The most common definition of a slave is: A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. There is another definition however: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for 150 years, but some people want to bring it back… but not necessarily in the form you might think. Uncle Sam of course is not a master and citizens are not his slaves. The government – at least not the government defined in the Constitution – doesn’t have the right to tell Americans who they have to work for or who their businesses have to serve.
It can however, at least according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, demand that businesses that offer to provide services to the public not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That means however that if you are offering to sell cakes, you must not decide that you will sell cakes to men and not women, to Jews but not Christians, to blacks but not whites, or to a native born American but not a naturalized citizen born in Canada.
Interestingly, other than religion all of the limitations are innate, things that people are born with or had from birth. That prohibition also applies to the later characteristics defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRA says what a business can’t do, it can’t discriminate based on a clear set of criteria… but it says nothing about what they must do. A black chef can’t legally refuse to provide service to someone who walks in simply because he’s white. He can however choose not to provide service to him when the man tells him that the event is a celebration of KKK history. That’s discrimination, but it’s legal discrimination and its well within the chef’s rights.
The CRA lists specific criteria upon which a business is not allowed to discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But that’s it. Other than those reasons any business can choose who they would like to serve. A 7-11 store is well within its rights to say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. By the same token a gun store can choose not to sell a gun to a drunk person and business can choose not to hire people with tattoos. A community can limit its inhabitants to those over 55 or a storekeeper with a Napoleon complex can choose to never serve customers over 6 ft. These restrictions may or may not be prudent, but none of them are illegal as businesses have the right to choose to whom they provide services within the framework of the CRA, the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause upon which both are based.
Which brings us to the issue of bakers and photographers and others. The question is, working under the shadow of the Equal Protection Clause, do such businesses have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, something their faith tells them is a sin? Absolutely. Do they have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding? Absolutely. Should they be protected from lawsuits for doing so? Of course.
The point is, in almost every one of these cases the service providers did not refuse service because someone was gay. Rather, they declined to participate in an activity their faith tells them is sinful. Indeed the baker in the case actually offered to let the gay couple purchase any one of the cakes in his shop. He was simply refusing to bake a gay themed wedding cake.
The distinction between the activity and a customer’s gayness or lack thereof may be a fine one, but it is an important one. The CRA says businesses cannot discriminate against customers based on various innate or unchangeable characteristics. Significantly, the characteristic of being gay is not among them. Which means that theoretically businesses have the right to discriminate against gays or 22 year olds or journalists with no threat of government sanction. Nonetheless, most Americans oppose discriminating against people for their sexual orientation and the businesses in question were not doing so. (Similarly, 85% of Americans believe service providers should be allowed to decline to participate in gay weddings.) They were simply declining to participate in an activity that their faith says is sinful.
The jilted couples in these cases looked to the government to force the said businesses to provide the services they wanted. In all three cases the government obliged stating that the religious objections of the business owners were trumped by the couple’s equal protections. That is both unfortunate and absurd. If the government can force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay couple, can it force a Muslim grocer who does special orders to special order pork? Can it compel the aforementioned black chef to cater the KKK’s event? Can it force a vegan landlord to rent his building to someone wanting to open a steakhouse? The answer of course is no, no and no and the reason is because Americans are not slaves and the government has no right to compel them to do things that go against their moral convictions.
That is likely news to people in government (and their liberal enablers) who believe they are the masters of the American people. They are not. Americans are free and by constitution they have given government limited powers – even if the government is increasingly obliterating those limits. Of those freedoms, religious freedom is among the most important. It is what brought the Pilgrims to America 400 years ago and it’s been a hallmark of American society ever since. A government commanding its citizens to do things beyond its scope is never a good idea, which Obamacare demonstrates on a daily basis. A government commanding its citizens to do something that goes against their religious faith is even worse because it undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the government itself. If these rulings stand, if the most basic freedom to abstain from participating in activities your religion tells you are sinful is now largely gone, then the progressive barbarians are no longer at the gate… they’ve entered your home, taken control of your life and have carte blanche to force you to do whatever it is they demand – or face ruinous consequences otherwise. Such is the kindling with which revolutionary fires are often started…
See author page
@George Wells:
forced? What form did that force take? Were you beaten with a whip? Fingernails torn out? Electric shock treatments? If you want to go down that road, I could say I was ‘forced’ to sign my name to a sheet of paper in order to serve my country, but I won’t say that, I’ll say I did it voluntarily because I wanted to. I’ll bet that you actually voluntarily lied, I don’t believe someone actually applied force to you.
strange use of the word, honorably, considering that you lied to do it.
I would contend that no one is forced to pay auto insurance. Most pay it voluntarily for the option to drive. You can certainly opt to not drive.
I never did, couldn’t hold my interest, very boring.
@George Wells:
When you have to lie to achieve something, George, you have not achieved it honorably, no matter how you want to paint it. You lied. You admit you lied and by lying, you violated the trust that the citizens of this nation were putting into you.
You seem to not understand the difference between giving a portion of the fruits of your labor to fund the requirements of the government and being forced to contribute your labor against your will. I have no objection to carrying insurance on my vehicle for the damage I might occur. What I object to is having to carry “uninsured motorist” insurance that will repair my vehicle in case I get hit by say, an illegal alien with no license and no insurance. I fully understand the concept that with rights come responsibilities. A concept that seems alien to you. You accept the right to live in this nation but want to avoid the responsibility to obey the law. You personally don’t like the law, as it currently stands, feel imposed on (when you have an option to move to another nation more to your liking) and demand that others accept your demands.
