CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm not saying that there isnt a compulsion. But whatever compulsion they decide to live with is a choice. Like gambling or alcoholism. But to inocululate the babies going into school now is a crime against our next generation. My granddaughter who is 4 right now!
Why would anyone think exposing the next generation to this extreme degree is reasonable?
Whatever degree, they are welcome to live their lifestyle of their choice!!
But even if a mental disorder to choice. Thats a wide variety of originations to THROW onto our next generation!
And the Bernie gen and waco adults that think like them are too programmed to stop the train wreck.
a mental choice, could be an obsession or compulsion. And many are fairly well adjusted. But it is still an unnatural choice. Like any choice you have different degrees and factors.
If you put it in front of them enough the less unnatural of a choice, it will appear to be common. It doesn't mean they still wont go through alot of pain about their choice.
Its a crime. Hopefully we will push it back. 'It doesnt belong in our schools.
To see it as not a foreign agent, introduce cells to multiply making the foriegn agent acceptable to its host.
Im not talking about the mere mentions of it in classes
Im talking about the infiltration and indoctrination of it.
Like the sample book I made up about Bill and John, and that type of propaganda in text books. Its unbelievable that anyone would think this is a good idea.
Here is an example of making something more popular or natural by exposure
Saw this in an article
Breastfeeding won't seem normal until we see more pictures of it
I suppose that if you define being gay as "performing romantic and/or sexual acts with the same sex" then yes, it is a choice. However, that would logically make being straight a choice. The same would follow for calling "straight" attraction an obsession or a compulsion.
What idea or values being propagated in a book about a gay couple's life are you against?
It actually doesnt matter what parts I agree or disagree
What mattes is "live and let live"
Why does it matter what we think or believe? Isnt that personal till we decide its safe for us to share with others?
The point is, Gay, Transgender, thats their buisiness to have gender preference.
And its the Christian baker's business to believe or not to believe however she likes!
Whatever happened to live and let live?
These laws arent live and let live!
They are 1 group gets to live, and the other doesnt get to live!
Gays were bullied, and so were many people.
But as a whole, society had balance. Live and let live.
The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?
This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.
LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.
But why not? Why by force on everyone, as unconstitutuonal as you can ever get!
What does it have to do with anything?
Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?
And a freedom to believe how they want to?
Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?
So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?
Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?
Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?
Sexuality is not a choice, it is by definition a matter of attraction. I assume that you are a heterosexual. Would it not be ridiculous for me to suggest that you at some point chose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
Logical arguments don't rest on two contradictory premises, and are useless if they rest on untruths. That is why one can't simply choose to "agree" in some areas, and "disagree" elsewhere if both matters depend on each other to be true! In regards to the lgbt vendetta that you speak of, you should look for someone else to debate with on that. Most of my patience has left me.
Before I start, don't make this about me. Have some god damned respect, I've been respectful to you.
A law that forbids discrimination against gays isn't an attack on Christians. It's in place for everyone, and made to limit discrimination that businesses have already agreed not to practice when they received a business license. Don't you know that Christians are commanded to obey the law of the land in the bible? Those that deny service to gays or lesbians are doing anything other than being "Christ-like".
I am not on here often, but when I am, I put a fair amount of effort into what I say. It is only fair for me to expect likewise. If there is anything about my statement that you'd like to address, I'm listening.
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Hmm... I've been trying to develop a refutation of this. Bear with me.
Don't we at least choose the way in which we conceptualize things? Aren't we exercising some sort of dynamic of choice when we use, an abstract means of understanding a concrete thing (or vice versa), like inches (abstract) to measure height (concrete)? Aren't the avenues that we take contextualize things a way of sieving through reality, and thus demonstrate choice because it manipulates our reality of perception?
You have identified a differentiation between the phenomenological reality and objective reality, but that does not at all suggest we have any choice. That we conceive of things in any manner is just as determined as our actions, conception itself being a form of action.
the way I think about it is that the universe is one giant random. but it had a solid start point. if you re-started the whole universe and nothing changed the initial factors would still lead to the formation of the exact universe down to every last molecule. this however does not de-value the illusion of choice as since the future has not happened yet we have not yet gone through the iteration of decision making that would always be the same. every new divergent possibility feels novel, and that appearance of new makes us think that we make a choice
-
it's philosophic suicide but I personally pick soft determinism. since law gets a little funky if you can't make decisions.
