Big ten
- Thread starter chaoshawk
- Start date
""It just seems like maybe it's a bunch of people who realize they've lost a battle that's very important to them. Anyone under 30 is ok with gay rights. The whole thing is ancient history. All we need is a little bit of time and this will simply be a joke. Sometimes when people feel that their point of view is being lost and they are becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, it's sometimes not very pretty and it's often times embarrassing."
-Penn Jillette on CNN
Link
-Penn Jillette on CNN
Link
Call me crazy but preventing those in business who provide a public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is not a violation of religious liberty or a War on Christianity.
Getting a bullet in the back of the head simply because you are Christian is a violation of religious liberty and could certainly be viewed as an act of war against those with Christian beliefs.
I'd hope that perhaps, given the awful news out of Kenya this morning, some self-reflection and perspective could occur. Is baking a cake or delivering pizzas for a same sex wedding really a violation of someone's religious liberty? Or, as a country, are we so damn wrapped up in me, me, me, me, me that we lose sight of the big picture?
Make no mistake, there are those in this world who would be more than happy to create more war based upon differing religious beliefs. And I have no problem with those who act on those beliefs being eradicated and truly finding out if there is a Heaven, Hell or Paradise.
I'm pretty sure that isn't part of some secret gay or lesbian agenda.
This post was edited on 4/2 1:23 PM by AuroraHawk
Getting a bullet in the back of the head simply because you are Christian is a violation of religious liberty and could certainly be viewed as an act of war against those with Christian beliefs.
I'd hope that perhaps, given the awful news out of Kenya this morning, some self-reflection and perspective could occur. Is baking a cake or delivering pizzas for a same sex wedding really a violation of someone's religious liberty? Or, as a country, are we so damn wrapped up in me, me, me, me, me that we lose sight of the big picture?
Make no mistake, there are those in this world who would be more than happy to create more war based upon differing religious beliefs. And I have no problem with those who act on those beliefs being eradicated and truly finding out if there is a Heaven, Hell or Paradise.
I'm pretty sure that isn't part of some secret gay or lesbian agenda.
This post was edited on 4/2 1:23 PM by AuroraHawk
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/indiana-religious-freedom-law-fix/index.html
Made them mad, there were way more than I thought.
Made them mad, there were way more than I thought.
For me it's very simple. Sexual intercourse is how human beings procreate. While we have found numerous ways to make it "fun", bottom line is, it is how we continue our species. As soon as 2 men or 2 women can create life, I will believe they are born that way.
I grew up Catholic and in a very white-collar Chicago suburb. I'm not particularly political, as I think the whole political institution is corrupt and our elected officials are governed by special interests (on both sides). But reading this thread reiterates the point that people can look at the exact same document (in this case the bible) and come to completely different conclusions. I don't pretend to be a religious expert in any way, shape or form. In my opinion, people that equate religion with "morals" and "family values" are completely off base. Many terrible things have been done throughout history in the name of religion (and that continues today). Organized religion is as political (and corrupt) as government. In my world, my Jesus would welcome anybody into his group. I'm not going to pretend that any of these posts are going to change anybody's mind. It just makes me sad to see such a divide.
What exactly about this is stupid? Is it not true? Is there another way we humans procreate? Are a mans sperm and a womans egg not required to create life? Have you invented a new way? Please share it, cause it might be something people would want to know about.
I agree, mankind makes things corrupt. And evil things have been done with and without religion involved. But religion does not preclude people from doing evil things. The Catholic Church is proof of that. Studies show that are large percentage of people in prison are "religious." Studies also show that children raised as atheist tend to be more accepting of others. I am a Christian and do not believe religion is evil and people shouldn't believe. But for me personally, religion doesn't make a person less capable of doing evil things. Religion mixed with politics (which is so often the case) is particularly dangerous.
This started as a post about the Big Ten. Were they talking about the conference or the commandments?
Ok, that's funny.Originally posted by Guidotheguide:
This started as a post about the Big Ten. Were they talking about the conference or the commandments?
I always enjoy people who try to pretend that being gay is a lifestyle or a choice people make. Yes, those perfectly sane and rational people decide to do something that makes their life worse. It gets them discriminated against, reduces their potential chances for finding happiness, etc.
It's a choice.
I mean that's not even something you can pretend is true. If you aren't gay, could you ever imagine choosing to do it? Does that sound like something that'd be fun to you?
It's a choice.
I mean that's not even something you can pretend is true. If you aren't gay, could you ever imagine choosing to do it? Does that sound like something that'd be fun to you?