Time after time, our founding fathers spoke of the benefit of a “moral and religious” society. Yet, you want to abolish standard morals and mock religiosity. Live your life as you choose with the fetishes you desire, but stop trying to force it down the throats of those you consider your “enemy.”
@retire05 et.al.:
I choose to work WITHIN THE SYSTEM to effect the changes in the LAW that I believe are justified by the principles enumerated in OUR Constitution, AS IS MY RIGHT. The generation of young voters coming on-line support MY agenda overwhelmingly, and not if, but WHEN I achieve my goals, they will be BY DEFINITION lawful and just. If you think that those gains force something down your Freudian throats, then I suggest that you develop a hearty appetite.
The argument against gay marriage is actually a collection of many smaller statements in opposition, each of which has some “ring of truth”. But upon close inspection, the logic of each reason fails, with the result that neither individually nor collectively do they constitute a valid reason for denying gays the right to marry.
Each reason is usually offered in sequence to present a moving target so that proponents of marriage equality never get a “clean shot” at rebutting them collectively. The exception to this is when these arguments against gay marriage are presented in court, and the results of this opportunity to weigh each of them individually and then to take their combined effect into consideration is telling. Thirteen state and federal courts in a row have concluded that these arguments are insufficiently compelling to prevail. Let’s look at each of them individually and see why.
1. “Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.” Even if this statement WAS true, it doesn’t weigh on the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry, as both abnormal people and those who do unnatural things ARE allowed to marry. Red-haired people are abnormal (“normalcy” is a measure of the frequency a trait is encountered in a population, and red hair presents in between 1 and 2 % of the human population – less than the frequency of homosexuality.) And flying into outer-space and piercing your body for artistic effect are “unnatural behaviors”, yet people who do these things are allowed to marry. Normalcy and naturalness are not legal or moral requirements of marriage.
2. “Gays cannot have children” (the “marriage is all about having children” argument. In addition to “breeders,” elderly couples are allowed to marry, as are infertile couples. For these non-breeding couples, marriage isn’t about children. It’s about “love” or “support” or any other measure of connectedness that they individually choose to value, and the state honors their definition of their relationship and accepts their witness that these considerations qualify theirs as legitimate marriages. The transposition of this argument into “marriage is for couples “who-could-possibly-at-one-time-in-the-past-have-had-children”” is an absurdly-stretched veil of pseudo-logic interjected when the logic flaw of the previous argument is revealed.
3. “God has told us through inspired scripture that homosexuality is an abomination.” “He” also told us through those same scriptures that “arrogance” (Proverbs 16:5), “deviousness” (Proverbs 3:32), “burning incense” (Isaiah 1:13), “remarrying a former husband” (Deuteronomy 24:4), “keeping a false balance” (Proverbs 11:1-31), “woman wearing a man’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5), “scoffing” (Proverbs 24:9), “having haughty eyes” (Proverbs 6:16-19) to name a few, are “abominations,” yet we allow people who do these things to marry. We are also told in Galatians5:19-21 that people who suffer “drunkenness, fits of anger, rivalries and envy” will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Same thing. You cannot argue convincingly that you are discriminating against gays because you are encouraged to do so by God’s laws when you fail to adhere to so many of His other “laws”.
4. “Children do BEST in married, biological father-and-mother family settings.” While this MIGHT be true (married gay families with children are relatively new and no definitive study has yet been made of them), there are plenty of other, less-than-optimal family combinations that none-the-less are given the opportunity to marry. And opponents concede that SOME gay couples DO make excellent parents.
5. “History and tradition have upheld the traditional definition of marriage for thousands of years.” Didn’t King Solomon have 300 wives and an additional 200 concubines? Wasn’t slavery already a “tradition” when the Bible’s Old Testament was written, and one that was maintained for the first 200 years of American’s history? Wasn’t “stoning-to-death” a punishment of preference back in the day? The fact that something WAS done in the past isn’t proof that it is good or right for today’s world.
6. “The Constitutional specification of “States’ Rights” grants to the states autonomy to determine for themselves which of their citizens shall be allowed to marry.” This statement is true only so far as the states’ choices do not conflict with the Constitution’s overriding protections of individual liberties. The SCOTUS determined in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia (and the handful of states with similar marriage restrictions) had infringed upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of interracial couples who wanted to marry.
7. “Judicial activism shouldn’t be allowed to overturn the will of the electorate.” The “will of the people” can at times assume the flavor of a mob mentality. The opportunity of the majority to oppress the minority was amply appreciated by the Founding Fathers and has continued to be by subsequent leadership. For this reason, provisions for the judicial override of legislative initiatives that infringe on individual liberties were put into place. When the judiciary throws out a law seeking to impose gun restrictions, is THAT judicial activism?
The logic behind each of these arguments fails. Yet many opponents who use these arguments use them as if their logic was iron-clad. They should not be accused of lying. While some doubtlessly keep up the “good fight” largely for political reasons, the vast majority of them have other reasons that they prefer not to divulge. A few may be harboring personal “doubts” and maintain their objections as a diversionary tactic. Others are motivated by fear of the unknown, some may have learned through a negative personal experience to distrust or hate gays as a class, while still others have accepted religious teaching on the subject. This latter group probably has the most honest (if not logical or rational) reason for holding to the objection to gay marriage, but our constitutionally protected religious freedoms make it clear that one person’s religion (or it’s effects) may not be imposed on another.
