protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 61,861
- 21,974
- 2,250
None. Gays are just sexual nutjobs, that's all.
If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...
- Thread starter dblack
- Start date
Pop23
Gold Member
No, that would be like saying breathing is a lifestyle. Heterosexuality serves a purpose, the most important purpose that there is, that is to sustain population. Homosexuality only has minor purpose, and long term, not much.
A Catholic family might be persecuted through many generations, a homosexual is quite different as homosexuality is not passed on from generation to generation (if you can prove homosexuality in the first place).
Background comment:
Everybody discriminates in thousands of ways. It's what out brain does, thousands of times a day. And it's a good thing. It's only bad if we use the info unfairly.
When you look at somebody and notice that they are 6'10" tall but don't notice that they have brown eyes you are discriminating on the basis of height and not eye color. That's not a problem. Your brain should process information that it deems relevant. there is only a problem if you use the info unfairly.
Now, to answer the question:
It's certainly fair to collect info on people's religion and sexuality. And it's certainly fair to use the positive aspects and the negative aspects of this info. There is a way to "overuse" your prejudices, which is being unfairly bigoted, and a way to "underuse" them, which is failing to use your brain. That's true of everything, not just religion and sexuality.
The question, as posed, is trite because it does not distinguish between the ways to use info fairly and unfairly. For instance it would be fair to discriminate against Christians when selecting a new rabbi for a Jewish temple. It would be fair to discriminate against gays in choosing someone to date.
Everybody discriminates in thousands of ways. It's what out brain does, thousands of times a day. And it's a good thing. It's only bad if we use the info unfairly.
When you look at somebody and notice that they are 6'10" tall but don't notice that they have brown eyes you are discriminating on the basis of height and not eye color. That's not a problem. Your brain should process information that it deems relevant. there is only a problem if you use the info unfairly.
Now, to answer the question:
It's certainly fair to collect info on people's religion and sexuality. And it's certainly fair to use the positive aspects and the negative aspects of this info. There is a way to "overuse" your prejudices, which is being unfairly bigoted, and a way to "underuse" them, which is failing to use your brain. That's true of everything, not just religion and sexuality.
The question, as posed, is trite because it does not distinguish between the ways to use info fairly and unfairly. For instance it would be fair to discriminate against Christians when selecting a new rabbi for a Jewish temple. It would be fair to discriminate against gays in choosing someone to date.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 61,861
- 21,974
- 2,250
1. There is no such thing as "homophobic bigot"
2. The 1% were the contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
The devil is in the details.
The gay gene is a genetic defect and can someday be cured and until then aborted before being borned.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
This is just another thread based on the idiotic and divisive premise that it is the gays vs. Christians.
1. Not all Christians are bigots. In fact most are not
2. Many gay people are Christians
3.Many Christian denominations welcome gays and support gay rights, and will even marry them
4. Gay people do not have a problem with Christians. They have a problem with bigots
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
True. dblack needs to realize that because the court Ruled as it did, it's recognizing that LGBT is a lifestyle, not innate. That is THE most devilish detail of them all; because lifestyles have ZERO Constitutional protections from the majority rule. Religion however DOES enjoy Constitutional protections from majority rule. A person of faith passively refusing to participate in what is essentially "other dogma" cannot be punished for doing so.
The problem is Obergefell and how it was ramrodded with what Scalia rightly labelled "voodoo verdict"..something along those lines. Obergefell sidestepped the flawed premise and decided to tell 50 states that yes indeedy, they HAVE to treat a lifestyle (just one, but not others they also object to, like polygamy) as Constitutionally having the right to marry within their borders.
Scalia rightly called Obergefell a train wreck and it is, for a number of reasons. I'll list a few of the big ones here:
1. They assigned rights where they did not belong using a flawed premise on what is just a lifestyle of (just some but not other majority-rejected) behaviors.
2. They refused to allow counsel for children's separate interests. It was a contract- revision Hearing where children share interest and benefits with adults. The contract was RADICALLY revised as to those parties, stripping them for life of either a mother or father using the binding revision they were not allowed counsel to brief on.
