Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[bodecea]

So you get stuck on one sentence, without the context of the entire post
That's the quote.
My viewpoint is based on understanding and respect for other people, you find that warped fine. Putting words in someones mouth is the basis of a straw man argument. I find these kind of debating tactics pretty pathetic. If you agree that gay people can love each other then my claim that that puts those who disagree with their lifestyle put them at odds with a central theme in the New Testament stands. Any attempt by changing the argument therefor is nothing more then a deflection. I can agree to disagree about the comparative relevance of that with other messages found in the bible. But trying to deflect the argument in an attempt to disparage my morals is pathetic.

No your attempt to disparage Christians who believe love and compassion doesn't equate to including the acceptance of another person's gravitation towards deviancy is pathetic and it is also irrelevant.

Matthew 7:1-2 ESV / 16 helpful votes
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
1 John 4:19-21 ESV / 10 helpful votes
We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
John 13:34 ESV / 10 helpful votes
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
Philippians 2:1-4 ESV / 9 helpful votes
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Just a little taste. And your right, my opinion is irrelevant, guess what..... so is yours.

Good to see you studying... perhaps at some point you will find the verse that states a spiritual man judges all things and one day you may even be able to discern what a spiritual man is.

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

Ah! The pathetically sad games that you play. First of all, I was responding to your simplistic and dogmatic assertion that external genitalia is the only thing that defines a male or a female. I provided information to contradict that- not withstanding the fact that it is theoretical. While not conclusive it is a start in understanding transsexualism, rather tan dumbing it down as you do.

Genitalia DOES determine if an infant is a male or female. There is no proof that a baby with a penis is not a male OR that the infant with that penis is a 'gendered' female. External genitalia is how we identify which sex a male or female was born as. If nature (or natural selection) were acknowledging 'transgenderism' why aren'tt genitalia developed AFTER a human being chooses which sex they want to be?

However, you can't deal with the answer that I provided because all that you can handles are concrete assertion. So, now you want to move the goal posts as they say and make it about what is " normal" . And, No body is saying that there are defiantly no environmental facts. Intellectual inquiry requires that all possibilities be considered but you apparently would not know about such things

So...how much are 'environmental facts' an influence on a person that defies their own genitalia? NONE of your published links have an answer to this. In fact, I find what you published to be highly biased toward normalization of homosexuality for which there is no scientific proof.

The fact is that while not proven, there is mounting evidence that there is a biological basis for it . Please! Try to learn something and stop being an idiot

The Transgender Brain

Why the fuck are you so threatened by the possibility that there are innate congenital explanations for this ? Open your mind. You might be taken more seriously

Not threatened at all........that is you projecting onto me. I say homosexuality is not normal and you have not been able to prove that it is. I say that 'gender' is naturally decided by genitalia and you have not been able to prove it isn't. I'm sure that some sexual influence can be congenital and I am sure that some may be environmental but so what? Homosexuality is aberrant in the human species by pure statistical evidence alone.

BTW you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and a stereotypical view of those who disagree with you. That makes your arguments weaker you know.

Can I ask why do you equate normal as being right? I'm left handed not to long ago that would have been considered something I had to get rid of by force if necessary.School Corporal Punishment: Being Left Handed.. This was also done for religious reasons. So do you think striving for normalcy warrants that?

I use both right and left and have a preference for using one more than the other do to being taught to use one over the other but I also keep my sex life private as should others if they don't want someone talking about it, degrading it, or calling it deviant behavior. You on the other hand seem to be telling others that they must accept your left handedness just because you say so.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

 

[RodISHI]

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

What habit have I tried to enforce on you?
And yes it does, if you are too punish me for it it matters very much.
That's the thing you don't seem to get. You are trying to justify discriminating people for stuff that doesn't hurt anybody and that the people who do it can't help. I have no choice in which hand I favor. A gay person has no choice in his sexual orientation. Yet you reserve the right to judge me and the gay person because of your religious beliefs which is something that the person you claim to follow has specifically spoken out against.