Clearly there ARE difficult differences to be resolved. In the long journey ahead, victories will be celebrated and defeats will be lamented on both sides, but reconciliation will finally prevail. In the interim, it will be helpful for BOTH sides to carefully evaluate their own motives and the reasoning behind the arguments they make, and make sure that the conclusions they reach are not in conflict with the guiding principles of the America that they pledge allegiance to.
When liberals make their bid against the Electoral College I will be quoting you, George.
Thanks.
Those small states and low population states deserve as much representation as they can get.
@Nanny G #105:
I’m glad that you think that way. The Electoral College was put in place for a good reason, back when over 80% of the population lived on farms. Today, the reason to protect the interests of farmers has perhaps diminished in proportion to the needs of significantly larger numbers of city-dwellers, but it remains none-the-less.
Personally, I think that the judiciary is, through it’s… “judicial activism” (LOL) providing adequate protections for the interests of minorities of all stripes, and I cannot imagine why farmers would not enjoy their fair cut of that. And I suspect that eventually, the Electoral College will fall to the “One-Person-One-Vote” crowd. But for the reason you associate YOUR interest with MINE, I hope it doesn’t happen soon.
(A continuation of post #104:)
Additional failed arguments in opposition to gay marriage include:
8. “The word “marriage” has only one irrefutable, immutable meaning, and that is the union of a man and a woman.”
No word has an irrefutable or immutable meaning. Word meanings change over time as a function of their usage, i.e., their semantic evolution. In 1900, the word “gay” simply meant “happy,” and the word “nice” originally meant “stupid” or “ignorant”. One should research “the changing meanings of words” or the “dictionary of word origins” for a bountiful supply of similar examples. The word “marriage” once meant ONLY the union of a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE, and at numerous times it has also included “the union of a man and one OR MORE women…”
When some word meanings change, they evolve into something entirely different from their original meaning, as in the “nice” example above. More frequently, a second meaning is added to the first one, as was the case with the word “gay”. In the case of the word “marriage,” the original meaning will remain unaltered as the first and most conventional usage of the word, but the secondary usage – the one that includes gay unions – will be added. This is simply how dictionaries – and the language – work.
9. “Giving gays the right to marry robs exclusivity from heterosexual marriage.”
This argument appears to be true in the shallowest sense, but the opposition to marriage equality has repeatedly failed to demonstrate any negative consequence associated with the expansion of marriage rights. In particular, no adverse effects on married heterosexuals can be convincingly postulated, exactly as was the case when this argument was used in opposition to interracial marriage. With a continuing decline in marriage rates that began long before anyone DREAMED of gay marriage, the inclination of heterosexuals to join in matrimony clearly has nothing to do with gays. The suggested “robbery” resolves into nothing more than an evolution of the meaning of the word “marriage” as discussed above.
George Wells
how WORTHY is a name change, as oppose to the CREATION of MANKIND, AS MAN AND WOMAN
for the sole purpose of procreate the HUMAN, for as long as this EARTH WAS made for the HUMAN,
AND THE WORD MARIAGE IS BLESSED BY THE REPRESENTANT OF GOD WHICH CHOSE TO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO GOD’S WILL,
ANY OTHER CHANGE IS FALSIFICATION,
@bees #108:
Doesn’t sound like you support freedom of religion, bees. There are Christian churches that support and perform gay weddings. If you start pitting one religion against another, where will it end? Why are you not willing to let others keep their faith as you keep yours?
@bees #109:
I suggest that you read some of the legal decisions being handed down by the federal judges who are deciding these gay marriage cases, and read them in their entirety. I just read the Michigan case, decided by a Reagan appointee, and he covered many of the points I made above, with legal references attached. There is a reason that both Democrat and Republican judges are deciding these cases the same way, and that reason is the Constitution.
You have no idea what God intended, any more that I have. We are BOTH here by His grace, and we both have been given much the same opportunities. What we have NOT been given is dominion over one or the other. You are free to believe what you like, and I am similarly free to believe. But I have no more right to force my beliefs on you than you have a right to force your beliefs on me. The courts are seeming to agree with this position.
I would point out that all of that bronze-Age crap about stoning people who were “abominations” (read post #104, item #3 again) was written by MEN who evidently had a lot of issues…
@George Wells: George you left out a couple of words that you should discuss. Dream, what you’re doing when you writing your definition of words you ‘wish’ had changed. So while you ‘wish’ what you’re saying is true, it’s likely you’re only in a ‘dream’
George Wells
you speak of much WISDOM, , it sound like you have made your peace ,
with the other who cling to their STAND, I am one of them, that”s why I rebuff,
AND BRING SOME ATTENTION TO YOU, I STILL THINK THAT YOUR LIVES ARE ALL FREE,
and question why the mariage in CHURCH REPRESENTING GOD, you have everything else,
why asking this one, hey where did i hear that last sentence before,
i am not trying to prevent you to follow your RELIGION, NO REALLY, BUT YOU DO IT YOURSELF,
KNOW THAT I DON’T JUDGE YOU, IT’S YOU WHO JUDGE ME AND THE OTHER WHO THINK DIFFRENTLY,
HERE WE HAVE THE FORUM OPEN TO TELL TRULY OUR TRUE OPINION,
THAT STARTED WITH YOUR OPINION, WE WOULD NOT HAVE APROCH THE SUBJECT IF NO ONE BRING IT ON,
HERE IT’S LIKE A WAVE, AND WE ARE TAKEN BY IT AND MAKE OUR THOUGHTS COME TO THE OUTSIDE, OTHERWISE WE WOULD KEEP THEM TO OURSELVES AND LET IT DRAWN IN THE SEA OF OTHER THOUGHTS
on the whole we are keeping our sanity, since the blog started, it served a very important purpouse to
let out emotions so they don’t destroy us if they stay inside, at least some of them reach ,
THE DEBT OF THE SOUL and linger too long some of them, like the YOU TUBE I WAS WATCHING,
a while ago, of animal dog for sale , kept in outrageous locations and abused to the max,
this is hard to shake out, after leaving the video,
you mentioned ABOMINATION AND IT FIT WHAT I SAW,
bye
@Redteam #111:
Well, as you cannot rationally dispute the ACTUAL, REAL events that are happening all around you, cannot dispute the court’s logic or the constitutional basis for it, cannot rationally justify ANY of the positions you have taken, I don’t find it surprising that you are only left with “dreams”, and it is understandable that you express your displeasure with reality in those terms.