How do you know that they don't like being "discriminated against"? Some sickos like to be hurt or beat up. Doesn't make any kind of sense but they exist. Maybe they just like being controversial. Who knows bt it doesn't change the face that they choose the gay lifestyle. If they didn't how would it be possible to have former gays? Some changed after a spiritual epiphany, others changed because they wanted to. Now, are they still gay? Or are they fooling themselves w/ a wife and kids? Pedophiles also claim to be "born that way" but there isn't a huge outcry of "equal rights" for them. Exactly how antone can find discrimination out of this blows my mind. People refuse service all the time but its only when the powerful special interest group, Gays, that can ruin yr life or business on a hypocritical whim. As for Jesus hanging with gays, of course he would because He loves us all BUT He wouldn't have anything to do w/ a gay "marriage" again, because He loves them and wouldn't support what He spoke out against. So again, disagreement does NOT = "hate". When I was young and binge drinking and collecting OWI's, my folks hated what I was doing but they didn't hate me. They hated what I was doing. Using liberal logic, because my folks didn't support my excessive drinking, they "hated" me. See how ridiculous that sounds? Its possible to have disagreements with people and not hate them. Heck, I even apologized to a guy I used to pick on in high school by callinghm a fag and the whole 9 yards. Well, now he's way out of the closet. He forgave me. He didn't have to but he did ut which makes him a giant aming men in my eyes and honestly it was the best gift anyone's probably ever given me. It was very humbling but a huge weight was lifted offf of my shoulders. Now, why would I have apologized to someone I "hated"? He knows that I still don't agree w/ the gay lifestyle but that has nothing to do w/ how I view him as a person.
We've probably talked about this enough but being called a bigot or told that I hate gays is a lie and I feel obligated to set the record straight. Feel free to bash away.
We've probably talked about this enough but being called a bigot or told that I hate gays is a lie and I feel obligated to set the record straight. Feel free to bash away.
The only thing you set straight was your failure at basic logic. Nobody chooses to be gay. If that was possible, you could be gay. Think how much fun it would be!!!!!!! And if being gay were a choice, how come we can observe it in the animal kingdom as well? Are animals making that choice too?
It's OK to be religious and believe your religion is against it. It's not OK to invent reasons to support it beyond personal religious beliefs.
This post was edited on 4/6 1:27 PM by blockm2
This is another great post above.
First, you ignore the question asked, about describing the "gay lifestyle", and then you claim that "being born that way" must necessitate the ability to procreate, which necessarily means that many people were not "born with" things that could prevent pregnancy.
Let's do some logical comparison here vis-a-vis this thread:
1. Do you want religion/religious beliefs to be a protected class/status/trait? If yes, proceed to #2.
2. Is religion an inherent, or "born", trait? If no, then rethink your entire post above.
Great post!!!! BTW, homosexual activity is the cause of 70% of HIV cases in this country. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Please elaborate. What about the other "30%", according to you? Child molesters? People who steal from the collection plate?
You keep repeating yr lie but never address former gays. Wyhy not? Ids it because it absolutely refutes yr argument? Why aren't you crusading for pedophiles? They too say they just can't help it because "they were born that way". If yr going to champion one special interest group on the basis of the "born that way" excuse, why wouldn't you support the other? And bringing dumb animals into this is an argument??? Seriously? Do animals have the ability to reason?
This post was edited on 4/7 11:51 AM by IronFist1776
IronFist, most have tried to be respectful in this thread that you seem to want to perpetuate, sadly in the name of Christianity. That obviously has only encouraged you. So, for those who consider responding to IronFist, I suggest the following advice:
Arguing with an idiot can be time consuming and mentally draining. Arguing with an idiot is a lot like a saying my dad used to tell me, "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it." In other words, don't argue with an idiot, you both look stupid and the idiot enjoys it!
Arguing with an idiot can be time consuming and mentally draining. Arguing with an idiot is a lot like a saying my dad used to tell me, "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it." In other words, don't argue with an idiot, you both look stupid and the idiot enjoys it!
Not an actual argument? Ok, let's do this:
How do you know that they don't like being "discriminated against"?
This is a worthless, pointless exercise in your debate. That could be applied to, literally, ever complaint in the history of man. "How do you know Africans didn't want to be slaves...." "How do you know Americans didn't like to be taxed without representation...."
But, it is especially pointless in the context of this thread. There are groups, supporting homosexual rights, who have specifically complained and boycotted the legislation.............evidencing the fact that "they" don't like to be discriminated against. Further proof? Statements saying they don't like it.
But, even without that, how is this relevant to the topic? Even if we followed your insane presumption, it wouldn't change the merits of the thread: Equal rights in public accommodation, whether people "want" it or not.
Who
knows bt it doesn't change the face that they choose the gay lifestyle.
If they didn't how would it be possible to have former gays?