You are the one claiming that I must accept your deviancy even though you have already stated that it is yours alone. In what way have I punished you other than not letting you into my head to tell me what I must believe or how I should think? You are free to accept whatever deviancy you wish but you are not free to force me to believe the same way you do.

Never considered being a lefty deviancy but I guess you are by the definition of the word correct. If you refuse to render services, you are punishing me, if you refuse to hire me, you are punishing me, if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me. You don't have to agree with people but anything but the treatment that you give other people is in effect a punishment.

If I refused to hire you that would be within my rights to do so just because I don't like you. If I refuse to provide my services to you again it would be in my rights to do so as I do not have to work for anyone I am sure I do not like (its been a policy of mine for over forty years and its worked out well thus far). Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked. If you can find fault in the way I treat someone and its suits your narrative have at it but that doesn't make you right in any way shape or form.

Oh and by the way, how does this?

if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me.

Become this.

Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked.

Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

 

[RodISHI]

No your attempt to disparage Christians who believe love and compassion doesn't equate to including the acceptance of another person's gravitation towards deviancy is pathetic and it is also irrelevant.

Matthew 7:1-2 ESV / 16 helpful votes
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
1 John 4:19-21 ESV / 10 helpful votes
We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
John 13:34 ESV / 10 helpful votes
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
Philippians 2:1-4 ESV / 9 helpful votes
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Just a little taste. And your right, my opinion is irrelevant, guess what..... so is yours.

Good to see you studying... perhaps at some point you will find the verse that states a spiritual man judges all things and one day you may even be able to discern what a spiritual man is.

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

Genitalia DOES determine if an infant is a male or female. There is no proof that a baby with a penis is not a male OR that the infant with that penis is a 'gendered' female. External genitalia is how we identify which sex a male or female was born as. If nature (or natural selection) were acknowledging 'transgenderism' why aren'tt genitalia developed AFTER a human being chooses which sex they want to be?

So...how much are 'environmental facts' an influence on a person that defies their own genitalia? NONE of your published links have an answer to this. In fact, I find what you published to be highly biased toward normalization of homosexuality for which there is no scientific proof.

Not threatened at all........that is you projecting onto me. I say homosexuality is not normal and you have not been able to prove that it is. I say that 'gender' is naturally decided by genitalia and you have not been able to prove it isn't. I'm sure that some sexual influence can be congenital and I am sure that some may be environmental but so what? Homosexuality is aberrant in the human species by pure statistical evidence alone.

BTW you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and a stereotypical view of those who disagree with you. That makes your arguments weaker you know.

Can I ask why do you equate normal as being right? I'm left handed not to long ago that would have been considered something I had to get rid of by force if necessary.School Corporal Punishment: Being Left Handed.. This was also done for religious reasons. So do you think striving for normalcy warrants that?

I use both right and left and have a preference for using one more than the other do to being taught to use one over the other but I also keep my sex life private as should others if they don't want someone talking about it, degrading it, or calling it deviant behavior. You on the other hand seem to be telling others that they must accept your left handedness just because you say so.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

 

[forkup]

What habit have I tried to enforce on you?
And yes it does, if you are too punish me for it it matters very much.
That's the thing you don't seem to get. You are trying to justify discriminating people for stuff that doesn't hurt anybody and that the people who do it can't help. I have no choice in which hand I favor. A gay person has no choice in his sexual orientation. Yet you reserve the right to judge me and the gay person because of your religious beliefs which is something that the person you claim to follow has specifically spoken out against.

You are the one claiming that I must accept your deviancy even though you have already stated that it is yours alone. In what way have I punished you other than not letting you into my head to tell me what I must believe or how I should think? You are free to accept whatever deviancy you wish but you are not free to force me to believe the same way you do.

Never considered being a lefty deviancy but I guess you are by the definition of the word correct. If you refuse to render services, you are punishing me, if you refuse to hire me, you are punishing me, if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me. You don't have to agree with people but anything but the treatment that you give other people is in effect a punishment.