Do you suppose that eventually YOU will be the only person left awake, with all the rest of America – and the lion’s share of the rest of the “free world” – dreaming in some sort of alternate reality that you tried so hard to deny ever existed in the first place?
I am not dreaming when I refer to what the Constitution says, and I am making up nothing when I explain what the courts have been deciding and why. Years ago, had someone told me that these events would happen as quickly as they are now, I would have told them that THEY were dreaming. So I appreciate how you might be thinking along those same lines. But it is no dream.
My predictions are coming true. Looks like I understand this reality. I hope you enjoy yours, wherever it is.
@bees #112:
Thank you, bees. Very reasonably stated.
I would remind you that I have NEVER supported the idea that any church or any clergy would ever have to sponsor or perform or host a gay wedding if they did not approve of such unions, and I will fight against any effort to make them act in that manner. My understanding is that the courts have NEVER allowed that to happen and never will, as the concept of the separation of church and state combines with constitutional provisions for religious freedom to render that right impenetrable. The suggestion that gays will FORCE unwilling churches to marry them is an attempt to anger people with a false prophesy.
You might also like to know that some Anglican Churches, some Episcopal Churches, some “Old Catholic”, “Reformed Catholic” and “Liberal Catholic” Churches, some Lutheran Churches, some Methodist Churches, some United Church of Christ Churches, most Unitarian Universalist Churches and all Metropolitan Community Churches perform gay weddings already. Gay couples wishing to have their marriages performed in their Lord’s house have many, willing options.
George Wells
YES AND IT HELP THEIR BOX TO FILL UP,
THOSE YOU MENTIONED are not CATHOLIC , I PRESUME,
SO THEY DON’T ANSWER TO THE POPE MORE RIGOROUS LAWS OF THE CHURCH,
IF some call it evolve, maybe someday they will,
but the GAY COUPLE , must have a mix feeling after they are maried by one who we call evolve, invoking GOD TO WITNESS THAT UNION
I would never feel sure that his power to do it has not faded, to make him willing to marry those couple,
THE GAY HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TO SWEAR TO BELONG TO EACH OTHER ,
BY THEMSELVES IN PRIVATE, SO TO FEEL LIBERATED MORE,
THE PREST ARE NOT OBEYING THEIR VOW, IF THEY DECIDE ON THEIR OWN ,
TO MARRY THE GAY COUPLE, SO THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH REGULATION,
AND BY ASSOCIATION LOSE THEIR PRESTHOOD,
I’M PRETTY SURE, SO THAT WOULD FALSIFY THE MARIAGE BEFORE GOD’S WITNESSING,
THIS IS NO JOKE, IT BECOME A BIG SCAM, DON’T YOU THINK ?
IF THEY FOOL THE COUPLE, THEY ARE CHARLATAN,
JUST LIKE THE ONE WHO INVOKE OTHER PAGENS SO TO GAIN SOMETHING,
i read a few times that the GRANDMOTHER OF OBAMA
was a regular in that sort of sorcellery, she took him with her,FOR WITNESSING SOME CABAL,
@George Wells:
That sounds like a school ground: na na na nah, you’re one too, argument.
@Redteam#116:
Like your #111 post presented an argument to rebut?????
Ppppppfffffttttt!
@bees #115:
“THE PREST ARE NOT OBEYING THEIR VOW, IF THEY DECIDE ON THEIR OWN ,
TO MARRY THE GAY COUPLE, SO THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH REGULATION,
AND BY ASSOCIATION LOSE THEIR PRESTHOOD”
The churches I referred to are churches in which the LEADERSHIP (not the priests) made the decisions (usually decided at denominational conventions, by vote) to accept gay marriage. In most of the cases, the choice to conduct gay marriages or not is left to the individual congregations, the purpose of that being to avoid (as much as possible) forcing parishioners into uncomfortable circumstance. Generally, the congregational votes are not unanimous, and some parishioners consequently relocate. But the decision at the congregational level is also made by vote.
THE COMPANY YOU KEEP:
The following countries allow gay marriage:
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Iceland, Mexico (some states), Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United States (some states), Uruguay and Wales.
The following countries allow gay civil unions:
Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Greenland, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Mexico (some states), Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Switzerland, United States (some states), and Venezuela (some states).