Your logic is fallacious, one does not "prove" the other. First, you use the term "lifestyle", which you have steadfastly refused to elaborate on, but second, and more importantly you claim that a person who is married to the opposite sex can not be homosexual by trait. Homosexual is not defined, solely, by those you maintain a relationship with.
Try this thought experience: 1. Are you a homosexual? If not, proceed to: 2. If you had sex with a man, would you be a homosexual?
If you don't eat pork or drink alcohol, does that make you a Muslim? That is your fallacy.
Pedophiles also claim to be "born that way" but there isn't a huge outcry of "equal rights" for them.
Screaming fear-mongering phrases in attempts to win an argument is not only simplistic, but pathetic. First, you don't believe that homosexuals are "born that way", so why even delve into this area? Second, it follows another fallacy: Not all things that are "born" must be accepted, nor must they be "legal". Presuming pedophiles are "born that way", what stops one from believing that the line is drawn ahead of them? Why does that make it hypocritical?
Is it hypocritical to believe in climate change, be concerned about carbon emissions, but still drive a gasoline-powered vehicle? Of course not, those things don't need to stand in opposition.
The line, in everything, is drawn somewhere. You draw it before homosexuals...why wouldn't the rest of us be able to draw it before pedophilia?
Can't believe I even argued this, like it wasn't obviously ignorant enough on its own.
Exactly how antone can find discrimination out of this blows my mind.
It
blows your mind that denying homosexuals service due to their
homosexuality is "discrimination"? Do you know the definition of
discrimination? Is that your hang-up here?
I don't think I need to change this, but will re-ask this pointedly:
Do you know the definition of "Discrimination"?
Nope both sides. The fact so many people in this country let two political parties rule the way they think and use them as pawns is stupid. Every conversation piece on here is regurgitated crap from the liberal media (MSNBC, CNN, CBS and NBC) or conservative media (Fox News). The rich and powerful tell the media sources what to say and then the media sources tell you what to believe and then push you out the door to do what they want you to do so politicians and people in power can do whatever they want to do. Conservatives are ignorant and Liberals are arrogantly ignorant.
I have a serious question for everyone on here. Let me start by saying if I owned a cake shop I would sell to anyone and wouldnt discriminate. I have a lesbian activist cousin who along with her brother destroys my facebook feed with her political agenda everyday. She along with all of her lesbian activist friends hate anyone and everyone that discriminates against gays. I asked her a qustion the other day that if a guy walks into a cake shop to ask for a cake that shows two men getting married with a big red X through it should the baker make it? First thing she said was I would hope not. I asked but what if the baker did. First thing she said was that she would go to the baker and ask why the baker supported that type of message.
I don't have a problem with people who are gay pink, blue or whatever. I have a problem with a group of people who push their beliefs on others and if you dont join well you will be burnt to the ground and drug through the mud. I have a problem if the lesbian couple went to 10 cake shops and were truned away from 5 or more of them. I dont have a problem if a lesbian couple went to 10 shops and were only turned away from 1 or maybe 2 of them. Chalk that up to ignorant people but whatever. But dont bring the fires of Hell upon somebody and create a national hysteria so the powerful can exploit it while avg joe suffers.
I don't have a problem with people who are gay pink, blue or whatever. I have a problem with a group of people who push their beliefs on others and if you dont join well you will be burnt to the ground and drug through the mud. I have a problem if the lesbian couple went to 10 cake shops and were truned away from 5 or more of them. I dont have a problem if a lesbian couple went to 10 shops and were only turned away from 1 or maybe 2 of them. Chalk that up to ignorant people but whatever. But dont bring the fires of Hell upon somebody and create a national hysteria so the powerful can exploit it while avg joe suffers.
Let me walk through this one:
I don't know your cousin, nor her use of facebook, but is Civil Rights really "political agenda"?
Your question posed:
"...if a guy walks into a cake shop to ask for a cake that shows two men
getting married with a big red X through it should the baker make it?"
First, you use the word "should", which infers morality, imo. I won't comment on the morality of that decision, and I don't think it really changes the overall point here.
Second, a person getting that cake could, legally, be denied (IMO) service based on the message of the cake. That person is not a member of a specific, or even protected class. The denial would be due to the message, not do to the person. To me, it would be identical to that same guy requesting a cake of the President being shot by a sniper. There isn't anything protected about it, nor "should" there be, therefore a denial of service would be up to the proprietor.
As I re-thought this, thinking of the rebuttal, I can see (very thinly) that someone could claim that they were denied this cake due to their religion. If their religion is opposed to gay marriage and required them to act on that belief, it is (barely) plausible that someone could make this argument.