3. Ginsburg (and Kagan) were openly performing gay weddings as they knew the question was pending before their Court. Ginsburg actually gave a public interview just weeks before the Hearing saying "America is ready for gay marriage" before a hotly divided America. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 mandates they should've recused themselves. They did not.
Those are "the big three"..
Then they aren't real Christians.
Next you're going to say not all Christians believe in Jesus.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
Yes, that will be next.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Opinion presented as fact/ appeal to ignorance logical fallacy
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
I am?? So you know what I'm going to say before I say it? Actually I was not going to say that next, or at all.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
A Christian may marry a gay lifestylist couple, but that Christian has committed a grave and mortal sin doing so. Part of the devil's expertise is to lull Christians into thinking they can bend the rules "via compassion". You ought to read the book The Screwtape Letters by C.S Lewis. There are a million different ways the faithful can be led to their doom via subtle coercion.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
So you put a lot of time and effort into researching that, right Bubba?
These stats predate Obergefell:
Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html Updated Jan 23, 2014
Here is a summary of what these researchers concluded:
1. Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships, which constitutes about one-fifth of same-sex couples in the U.S. (or rather, a fifth of those who acknowledged themselves as such in recent United States Census reports).
2. About 1% of the total number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced each year, in comparison to about 2% of the total number of married straight couples. Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%, but only 1% or 2% of them get divorced in any particular year.
3. Couples are more likely to legally formalize their relationship when marriage is an option, as opposed to a marriage-equivalent domestic partnership or civil union registration in states where only those options are allowed.
4. Nearly two-thirds of registered or married same-sex couples are lesbians, and only about a third are gay men.
5. A smaller percentage of same-sex couples register or marry in comparison to straight couples, but if current trends continue the marriage/registration rates will be similar in about ten years.
What do these statistics tells us about what is happening with gay marriage and divorce?
First, marriage is much more attractive to same-sex couples than a legally equivalent registration as civil union or domestic partners. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown that same-sex couples are more interested in the social symbolism and community acceptance that is bestowed by marriage, as opposed to the “dry” technical benefits of a domestic partnership or civil union. This should not surprise us — increasingly, gay and lesbian folks seem to be not all that different than straight couples when it comes to love and romance.
Marriage and Same-sex Couples After Obergefell http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...ex-Couples-after-Obergefell-November-2015.pdf
Selected Excerpts:
In 2013, the year that the Windsor ruling was issued, an estimated 230,000 same-sex couples were married, 21% of all same-sex couples. • By June 2015, when Obergefell was decided, 390,000 same-sex couples were married, 38% of all same-sex couples. • As of October 2015, 486,000 same-sex couples were married, or 45% of all same-sex couples.
Pop23
Gold Member
"1. Not all Christians are bigots. In fact most are not"
True, but most do not agree that homosexuals are normal either.
"2. Many gay people are Christians"
Maybe, but we don't know why. If it's a way to make themselves feel more accepted, then it is not for sincere reasons.
"3.Many Christian denominations welcome gays and support gay rights, and will even marry them"
Many will accept Gays, many hope that their involvement will show them the folly of their ways"
"4. Gay people do not have a problem with Christians. They have a problem with bigots"
Then why do we see the constant attack on Christians by Gays and Gay right activists. I have yet to see an openly gay member of this board come to the defense of someone discussing these issues with someone that is religious.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
PP Who gives a shit when "gay marriage" via Obergefell was not arrived at legally? You think the question is over and done. I've got news for you. This recent case has pried it back open again. Obergefell was operating under the premise that "gay is innate". This Decision just said in its essence, between the lines "no it's not". And because it's not, it never had the right to use the USSC to overwrite the Legislature's addendums to federal law regarding discrimination.
Pop23
Gold Member
I can only speculate that the "VIP's" opinion would be more plausible than someone who's lifestyle is not accepted by most Christian religions.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Really? Did you take a survey? If you did, how did you define normal?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
President Trump's Speech On Iran Offered Hope The War Will End Soon?
- Started by JimofPennsylvan
- Replies: 6
-