Some countries outlaw homosexuality. They include:
Myanmar, Uganda, Nigeria (and about 2/3 of the other countries in Africa)), and countries in the Muslim World, including Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. Punishments include imprisonment and death. Russia recently enacted anti-gay laws.
Sometimes when staking out a position on a cultural issue, it is helpful to consider who else holds the same view.
George Wells
geez how do you all multiply so much without procreating?
YOU ALL ARE OUT TO TAKE THE WOLRD,
@George Wells:
Obama’s record with England (the UK) is poor.
He returned the bust of Churchill, he called another country our greatest ally, he gave cheesy gifts to their leaders, he refused to send any sitting high-level official to Maggie Thatcher’s funeral and so on.
Obama’s record with these countries is better.
We are sending troops to Uganda.
Obama gave an apology speech to Islam in one of these countries, bowed to the leader of another one of them, is allowing one of them to get ”the bomb,” and so on.
George Well, you are correct.
It really does boil down to THE COMPANY YOU KEEP.
@George Wells: Like your #119 post
Ppppppfffffttttt!
England? Scotland? Wales? Not yet. but soon.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
They have a good recruiting program.
Redteam
HI,
yes George Wells make sure of promoting it,
BYE
@bees #124:
“yes George Wells make sure of promoting it”
There is NOWHERE, in ANYTHING I have written, that has suggested that there is ANYTHING about being homosexual that would cause someone who is NOT homosexual to want to “become” one. In fact, in earlier posts, I discussed at length how VERY difficult it is (or at least it WAS) to grow up gay in a straight world, and that if being homosexual WAS a choice as has been suggested, then it would be reasonable to conclude that ANYONE making that “choice” should be considered INSANE. I SAID THAT! When I was growing up, it was TRUE!
When I came of sexually mature age (at around eleven), I was terrified. I had heard about homosexuality from the news, from our preacher, and from other children, and it was ALL BAD! I was going to Hell, I was going to prison, I would die of terrible diseases. I kept my ugly little secret for fourteen years, ruining my adolescence completely in the process. Never went on a date, to a dance, a “prom” or a movie with ANYONE. I wished I was not the way I was. I prayed. I read what I could find. Nothing worked, and I attempted suicide. My parents then gave me a book about a bull calf that preferred smelling flowers to fighting other bulls and the bull fighters. Pppfffttt!
I will never regain those fourteen years. I would never wish them on anyone else, and that is part of the reason I am fighting for equal rights for other gay people, ESPECIALLY for the children who are just now discovering how different they are, so that they may not have to go through the same torture I went through. That isn’t the same thing as “promoting” and it certainly isn’t “recruiting”. Even today, with the great gains gays are making politically, there is still plenty to discourage anyone from “considering” being gay, if it was a choice in the first place – WHICH IT ISN’T! Even if it WAS a choice, I wouldn’t recommend it. You can take that to the bank.
@Nanny G #121:
Your attempt to sully President Obama in the same context of my discussion of the countries that are accepting gay marriage as opposed to those that are not is disingenuous in the extreme. My post made the OBVIOUS observation that the countries that are currently embracing their gay citizens as equal partners in every respect under the law are those countries that are members of WESTERN CIVILIZATION, and that the countries that do not are members of the MUSLIM WORLD and (70% of) CONTINENTAL AFRICA.
There is a clear divergence on the issue of homosexual rights that aligns itself parallel to the differences between Muslim values and those of Western Civilization. Don’t YOU find it curious that YOUR position on this issue coincides with that of the MUSLIM WORLD? Or 70% of CONTINENTAL AFRICA?
(I do.)
My position is totally different from those, George.
I have no issue with homosexuality.
None.
All humankind sins in one (or more) way or another.
Homosexual activity is just one of many sinful activities.
But Christians (unlike Muslims) believe God is the judge, not men.
We allow sinful actions all around us and do nothing in punishment.
God does any punishment AFTER death.
As long as people breathe they can stop willfully sinning…..the sinning we are all born in is another matter.
Islam takes away the chance to repent by killing those they disagree with.
Now, a nation that allows marriage between same sex couples is also no big deal, as it is a secular decision, bot holy matrimony at all.
It is when the STATE demands that photographers, florists, cake decorators and so on are FORCED by that STATE to serve customers beyond merely them walking in and getting a cake or bouquet or photo, but in terms of being at a gay reception that is going too far.
I happen to believe a Christian might give a powerful witness to his faith by going to such an affair and working diligently and quietly even while disagreeing.
But I also know many Christians disagree on matters of conscience, such as associating with sinners.
(For instance, an ex-alcoholic Christian might refuse to associate with parties where drinking will be out of hand.)
The Bible makes very clear that fellow Christians should not impose on weaker or newer Christians in matters of conscience.
But the STATE wants to take that away and impose a one-size-fits-all conscience on ALL Christians.
That is where I have a problem.
Islam is way ahead of Obama on imposing one way of living and thinking on everyone under their Sharia Law.
But Obama is using their pattern.
@George Wells:
As you well know, they are going to go through essentially the same thing you did, because while it may be ‘more acceptable’, I’m sure it must be hell when a person figures out that they are not ‘straight’. It’s one thing for it to be more acceptable and another thing for someone to realize that they are going to have to be ‘accepted’.
@George Wells: ,
And I think the point is that these are the countries that Zippy seems to like.
