speech.
Hateful speech isn't a problem in and of itself, no matter how much it hurts. It's an indicator. It's like smoke to a fire. Smoke inhalation can kill you, but until you put out the fire, the smoke is there to stay.
Hateful speech is just the indicator of hateful thoughts. You can't deal with hateful thoughts by changing legislation. You deal with hateful thoughts by changing minds, and you can only do that by engaging people and talking to them.
The idea of censoring speech because it offends us, no matter how well intentioned, is wrong. It has no place in a free and just society. None whatsoever. Why? Well, for one, because, once upon a time, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" would have offended a fair number of people.
But guess what? A great man said it, and people listened, and now his part of the world is a different place.
Once upon a time, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" would have offended a lot more people than it does now. Guess what? Today, I can live openly, adopt children, serve in the military, and marry whoever I want.
The only solution to hateful speech that's ever worked is more speech. Don't change laws. Change minds. Censorship doesn't stop being wrong because I disagree with the person being censored. Tyranny doesn't stop being tyranny because the tyrant's a nice guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It seems that for all the liberal wailing about tolerance, the only thing they are tolerant of is others who think the same as they do. If you disagree, then you must be some kind of right wing nut-job. They somehow think they have the higher moral ground because they are so ready to point out the faults of others to raise themselves up. Sounds suspiciously like the same complaints a lot of people have about the religious right too.
If a liberal's moral compass is so much better than anyone else's, answer me one question. Which of the following is it legal to kill in the U.S. ... A baby seal or a 20 week old fetus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make up your damn mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure most liberals would happily do away with abortion IF you could do away with accidental (or forced or medically bad) pregnancies. Since those will happen, you have to have a safe, legal route for abortion. Just look at that Indian woman in Ireland for an example, or all the countries where abortion was illegal. But no liberal actually wants to kill babies any more than gun 'nuts' want anyone with a gun to kill children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Accidental Pregnancies? Like they didn't know what the ultimate outcome of having sex is? What about practicing safe sex? Abstinence? Or maybe you're referring to pregnancies due to rape or sexual assault. In that case, I see the need for some recourse to terminate the pregnancy. But that is far from the usual reason for an abortion. The same can be said for abortions for medical reasons. Most abortions in the US are elective. Why not allow the child to live and give it up for adoption? Even if the child were diagnosed with Down Syndrome, or some other malady, there are plenty of couples who can't conceive that are looking to adopt and love him/her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah desperation...
Why, it's almost as though posts aren't getting reported because people are keeping their cool and avoiding name calling, lies and personal attacks, something most reported comments have in spades...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
What "censored" comments? There's NONE!
Bravo, Horse with no brain. You've jumped the gun and said something that is completely and undeniably untrue.
Guys, leave this one in plain view. So anyone who reads this article can see the undeniable evidence that Horse_with_no_clue is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: yet the censorship continues at Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really think high school student have rights?
Sadly what he said is more true than false. This story is few and far between what the actual reality is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
urdu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]