I do not speculate as to the origins of the universe (if such a thing exists). I am a hard determinist, with allowance for quantum randomness at the molecular level. Which means I do not think a reset could result in exactly the same outcome, but that all the same I do not think that we have any free will.
I do not think that the illusion of choice is without value; if it were, it stands to reason that we never would have evolved it so integrally into our phenomenological conception. That being said, I do not think either the actuality of choice or its illusion is necessary. Why should it be? In particular, why do you think the law "gets funky" if we cannot make free decisions? I do not view hard determinism, and certainly not soft determinism, as "philosophic suicide" either; if I may ask, why do you?
I've personally never seen the "total restart not causing same outcome" and after a brief look into quantum randomness I can see where that would make sense.
--
I View Soft determinism as philosophic suicide because inherently the world cannot be determined AND have people responsible for their actions. if in any situation it exists where you are incapable of doing other than that which is the path you are on. You cannot reasonably be held responsible, morals begin to break down. as you can't have any semblance of right and wrong in a world that simply travels in a straight line from beginning to end.
--
however of moral reasoning I find that moral universalism and it's supernatural cousin are most true to the world of Law. if there was no absolute code of ethics, then all dealings in law would be eternal shades of gray. that's to say that pre-meditated cold blooded murder is almost always wrong in the eyes of the law, so it stands to reason that there's an immovable foundation of moral truth that is a universal system of Morals.
--
I Like soft determinism because it allows for both law and the psychologic-Scientific observation of humanity. but also vaguely promotes/allows for ideas like temporal Inertia, the sort of idea that some things will happen regardless of what a person does to hasten or prevent them. it allows for unparalleled convenience in a religious sense, god's plan is happening all around us, and in the end the very path that the world takes was always god's plan.
--
this is me on -2 hours of sleep. Did I words okay?
Ha, yes, you worded quite well on so little sleep. I appreciate your clarifications; I believe I understand your perspective a bit better now.
I have similar concerns about the contradiction of soft determinism, as a compatiblist account, but I do not think the repercussions you describe follow.. To think that free will is necessary to responsibility and morality is to remain within the free will paradigm. If we step outside of it, we see that what that paradigm asserts as necessary is hardly such. Were everyone to presently agree that determinism is true, I do not think that they would also feel that law and morality and accountability were suddenly without value. Indeed, the resistance put up against determinism on behalf of such ideas and systems suggests that they have a value unto themselves. We might well retain law, morality, accountability, etc. for the simple reason that we prefer them and their outcomes over the consequences of dispensing with them. We may also determine that while an individual does not control their actions, a system of accountability nevertheless is a deterministic instrument which influences those actions (all the more so under determinism, really). Further, we might shift our moral paradigm to be one which acknowledges that a person cannot control who they are, but which nevertheless demarcates them as good or bad relative to the moralizer (indeed, I think this is in fact what we already do and have no qualms at doing).
I do not believe there is any moral universality, in law or elsewhere. To take your example of premeditated, cold-blooded murder there are quite clearly shades of grey even here. If done in the name of country, particularly in the context of military, the act may well be celebrated. If attributed to clinical insanity, the judgement may well be moderated along with the response. There are people who support rehabilitation and forgiveness, whereas others prefer punitive retribution. I think that the moment one looks seriously at any moral or legal issue, there are inherently shades of grey. Moreover, all it takes to break a universal is any one person who does not believe in it. I myself, for instance, do not believe in or place any great value in any morals; I am an amoralist, and not alone though certainly a minority. And so there goes the universal. If, instead, you mean generality then I might make some concession there (though even so, I reserve a certain skepticism... but, perhaps, that's going fairly far afoot from the point).
You mention god, and I am curious what sort of god you mean. Deistic? Spinozistic, perhaps? I am not sure that such a being exists, though I am not passionately disposed against it. Most of my attitude boils down to semantics; I am dubious that such a generative force would rightly be described by a term as loaded down as "god". I may be off my mark, though, and you mean a particular religious god instead?