@Nanny G:
I wonder how well it would go over if a cake maker that was forced to go to the gay wedding actually witnessed to the attendees about it being a sin to be gay(according to the scriptures). Maybe even handed out pamphlets about it. I’m relatively sure the gay couple would be okay with it because if the cake maker is supposed to be okay with attending to keep from stepping on the gay couple’s ‘rights’ then the gay couple surely wouldn’t want to step on the Christian’s rights to witness to the sinning of the group. Right?
@Redteam:
Let’s be quite clear; it is forced “acceptance” that the gay lobby (which GW denies exists) demands.
It is one thing to expect tolerance, another to demand total acceptance. But where is the acceptance from the other side, the gay side? Absurd spectacles, invading people’s right to worship at Catholic churches in San Francisco, picketing Christian businesses as well as suing Christian businesses out of business, threats of violence toward those that don’t agree with their proclivities, the list is endless.
The New York St. Patrick’s Day parade (a parade celebrating a religious holiday in Ireland) has a rule that there can be no political expressions in the parade. But that was not good enough for the gay lobby in New York. They demanded to march in the parade with their rainbow flag and their absurd costumes. They were denied and were outraged.
But when Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League, requested that the Catholic League be granted the right to march in the gay parade wearing “Straight Is Great” t-shirts, GLAD told him that they “have rules” that must be adhered to, and those t-shirts would violate the “gay” theme of the parade. Nothing like double standards. So you see, it is fine for the gays to insist that other groups cave to their demands, but they are not willing to retaliate the same considerations.
I am a supporter of tolerance; the whole “live and let live” thing, but I will not cave to the gay lobby’s demand for total acceptance.
@retire05:
Forced acceptance is no acceptance at all. If you get a speeding ticket, you accept it, but that sure doesn’t mean you like it or support it.
Acceptance is good and pure when it’s you demanding it, but when you have to give it, then it’s the very devil itself.
George Wells
I see i have chosen the wrong word, to mean that you are active in working for your cause,
i didn”t mean to offend you, by saying it,
i understand from what you mention of your youth was tormented ,
for all those years , MAYBE THERE WAS A SOLUTION WHICH YOU WHERE TOO SHY TO TRY,
LIKE A DOCTOR ADVICE FOR A YOUNG PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUST DO,
IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE SO NEGATIVE,
ONE GOOD THING IS YOU OUTLIVE THE TORMENT AND MADE A GOOD LIFE FOR YOU,
A FRIEND OF MINE HAD TWO SONS, ONE OF THEM WAS EFFEMINATE AND HE WAS INSULTED
BY HIS OWN FATHER TRYING TO MAKE HIM MORE RUGGED,
AND ONCE I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM, AND HE DID NOT TELL HE WAS GAY, BUT HE SAID OF BEING TORMENTED AND UNABLE TO FIND HIS PEACEFULL LIFE, I KNEW ALREADY FROM HIS MOTHER SAD OF NOTICING HIS FATHER BULLY HIM, NOW THE YOUNG MAN IS OLDER AND FOUND HIS LIFE, BUT THE WORSE TIME IS WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR SEXUAL AROUSING COMMING STRONG,
AND THE TORMENT ARRIVE, DEPENDING IF AND WHO IS INFLUENCING THEIR LIVES’
IF IT’S A TEACHER OR A FRIEND GAY, THEY WLL BE GENTIL SOFT AND LOVING TO THE YOUNG SO TO GET HIM TO HAVE SEX WITH, AND THERE THE DESCENT IN HELL FOR THAT YOUNG BEGINING HIS SEXUAL LIFE ATTACH TO THE GAY WHO WON HIS TORMENTED SOUL AND MADE IT NORMALITY,
HOW MANY YOUNG FALL INTO THOSE TRAPS SO TO REMAIN IN IT,
TOO MANY,
Bees:
I find it amazing that people here are so… unaware. There are some who are absolutely convince that homosexuality is a choice, and others who think that gays “recruit” younger straight boys. Others cannot understand why there are always so many gays around, since they cannot reproduce. These views demonstrate a vast ignorance of great and evidently insatiable depth, and I cannot realistically hope to illuminate this darkness.
I CAN tell you that not everything you say is wrong. For example, MY father used to try to teach me to love football as he did. He’d sit me down and try to get me to watch the games on TV – I’d be interested in the player’s shiny tight pants. He’d try to teach me to throw a football, and it would hit me in the nose until it bled – many times.
I can also tell you only how one person learned to have sex and to love. Me. I was not the teacher. When I was 25, I met Paul. He was 21 at the time. He had seriously “been” with two people previously, both of his same approximate age, so he had a bit of experience and also had learned something about love, which I had not. He taught me love. We have been together for 38 years now, and after all of these years, I can say with as much confidence as I ever have in anything that he is not evil. He is kind, generous, loving, faithful – everything that I never dreamed I would be fortunate enough to find and to spend my life with. I have never, EVER encountered a “predator”.
There are some gays who behave as you suggest, just as there are some straights who “recruit” children into sexual slavery. Either case is a crime. But I do not make the mistake of suggesting that all straight children are indoctrinated into premature sexual encounters by older straights, and you should not make the corresponding mistake regarding the “initiation” of gay children into adult sexuality.
Everyone learns from every other one. The ones who have more intuition, understanding, compassion, love AND experience “teach” those who have relatively less of these things. This is true of ALL people, straight AND gay.