But, I don't think that actually has merit. To begin with, and I've made my opinions known, when we go down the road of "religious beliefs" there is nothing we can't do/not do based on religion. Someone has a religion of hating women, therefore no service to women. When we go down that rabbithole, it just doesn't work. So, more importantly, I'd say the denial isn't "based on religion", but the message.
Could the same be said about a gay marriage cake? Plausibly, and more so than the rebuttal above, but I think it is easily differentiated. A wedding is something that is accepted, commonplace, and part of the legal fabric. People getting married isn't a message, certainly people celebrating that marriage isn't a message either. Therefore a cake denoting that marriage is not a message. Turning down a gay-marriage participant would be turning them down for being homosexual...not for their message. Turning down a gay-marriage opposer's message would not be equatable.
" I have a problem with a group of people who push their beliefs on
others and if you dont join well you will be burnt to the ground and
drug through the mud."
That is good, then you wouldn't support things such as the Hobby Lobby opinion....right? Aren't those supporters and lobbyists necessarily pushing their opinion on others and politically attacking the opposition?
I've posted this before, but the reaction to Indiana was American at its core. A group (obviously a substantial one) standing up for something it found important and doing something proactive about it (moving their business, refusing to have convention there, etc.) to effect change. That is quintessentially American, see the Boston Tea Party for an obvious example. The only time it really gets termed "pushing their beliefs on others" is when they don't agree with it.
Lots of truth to this post but I'd have to say that there are no conservatives anymore, only neo-cons. Neo-cons love endless aggressive wars, love/worship "authority" and think the only good Muslim, is a dead Muslim. Those aren't conservative values. The game of "Left vs Right" is FAKE. That's how the Banksters have taken over the united states of America. They bought BOTH criminal cartels. The amazing thing is that hundreds of MILLIONS of people have been duped by their "Tastes great!, "Less filling" style of choices. Why not, "NONE OF THE ABOVE"?
Its only worthless to you because you can't refute it. Its a fact that gays are into deviant behavior, one of which could be bondage. Those freaks think pain is titillating. The only reason I brought it up is because someone used the ridiculous "argument", why would they choose this blah blah blah". ----- Gays DO have equal rights. They want SPECIAL rights. Gays have the right to marry anyone of the opposite gender that they choose, the same as a heterosexual person so exactly what right is being denied gays?
No, my argument is simple logic, that's why you don't understand it. Any idiot knows what gays do so its stupid for me or anyone to elaborate on it. I never said this " but second, and more importantly you claim that a person who is married to the opposite sex can not be homosexual by trait. Homosexual is not defined, solely, by those you maintain a relationship with". I asked a question, since you guys fantasize that being gay isn't a choice. That begs the question, are former gays, STILL gay, even though they've sworn off that lifestyle and are normal people in normal relationships? So if a homosexual no longer has sex w/ someone of the same gender, in yr eyes, they're still homosexual. Using that logic, then everyone is gay and there's no way around it simply "because we were born". Weak weak analogy. Using that liberal logic, vegans are Muslims because they don't eat pork.
No screaming or fear mongering here, you have that area well covered. In fact, this whole thread is here BECAUSE of liberal fear mongering and hypocrisy. AGAIN, I answered this way because one lie that people are putting forth is the "born that way" argument which holds no water. Of course, that fallacious claim shouldn't be used, but its yr side that's using it.
Yes, it is hypocritical to drive a gas guzzler and believe in the myth of global warming or climate change or whatever liberal buzz words you guys come up with next, but hypocrisy is liberals stock in trade although its not only reserved fr their criminal cartel. The neo cons are the same way, just on different subjects.
I'm not drawing any lines. I simply believe in freedom of association and disassociation. Liberals support fascism just so long as it conforms to their preferred world view.
I can't believe you attempted to argue this and failed miserably. Any idiot knows that no one should be forced to do something they find morally reprehensible.
I do know what discrimination is and YOU support it whole heartedly, just so long as its against someone you disagree with. If those two lesbians hadn't been homoNazi fascists w/ an agenda to target and financially ruin people w/ morals and values, we're not having this conversation. So if you want to blame anyone, blame those two hypocritical dolts. All they had to do was go somewhere where their lifestyle was accepted or encouraged instead of imposing that on someone else. But you don't understand that. Yr liberalism won't let you.
I'm just responding to people, just like anyone else. Most people HAVE been respectful so why did you choose to be the idiot who isn't? The idiot here, is YOU. If you weren't, you'd actually make an argument instead of leaving stupid hypocritical quotes as if you're not the idiot that you're referring to. Don't you have a Hitlerry Clinton blowup doll you should be making out with? Brainwashed hypocritical liberals, can't live with them.....
I agree w/ this although people objecting on religious grounds isn't remotely ignorant. It's simply who they are and how their values influence them.
Similar threads