I Identify as Roman Catholic :P, though that is because the moral judgement that they make aligns well with what I imagine to be the way morals should be (in most cases). however I have qualms about the way that they portray god, because I see him in the "clockwork" sense, he wound the world up at the beginning of time and just watches it all happen. not necessarily intervening until no other choice remains. I chose this idea, because it explains the problem of evil as an innate flaw in humanity, similar to the idea of original sin, but- it it has a quality That's less to do with god and more to do with our animalistic origins? then having the beautiful notion that is free will, creates a billion branches that humanity could go down, but the temporal inertia is basically god's plan. we always end up in roughly the same place, regardless of our choices and actions. all the cogs have a bit of play, but A will always turn B.
-
I'm more Agnostic in this sense, because the notion of a god helps me sleep at night and makes me feel closer with my family since we share traditions. I use a couple (somewhat worthless) loops of logic that don't prove anything outright, but definitely create mystery as to the origins of the universe, which I possibly erroneously posit is a god in some right.
-
if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then feasibly the matter that makes up this universe should be infinitely ancient. this is worthwhile because if that's the case, the matter here existed before the earliest theorized point in time. meaning there is either no point before which the universe existed, or the universe had to be created. it's mind melting to consider that the universe has simply always been. and it's even more mind melting to consider that for the universe to exist, the law of conservation of mass and energy had to be broken at least once.
--
then considering that entropy in the universe is ever increasing, it needs to be considered that contrary to the notion of "heat Death" there needs to be a point in time in which entropy was effectively 0, that the world was perfectly "ordered". and one little speck of Chaos started the whole thing. but where did the chaos come from in a system that should have had no entropy?
Interesting. I am culturally Roman Catholic, though never had the faith for it myself. If you do not mind my prying, you seem quite self-aware of the possible inconsistencies in your views but also at ease with them. To me, this suggests you are making the ideas work for you (rather than the other way around) which appeals to my egoist disposition even though we quite obviously differ on our attitudes at large towards the religion itself and its morality.
Regarding your view that a clockwork god explains the problem of evil, I am not sure I follow. Unless you also think that this god is not omniscient, it seems that he must have known what would follow from setting things in motion from the offset and therefore knowingly allowed evil to exist. Alternatively, he would have to lack omnipotence and so be unable to prevent evil in spite of his knowledge of its inevitability (which makes him rather passive). The better approach, I think, is to suppose instead that god is responsible for evil but that this evil is not the same to him as it is to us. I am not totally persuaded by it, but I find it more defensible. And it works just as well under the more traditional Roman Catholic concept of gad as with your clockwork view, I think. Just casual thoughts.
With respect to the conservation of mass and energy, I think the error might come in thinking that the genesis of the universe broke that law. Presumably, the law did not exist until the universe did. Nor do I think we can say that the system in this universe should not have had any entropy; it may be that such entropy belongs to some greater system of laws affecting the genesis and obliteration of universes. I confess, the (meta)physics gets a bit beyond me but my lack of ability to conceive of it does not lead me to think it impossible or even improbable. It is so many orders of magnitude beyond my imagination and knowledge, of even the greatest minds in physics for the time at least, that I do not think it prudent to rule one way or the other.
As for your wording... you're doing better than most do with sleep. ;)
well as for sleep, I'm a budding novelist. so writing and re-writing early into the morning is the kind of thing that I can't exactly turn off. once it starts I have to get it all out or I forget things, so I had a bit of that going on and this is the tail end of an all nighter with a 20 minute nap somewhere around noon. But I can sleep when I'm dead! haha. I suspect my cognitive process has vastly degenerated-ed at this point, and I might be stepping in the holes I know I gotta be careful 'bout
-
Clockwork god stuff- and the "Evil is not the same to us" -Thing.. I dig it. I'm not sure what the full implications are, but I'll roll it around. ...I can't tell for the life of me what point I was trying to make with problem of evil and clockwork world... but I've always felt like god is sort of Outside of reality. I mean he kinda has to be otherwise there's be physical evidence yah know? and the clock work is one example. he built the machine. and let it run. and other times I feel like we're like a glass of water, where stomping on the floor makes the world shake, but we don't know if he did it...
-
Like I said the metaphysics aren't meant to be used as actual arguments. they were more... thought experiments?