@George Wells:
then you are lucky. When I was a teen ager, actually the first time at age 12, I was clearly ‘propositioned’. In the first case, he would let me ‘drive his car’, really, at age 12. The next time I was 15. I had hitched a ride, the guy offered me some money if I would’ let him’. I got out of the car. The next time, at 16, it was just a clear ask me if I would. I said no. None of the three ‘pressed their case’, they all accepted my answer. But, it does happen. I sure didn’t approach them, I’d say they were on a ‘recruitment’ campaign. I do accept, as I’ve said before, that some are born gay and some choose to be gay, in my opinion.
@Redteam #135:
I’ll then share with you that I WAS hit on, a number of times, by older women, during my under-legal-age period. The first time was when I was cutting lawns at an apartment complex. (I was 14.) This lady invited me into her apartment, having “noticed” that I was all hot and sweaty, and probably thirsty. Things got pretty creepy. Then, one night while I was touring out West with my family, I was swimming after dark in the motel’s pool (probably in New Mexico) when a woman who shook like she had the palsy came out and wanted to chat. She was maybe 50+. It was maybe 9:30 – after dark, and me wearing a speedo. She invites me up to her room to “move her television set.” I respectfully declined.
“None of (these women) ‘pressed their case’, they all accepted my answer. But, it does happen. I sure didn’t approach them, I’d say they were on a ‘recruitment’ campaign.”
Ditto.
From what I understand from watching “To Catch A Predator,” the cases you described AND the cases I described would both result in successful prosecutions, as we were both “under-age.” Fortunately, neither of us were in serious danger. But neither you nor anyone else should presume that predatory behavior is limited to either males OR homosexuals. Just in case ANYONE was coming to that conclusion…
@George Wells:
I would also, but note that they were female and you were male, the normal course of things. (I had a couple opportunities that way also, but didn’t take either of them)
You don’t know Scripture, Redteam, if you think it says a status is a sin.
It is behavior that is sinful, not status.
Scripture makes it very clear that ”that is what some of you WERE,” when it comes to practicers of homosexual acts, drinking to the point of drunkedness, and other wrong acts.
Those who were once made a habit of all those sins were washed clean by QUITTING their wrong practices and becoming Christians.
@Nanny G:
I didn’t say that the scriptures said that a status was a sin. I said it is a sin to ‘be gay’. To me, ‘be gay’ means doing the act, ie., a ‘behavior’.
You’re not ‘gay’ when you’re sitting in a chair, you’re gay when you are doing a gay act..
I think you probably understood my message.
@Redteam #137:
““None of (these women) ‘pressed their case’, they all accepted my answer. But, it does happen. I sure didn’t approach them, I’d say they were on a ‘recruitment’ campaign.””
I case you failed to notice, this quote from my #136 was quoting YOU (#135). It may have been a “normal course of things” as you suggest and would seem to condone because of that, but it was predatory, as I was underage, and is either way a crime. Predation knows no sexual orientation boundaries.
@Nanny G #138:
Regarding the scriptures, you are correct, and your criticism of redteam’s condemnation of “gay” (= sin) is also correct. Redteam employs his own personal dictionary that does not respect accepted definitions of words. When caught misusing words, he makes the feeble excuse that his definitions are “different” from those in common use, and that in spite of his erroneous usage, you “understood his message.”
The term “gay” is synonymous with “homosexual” (check your dictionary) and NEITHER are dependent upon “behavior,” as he is suggesting.
I AM curious about your decision to follow scripture on this particular point, as scripture has proven to be relatively flawed in its proscription of behaviors:
God has told us through inspired scripture that homosexuality is an abomination. “He” also told us through those same scriptures that “arrogance” (Proverbs 16:5), “deviousness” (Proverbs 3:32), “burning incense” (Isaiah 1:13), “remarrying a former husband” (Deuteronomy 24:4), “keeping a false balance” (Proverbs 11:1-31), “woman wearing a man’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5), “scoffing” (Proverbs 24:9), “having haughty eyes” (Proverbs 6:16-19) to name a few, are additional “abominations,” yet we allow people who do these things to marry. We are also told in Galatians5:19-21 that people who suffer “drunkenness, fits of anger, rivalries and envy” will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Same thing. You cannot argue convincingly that you are discriminating against gays because you are encouraged to do so by God’s laws when you fail to adhere to all of His other “laws”.
If you are self-righteous in your condemnation of ALL of these so-called “abominations,” then I will respect the self-consistency of your position but pity those you live amongst. However, if you have selectively chosen from the list to condemn gays and ignored “God’s intention” on other “abominations,” you are a hypocrite. (Or a bigot – I’d have to check my dictionary again.)
Prayer frequently seen on tee-shirts:
“DEAR GOD,
PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS.”
@George Wells:
Wow! George. You were the one that said you didn’t know much about Scriptures (the Bible) although having read it. Now you are quoting Scriptures as if you are a Biblical scholar. So which is it?
Which simply mocks those who do believe in God. But mocking the opposition is fair in your book, as long as you don’t get mocked back, right? Then your fellow travelers sue in the courts of the land. You, yourself, have made statements about Christians that were not complimentary, but hey, as long as you’re being politically correct, what’s the big deal, agree?
Maybe God’s followers should really honor the request made by the t-shirt and when a gay is harmed by someone, refuse to go to the aid of the gay that was harmed since you want us followers to stay away from your ilk. How would that sit with you?
@Redteam: I’ll tell you why I missed your message.