If I refused to hire you that would be within my rights to do so just because I don't like you. If I refuse to provide my services to you again it would be in my rights to do so as I do not have to work for anyone I am sure I do not like (its been a policy of mine for over forty years and its worked out well thus far). Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked. If you can find fault in the way I treat someone and its suits your narrative have at it but that doesn't make you right in any way shape or form.

Oh and by the way, how does this?

if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me.

Become this.

Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked.

Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

 

[forkup]

Matthew 7:1-2 ESV / 16 helpful votes
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
1 John 4:19-21 ESV / 10 helpful votes
We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
John 13:34 ESV / 10 helpful votes
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
Philippians 2:1-4 ESV / 9 helpful votes
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Just a little taste. And your right, my opinion is irrelevant, guess what..... so is yours.

Good to see you studying... perhaps at some point you will find the verse that states a spiritual man judges all things and one day you may even be able to discern what a spiritual man is.

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

Can I ask why do you equate normal as being right? I'm left handed not to long ago that would have been considered something I had to get rid of by force if necessary.School Corporal Punishment: Being Left Handed.. This was also done for religious reasons. So do you think striving for normalcy warrants that?

I use both right and left and have a preference for using one more than the other do to being taught to use one over the other but I also keep my sex life private as should others if they don't want someone talking about it, degrading it, or calling it deviant behavior. You on the other hand seem to be telling others that they must accept your left handedness just because you say so.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

 

[forkup]

Good to see you studying... perhaps at some point you will find the verse that states a spiritual man judges all things and one day you may even be able to discern what a spiritual man is.

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

I use both right and left and have a preference for using one more than the other do to being taught to use one over the other but I also keep my sex life private as should others if they don't want someone talking about it, degrading it, or calling it deviant behavior. You on the other hand seem to be telling others that they must accept your left handedness just because you say so.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Sorry Bodecea that I budded in there.

 

[BlackSand]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

1. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, everyone is a sinner.
No ... I wouldn't refuse to hire a homosexual ... But, I would refuse to hire a pedophile (just an example and not meant to connect the two).
So ... It isn't a question of whether or not the person is a sinner (doesn't have to be one of the Ten Commandment either) ... Everyone is.

2. Christ isn't the only one who walked around with a bunch of sinners ... We all do the same.
I can forgive someone for their deeds against me ... But I am not God and they have not sinned against me in that sense.
They are going to have to take that forgiveness up with the powers that be.
I have no obligation to put my business nor clients at risk to meet my spiritual goals ... I won't put a convicted bank robber in charge of the register either ... Ever.

3. No one else can violate my faith ... My faith is between myself and God.
I am not required by God to associate with people who pursue any lifestyle I believe to be wrong or destructive to what I believe to be correct.
I won't hire crack-heads either.

Since my faith is between myself and God ... I will forgo the judgment of homosexuals in regards to sin and leave it up to God.
I wouldn't have a problem hiring a homosexual ... BUT ... I would completely have a problem with the federal government telling anyone who they had to hire.

.

 

[RodISHI]

You are the one claiming that I must accept your deviancy even though you have already stated that it is yours alone. In what way have I punished you other than not letting you into my head to tell me what I must believe or how I should think? You are free to accept whatever deviancy you wish but you are not free to force me to believe the same way you do.

Never considered being a lefty deviancy but I guess you are by the definition of the word correct. If you refuse to render services, you are punishing me, if you refuse to hire me, you are punishing me, if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me. You don't have to agree with people but anything but the treatment that you give other people is in effect a punishment.

If I refused to hire you that would be within my rights to do so just because I don't like you. If I refuse to provide my services to you again it would be in my rights to do so as I do not have to work for anyone I am sure I do not like (its been a policy of mine for over forty years and its worked out well thus far). Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked. If you can find fault in the way I treat someone and its suits your narrative have at it but that doesn't make you right in any way shape or form.

Oh and by the way, how does this?

if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me.