-
I'm sorry man. I am Gone. like I think I'm gonna go pass out for 12-15 hours. hahaha. I started like... I'm kinda new here on CD and I started two debates over the last days or so, I would be honored if you took a look at them. they're more... philosophy heavy, so I suppose that's partially why they didn't take off. but I'd love to see your thoughts on them.
I am a nocturnally afflicted creative writer as well. I find cognition gets in the way of the creativity at times, so a little cognitive breakdown is not bad. At the very least, makes for an interesting review of whatever was written prior to the crash. XD
Not sure discussion needs a point, so I am fine with a rambling track. I think your point about a god external to reality is interesting. Curious as to your thoughts about a material god who nevertheless exists beyond our perception. Sixth, seventh, etc. senses that could hypothetically exist but which we lack. Could be there is some physical evidence, but we are not (yet?) capable of finding it. I'm dubious that any god exists, of course, but I am also an epistemological nihilist so I will not negate god with certainty. I like the glass of water analogy a bit - whatever caused the shake seems beyond our knowledge, and any conjecture is about as good as another depending upon whatever standards one values.
I begin to ramble though... Thanks for your engagement here; it's been quite pleasant. Hope you got your sleep in. I'll amble over to your debates some time or other. You are quite right; the philosophy prompts tend to get overlooked here.
I'm trying to show that, if we can alternate between the two in our mind quite readily, perhaps the distinction between the two is conceptual and there is no reason to take a distinction that far. There isn't any evidence that there is phenomena outside of our individual minds influencing it, as a result, we cannot rule out having a participatory and independent mind that simply constructs reality based on whatever will it has exerted.
I can alternate between the concept of a unicorn and the unicorn; does that mean the distinction there is invalid too? I cannot rule out the existence of the unicorn either, but it does not seem an unreasonable conclusion to say that unicorns are not real. There is no such thing as certain knowledge, so all statements are necessarily qualified as probable. And in the case of free will, we have nothing whatsoever to suggest that it exists in actuality but growing intersubjective basis from which to conclude that it does not.
As far as we know, choice doesn't exist at all. It's more sensible to just say that it is at least "unseen", perhaps because of how we contextualize objective reality, or perhaps because it just isn't there.
I think it's naive to believe there is single cause for just about anything. Nature, luck, socialization, personal choice, all are factors in determining someone's life course.
But with that said, the fact that a) there is no actual harm to society if some people are gay (just imagined harm drummed up by uptight bigots), and b) you really can't assume or conclude that it's merely a choice or the wrong choice and therefore they should be vilified or forced to change, both pretty much mean you should leave them alone to live the way they are, regardless.
There is no harm in them living life according to their choices!
Even some laws to give them benefits!
And honestly, we need to tell our gay friends we live and support them! And thats our choice!
BUT, we do not support this movement.
So I will be at your union celebration, and be a part of your life!!
But equal means this, and I cant support that!!
Their beliefs should be restricted from areas , in the same way religious beliefs are restricted from the same areas!
Both are moral value based beliefs!!
They are both beliefs and value education is restricted.!
So why is this belief OK to be a value education to our kids, and the healthy parts of religious values are not,
For kids of mostly natural parents who all have their OWN values, and most in opposition to this value.
So we had prayer for 3 min in am removed because it might influence non religious children, which was a tiny group of random people.
And we have a sexually explicit and in complete moral opposition to most all parents, and allow a wider than religiious freedom for this small group.
And not just 3 min of value influence!! 3 minutes compared to 8 hours of bombardment per day!
We are talking influence on steroids!
And we should ALL be OK with this?? Seriously?Am I stupid or an idiot, high strung or should this be a fight to the death from every sensible person alive in America!
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Gays have rights to live how they want. But they do not belong in our schools, or our curriculum. We don’t want it on Sesame Street, and we don’t want it shoved in every scene on TV shows we already started watching.
None of you secular want us to put religion in every place you enjoy, and force you to take it like its medicine that you hate taking.
Not because I hate gay people, but because I am not gay. it was never an interest, if it was I would have made that choice. I had girls have crushes on me, but I like the natural roles of male and female. Regardless of reason NO ONE ID BORN GAY!
And for people like me who haven't made a choice to have a relationship like that was a matter of, we all are born with natural inclinations, and we can form compulsions obsessions, slapshot is right, there are alot of emotional lesbians.