When I was in college the whole legal issue of status crimes was going through the courts to the Supreme Court.
I was part of a criminology major’s project about the status crime of being a vagrant.
We went to a town with vagrancy laws still on the books and stood around until police came.
Then we talked with them about how easily they could change their out-dated law into ones against the various acts of vagrants.
None of us were arrested.
It was an indelible learning experience.
Fair questions, George.
Tough to answer, however.
How familiar are you with the Bible?
In it is the Mosaic Law, done away with by Jesus’ sacrifice of his perfect life to give us a 2nd Adam who we can choose as our spiritual father.
In it are also a few laws that pre-date the Mosaic law.
These are very few in number.
Acts 15 addresses this issue of whether Christians had to put themselves under all of the Mosaic Law (everything you mentioned were part of that Law) or not.
A key point is made by the early governing body of the Christian population starting at verse 28-30.
Note it well.
Note also the rejoicing of those early Christians starting at verse 31.
But those few laws that pre-dated Moses were carried forward as laws for Christians.
I hope that explains why the Christians of today are not under The Law (of Moses) and therefore not burdened by all those laws that served to ”tutor the Chosen People to the Christ,” (or Messiah).
But it wouldn’t surprise me if you don’t ”get it.”
This is a bit of a deep spiritual point, lost to most non-spiritual people.
@George Wells:
So then, even though you ” never, EVER encountered a “predator” I think you agree that I did. I think you were attempting to make the case that gay people didn’t ‘recruit’ people, and that may be true, but I think I would put predatory actions into the ‘recruiting’ category.
@George Wells: 141
George, in attempting to make a point, you infer that I said being gay is a sin. I didn’t say that. I said the scriptures say it is a sin. My words were:” it being a sin to be gay(according to the scriptures).” You said: ” When caught misusing words, he makes the feeble excuse that his definitions are “different” from those in common use,” Give me an example, I don’t recall those incidents. It sounds as if Nann is saying gay is a behavior, and I agree. It seems as if you’re saying it is not a behavior. A person sitting in a chair watching tv is not ‘gay’. A person having sex with a person of the same sex is ‘being gay’.
You said this to Nan “The term “gay” is synonymous with “homosexual” (check your dictionary) and NEITHER are dependent upon “behavior,” as he is suggesting.” as if she is agreeing with you. Nan actually made the point that ‘gay’ is behavior, the same as I did.
A person driving a car at 55 in a 55 zone is not a speeder. If he’s driving 56, he’s a speeder.
@Nanny G:
I do get it. But George is trying to prove his point by quoting things that most Christians don’t believe but have put them into context within the Old and New testaments.
After all, there is only one requirement to get into heaven, and that is to believe and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And I will note, that applies to homosexuals also. But remember that doesn’t mean you accept him and continue your sinful ways.
@retire05 #142:
“You were the one that said you didn’t know much about Scriptures (the Bible) although having read it. Now you are quoting Scriptures as if you are a Biblical scholar. So which is it?”
The fight to keep the Scriptures out of lay hands was a long and bloody one, but in 1582, the Roman Catholic Church surrendered their fight for “Latin only,” and thanks to that concession, you and I are free to read and quote from the Bible.
The Bible is a big book, and it is impossible for me to remember its contents in their entirety. But it doesn’t take a “Biblical scholar” to appreciate the logical inconsistencies presented by those who would persecute homosexuals at the expense of their own moral integrity.
“You, yourself, have made statements about Christians that were not complimentary.”
That’s rich. As if Christians are above criticism? Were the Crusades “complimentary?” Was it “complimentary” when in 1517 the Roman Catholic Church burned seven people at the stake for teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English? As if YOU have kept YOUR characterizations of gay people “complimentary”. LOL! Political correctness has never been a concern of mine, either way you cut it.
“Maybe God’s followers should really honor the request made by the t-shirt and when a gay is harmed by someone, refuse to go to the aid of the gay that was harmed since you want us followers to stay away from your ilk. How would that sit with you?”
Another good laugh.
I have ALWAYS welcomed the gift of Christian compassion, but Christian compassion has too often come in the form of forceful conversion under penalty of death. I am reminded of the current Evangelical encouragement of the Uganda regime to enact anti-gay laws in that country, of how many countries still incarcerate and kill homosexuals, and I remember how just ten years ago Antonin Scalia argued angrily that the criminalization of homosexual conduct had to be defended in America. Homosexuals are a small minority, and their persecution has come all too easily over much of history. You know that it is in this sense that the slogan: “DEAR GOD, PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS” is ironic.
@George Wells:
George, you have to respect the right of individuals in countries to make and enforce laws that impact the people within that country. If they see a need to exterminate homosexuals, then they must have determined that is best for the country. Now you and I may not agree with that, but you want the people in this country to make and have and/or change laws to your betterment and, you see it as making it legal to be homosexual. If that is the case, why would you deny the people in Uganda the same right?
I do want to make it clear that I do not favor laws to exterminate homosexuals, or to prosecute them just for being homosexual. But if they want to get into heaven, they’re gonna have to get right with God.
@George Wells:
A great bastardization of history if ever there was one.
Inconsistencies? You mean those between the Old and the New Testaments? Are you surprised? And just who are these that you claim would persecute homosexuals in the name of Christianity? Backward societies of Uganda who misrepresent the true teachings of Christ?
More bastardization of facts from you, George. But then, that seems to be your forte. Ah, but we have been over this ground before, haven’t we?