Become this.

Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked.

Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

Good to see you studying... perhaps at some point you will find the verse that states a spiritual man judges all things and one day you may even be able to discern what a spiritual man is.

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

I use both right and left and have a preference for using one more than the other do to being taught to use one over the other but I also keep my sex life private as should others if they don't want someone talking about it, degrading it, or calling it deviant behavior. You on the other hand seem to be telling others that they must accept your left handedness just because you say so.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

 

[forkup]

Never considered being a lefty deviancy but I guess you are by the definition of the word correct. If you refuse to render services, you are punishing me, if you refuse to hire me, you are punishing me, if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me. You don't have to agree with people but anything but the treatment that you give other people is in effect a punishment.

If I refused to hire you that would be within my rights to do so just because I don't like you. If I refuse to provide my services to you again it would be in my rights to do so as I do not have to work for anyone I am sure I do not like (its been a policy of mine for over forty years and its worked out well thus far). Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked. If you can find fault in the way I treat someone and its suits your narrative have at it but that doesn't make you right in any way shape or form.

Oh and by the way, how does this?

if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me.

Become this.

Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked.

Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

They call that a deflection yet again. Btw I'm not religious but I am a moral man. I accept people how they are you don't, some people may go as far as calling that being closer to god.

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

Sure I do. See it doesn't hurt anybody and it's how I was born, why shouldn't you accept that?

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

 

[forkup]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

1. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, everyone is a sinner.
No ... I wouldn't refuse to hire a homosexual ... But, I would refuse to hire a pedophile (just an example and not meant to connect the two).
So ... It isn't a question of whether or not the person is a sinner (doesn't have to be one of the Ten Commandment either) ... Everyone is.

2. Christ isn't the only one who walked around with a bunch of sinners ... We all do the same.
I can forgive someone for their deeds against me ... But I am not God and they have not sinned against me in that sense.
They are going to have to take that forgiveness up with the powers that be.
I have no obligation to put my business nor clients at risk to meet my spiritual goals ... I won't put a convicted bank robber in charge of the register either ... Ever.

3. You cannot violate my faith ... My faith is between myself and God.
I am not required by God to associate with people who pursue any lifestyle I believe to be wrong or destructive to what I believe to be correct.
I won't hire crack-heads either.

Since my faith is between myself and God ... I will forgo the judgment of homosexuals in regards to sin and leave it up to God.
I wouldn't have a problem hiring a homosexual ... BUT ... I would completely have a problem with the federal government telling anyone who they had to hire.

.

This is a well thought out reaction. I can't say I even disagree with a lot of it. My question would be, does the government have the right to establish regulations in order to give minorities equal chances at the workplace?

 

[RodISHI]

If I refused to hire you that would be within my rights to do so just because I don't like you. If I refuse to provide my services to you again it would be in my rights to do so as I do not have to work for anyone I am sure I do not like (its been a policy of mine for over forty years and its worked out well thus far). Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked. If you can find fault in the way I treat someone and its suits your narrative have at it but that doesn't make you right in any way shape or form.

Oh and by the way, how does this?

if you smack my hand because I'm holding my pen in my left hand you are punishing me.

Become this.

Keep your hand to your self and you won't get smacked.

Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

Moral people do not attempt to force their habits on other people.

It shouldn't matter why if it is my belief due to my faith that it is abnormal.

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

 

[BlackSand]

This is a well thought out reaction. I can't say I even disagree with a lot of it. My question would be, does the government have the right to establish regulations in order to give minorities equal chances at the workplace?

I could explain it further ... But the short answer would be ... "No".

.

 

[forkup]

Oh and by the way, how does this?
Become this.
Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

 

[forkup]

This is a well thought out reaction. I can't say I even disagree with a lot of it. My question would be, does the government have the right to establish regulations in order to give minorities equal chances at the workplace?

I could explain it further ... But the short answer would be ... "No".

.