Most of us don't have the interest because our environments and experiences and perceptions followed a natural course, and any influence was counterbalanced by natural behavior around us, It’s against our nature!
And it’s not entertaining. And the writers need to be accountable, entertain or make a statement, and force something we don’t want on us. If there is going to have content warn us before we watch the series, that several scenes are gay. And we can choose to watch it or not. Fair?
To have gay marriage in our schools is a severe prohibiting religious freedom, while our kids spend 8 hours a day being indoctrinated by values that are in direct opposition to most parents who have kids in school. And in reality LGBT is a religion, but somehow got beyond the boundary of church and state.
It’s a crime against parents and against entire generations of children, to allow an unnatural set of sexual behaviors to take such a huge control of our family life.
Hell there are people screaming in agony from their compulsion. And many gays I met were very emotional about their choice often negatively.
But you all want to ensnare the next generations, and you think that internal negative feeling will go away, but it won't. Because it will always be against your nature. And no matter how inoculated those poor kids get by your make it natural agenda, they will still have the same pain you all had. And that's not the bullies outside, its the bully that beats you down everyday inside your head for your unnatural choices.
It prohibits us to make value choices for our kids and making us powerless against that harsh degree of influence. Its an interference in raising our children by done by law our own values and beliefs.
The gay community is a religion, they are believers and have collective faith, and share their set of morality and values. Isn’t this in favor of 1 group and forced on all. It shouldn’t be forced into every part of our society against the natural values of most and also against the religious values of most. Given and guaranteed by religious freedom.
Sexual behavior is found in every area of religion, in values, morality, doctrines, restrictions, permissions, right and wrong, and family goes hand in hand with sexuality. And sexuality is a main principal in marriage, children, and family.
We are not discussing black or white families. We are discussing natural and unnatural marriage, and sexuality that is against values and morality of most families.
So you think your kids will be gay or not be gay because of whatever happens at birth, and influence has nothing to do with it, or trauma, or something else??
Part 1 and Part 2 combined
Law should have created an exception made to give them what they need to have the marriage they desire is appropriate.
Not equal to marriage, there is a difference.
One way they have a right to everything they believe, but cant be equally present everywhere!
Just like religion has has a right to everything they believe, but not the right to be present everywhere!
Because morals and values conflict!
They have a right to choose their life style and life partner. made to give them what they need to have the marriage they desire is appropriate.
They have a right to choose their life style and life partner.
So, in other words, in 1st grade social studies text books, where kids are learning about communities, firemen, police officers, construction workers and moms and dads. “
Equal means Bill and John Smith are married and work in the community.
John is a Police Officer and Bill drives the school bus in the morning. The rest of the day Bill is a busy dad of 2 little boys.
Bill takes the boys to the grocery store where Miss Linda and Miss Patty work in the check out lines. They live next door and they are Mary’s mommies.
Time to hurry home to make dinner! When John comes home they enjoy dinner on the deck and play baseball in the yard.
Ok then, This text book piece I made up is just a peek into your children’s entire curriculum, including class led discussions in favor of the lifestyle of any choice.
And the teacher happens to also be a wacko in the Bernie Generation.
Or, if maybe you happen to get lucky, and have someone with moral values, she’ll do what she can, but she has way more restrictions than the equallity of gay marriage! We should be all marching against this!!!
A teacher with natural family values, will not be sble to say a word against it!
Teachers are limited by religious freedom, to influence your kid on morals and values. BUT gays are not limited on msexual morals and values!!
After all the material is thrown at your son for 12 years of education, is that going to have any affect on him and all his peers of their perceptions of what family is?
So now, do you all actually WANT to your children neutered because that is exactly the decision you all are making If and when you have them?
You straight supporters are you ok with your son choosing the feminine role of Bill. What do you expect?
Now you Bernie guys don’t think real well, and you say no big deal we have friends who are gay.
Yea but that is no where near the classroom your kids will be in!
You maybe became aware from a tv show like Degrassi or some friends at school, and even in your generation it has become a more popular choice. But you didn’t go through kindergarten with a knowledge of if.
Congratulations all of you, it’s a 50/50 chance your child may choose a natural gay lifestyle. Enjoy your prom pictures of your son and his boyfriend.