That's what I don't agree with. Minorities are always at risk to be shut out of society and sometimes the only option is for the government to step in. If you institutionalize the right to discriminate what is to stop that from happening? The pre-civil rights movement era is a good example for instance for that happening.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

All Conservatives aren't Christian. ALL Republicans are not Conservative or Christian. So who are you actually addressing?

 

[BlackSand]

That's what I don't agree with. Minorities are always at risk to be shut out of society and sometimes the only option is for the government to step in. If you institutionalize the right to discriminate what is to stop that from happening? The pre-civil rights movement era is a good example for instance for that happening.

I won't argue with the mechanics nor history involved with your comments.
Your question also strays from the religious aspects associated with the OP ... But I don't mind expounding at least a little.

I can say I support discrimination ... Albeit not on the simple grounds of minority status.
The government/society are not my religion ... Nor do they/should they run my business.

We are all at risk of being shut out of society for whatever reason some idiot gives the federal government the ability to dictate ... Just the same as any social pressures.

There are 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
Deciding who is forced to hire who ... Is not one of them.

......

To answer your question ... "If you institutionalize the right to discriminate what is to stop that from happening?"

It is only institutionalized when the institution is established ... More so at the hands of government and regulations.
Governmental activities/regulations and laws were one of the major ways society influenced discrimination.
Minorities were not allowed certain privileges or rights through legal means ... Driven by the then, existing social pressures.
The government (or those in charge at the time) were granting themselves the right to discriminate.

Personally ... I will discriminate and hire whomever I feel is best to fill any position I may have.
I don't give a rat's ass about their minority status ... Nor what the government thinks about it.

My job as a business owner is to provide a product/service to the consumer ... Not to dabble in social engineering at the bequest of the federal government.
I will do business with whomever I see fit ... I can, and may deny service to anyone ... And, I am not required to divulge my reason.
If someone doesn't particularly like who I hire, who I do business with or how I run my business ... They are free to do their business elsewhere.

We can stop it from happening when we discriminate ... And choose to do business with people who offer better options.
Just be thankful the rest of the country doesn't have to meet my standards ... And I don't care what anyone else does with their business ...

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ah! The pathetically sad games that you play. First of all, I was responding to your simplistic and dogmatic assertion that external genitalia is the only thing that defines a male or a female. I provided information to contradict that- not withstanding the fact that it is theoretical. While not conclusive it is a start in understanding transsexualism, rather tan dumbing it down as you do.

Genitalia DOES determine if an infant is a male or female. There is no proof that a baby with a penis is not a male OR that the infant with that penis is a 'gendered' female. External genitalia is how we identify which sex a male or female was born as. If nature (or natural selection) were acknowledging 'transgenderism' why aren'tt genitalia developed AFTER a human being chooses which sex they want to be?

However, you can't deal with the answer that I provided because all that you can handles are concrete assertion. So, now you want to move the goal posts as they say and make it about what is " normal" . And, No body is saying that there are defiantly no environmental facts. Intellectual inquiry requires that all possibilities be considered but you apparently would not know about such things

So...how much are 'environmental facts' an influence on a person that defies their own genitalia? NONE of your published links have an answer to this. In fact, I find what you published to be highly biased toward normalization of homosexuality for which there is no scientific proof.

The fact is that while not proven, there is mounting evidence that there is a biological basis for it . Please! Try to learn something and stop being an idiot

The Transgender Brain

Why the fuck are you so threatened by the possibility that there are innate congenital explanations for this ? Open your mind. You might be taken more seriously

Not threatened at all........that is you projecting onto me. I say homosexuality is not normal and you have not been able to prove that it is. I say that 'gender' is naturally decided by genitalia and you have not been able to prove it isn't. I'm sure that some sexual influence can be congenital and I am sure that some may be environmental but so what? Homosexuality is aberrant in the human species by pure statistical evidence alone.

BTW you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and a stereotypical view of those who disagree with you. That makes your arguments weaker you know.

Oh Christ! You did not understand a damned thing that I said. I am not trying to prove anything and I am not arguing about what is "normal" The point-which is obviously lost on you- is that whether we are talking about homosexuality, or transgenderism, the issue is complex and there is much to learn about it. I am willing to consider all possibilities but you continue to dumb it down and refuse to deal with those complexities. My view of you is not based on any stereotype. It is based on your words which clearly indicate that you are an anti-intellectual, given to ridged, concrete thought processes .

It is also apparent that you do not understand the distinction between statistical normal and that which is found in nature but is unusual but not necessarily a defect. That is your problem. You want to prove that these things are defects- and for what purpose? Never mind, I know, it is to justify your bigotry.

You tried to say that gender was not related to sex. I disagreed and was met with a volley of smug put downs. You tried to publish 'scientific' proof but that fell flat too. No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue and no one is against studying it however to come to the conclusion that it is 'statistically normal' is to abdicate oneself from all logic. Murder is 'statistically normal' too but you would not try to argue it's relative benefit.....or would you? You have constantly tried to stereotype me and now you insult even further.

In the human population homosexuality is NOT a normal statistical finding when considering ALL the population because the MAJORITY of the population is NOT homosexual.. You can massage stats all you want but the truth stands as a glaring beacon to your 'statistically normal' lie.

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue" No one except you but now you're trying to walk that back after being called on your dumbed down, simplistic horseshit.

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

 

[RodISHI]

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

 

[Leo123]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

 

[forkup]

That's what I don't agree with. Minorities are always at risk to be shut out of society and sometimes the only option is for the government to step in. If you institutionalize the right to discriminate what is to stop that from happening? The pre-civil rights movement era is a good example for instance for that happening.

I won't argue with the mechanics nor history involved with your comments.
Your question also strays from the religious aspects associated with the OP ... But I don't mind expounding at least a little.

I can say I support discrimination ... Albeit not on the simple grounds of minority status.
The government/society are not my religion ... Nor do they/should they run my business.

We are all at risk of being shut out of society for whatever reason some idiot gives the federal government the ability to dictate ... Just the same as any social pressures.

There are 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
Deciding who is forced to hire who ... Is not one of them.

......

To answer your question ... "If you institutionalize the right to discriminate what is to stop that from happening?"

It is only institutionalized when the institution is established ... More so at the hands of government and regulations.
Governmental activities/regulations and laws were one of the major ways society influenced discrimination.
Minorities were not allowed certain privileges or rights through legal means ... Driven by the then, existing social pressures.
The government (or those in charge at the time) were granting themselves the right to discriminate.

Personally ... I will discriminate and hire whomever I feel is best to fill any position I may have.
I don't give a rat's ass about their minority status ... Nor what the government thinks about it.

My job as a business owner is to provide a product/service to the consumer ... Not to dabble in social engineering at the bequest of the federal government.
I will do business with whomever I see fit ... I can, and may deny service to anyone ... And, I am not required to divulge my reason.
If someone doesn't particularly like who I hire, who I do business with or how I run my business ... They are free to do their business elsewhere.

We can stop it from happening when we discriminate ... And choose to do business with people who offer better options.
Just be thankful the rest of the country doesn't have to meet my standards ... And I don't care what anyone else does with their business ...

.

The reason why I expanded the discussion outside of the realm of religion is because your original comment seemed to include a broad acceptance of discrimination and I felt it made sense to give an actual non religious example of institutional discrimination . I do believe you have one thing wrong. Discrimination is not, not giving special privileges to certain groups. Discrimination is the refusal to give certain groups, the same rights as everybody else. A pretty important nuance. It's the level playing field and sadly enough the US is a country that does pretty bad in that respect to other Western Nations. That's why legislating against it seems like a good idea, every tool a government makes will be imperfect I grant you but I do believe that leaving peoples to their own prejudices without legal pressure to do otherwise is an even worse idea. Laws do guide social mores just as much as the other way around and I refuse to think you believe the mores of the Deep South during the pre civil rights era are exemplary.