They will see same sex marriage as natural as you all saw natural marriage!
They will mot distinguish any natural difference!!
I'm not saying, if your kid chose to be gay you would love them less!
I am saying as a parent someday, do you want to teach your children its a NATURAL choice, and make it a choice like 2 kinds of cereal?
They will see normal happy gay parents, along side of and to be the same as hetero marriages.
No natural difference, their friends all influenced the same!
And you dont think your kids will be more likely than you to choose being gay.
And your ok w gay being a matural choice taught in schools.
But would you actually on purpose, nurture your kids to pick either gay or hetero?
Is that really what you want moving forward into the next generation, of your own children’s future educational experience.????
Most of us are not gay, yet the 4 % of people who are gay are going to be permitted to make it look like a the gay lifestyle is a very appealing natural optional choice. And you all really think you don’t want moral values holding back these things from overtaking you, and hurting all of us?
Being gay is a belief or a choice now we are going to introduce it to our entire next generation and inoculate society from knowing the difference between unnatural and natural, or even what bathroom to use because they are removing the idea of gender and natural sexuality.
Law should have created an exception made to give them what they need to have the marriage they desire is appropriate.
Not equal to marriage, there is a difference.
One way they have a right to everything they believe, but cant be equally present everywhere!
Just like religion has has a right to everything they believe, but not the right to be present everywhere!
Which part? The coming text books? Or That Im crazy for questioning what this means for your babies and preschoolers as they enter school in the mext few years?
The whole thing. I want to participate in your arguments, but your writing and formatting, combined with the sheer length of your posts makes it hard to discern what you are even talking about some times. You drone on and on about basically the same thing for several lines then COMPLETELY change subjects for a while then go back. It's a mess. You sound almost like your speaking in tongues. If you become more clear and concise, and maybe learn to use paragraphs, I'll be able to have a nice debate with you.
Well, I guess that's a little better, but some of what you are saying is confusing.
Do you think people are gay because of whatever happens at birth, or influence, or trauma, or something else??
I haven't researched this in a few years, but as far as I know, a single cause has yet to be found definitively. The strongest evidence appears to indicate that the environment of the mother's womb plays a significant role and helps to explain when many mothers have multiple gay children. There are also some genetic markers that have been identified. While there is no known "gay gene", the arrangement of several genes may at least cause predisposition. Meanwhile, the number of children raised by gay parents that have themselves come out as gay is about the same as in those who have been raised by straight parents, and those who were sexually abused by members of the same sex as children rarely are gay, although some become abusers.
Law should have created an exception made to give them what they need to have the marriage they desire is appropriate.
Almost no new laws were ever needed. There should never have been laws against sodomy or showing affection to a member of the same sex, or getting married or serving in the Armed Forces in the first place. The only new laws are the "protected status" laws that prevent people from discriminating against them.
Not equal to marriage, there is a difference.
If it is not equal, what is the point?
One way they have a right to everything they believe, but cant be equally present everywhere!
I'm really not sure what you are saying here? Believe? Homosexuality is not a belief system. Not be equally present everywhere? Is this the 50s?
Just like religion has has a right to everything they believe, but not the right to be present everywhere!
Do you believe that homosexuality infringes on your religious rights?
They have a right to choose their life style and life partner. made to give them what they need to have the marriage they desire is appropriate.
See this, right here, is one of those points where you sound like you are on acid. I don't know what you mean. And sometimes it sounds like you are arguing with yourself.
They have a right to choose their life style and life partner.
Its a belief and a choice, There is no one born gay or transgender
It simply isnt factual. Their environment (not the womb) they may have sexually abused, or just simply abused. Psychologically they connect with being gay. But nature does not say they are gay from birth.
It is a choice, a belief, and a faith. It is values and morals. Teaching children at school a moral and value that is difference to parents is wrong on more levels than I could imagine would ever see in our country!
Equal is wrong because equal is a term of presence. And that's an infringement on everyone parents rights. Having marriage is being able to get spouse benefits, tax benefits, ownership, and commitment.
But it is not equal, because it is not natural. And sexuality is a huge overstep in places like schools when it comes to values that contradict parents
Marriage is for them to have the committed life they desire, with marriage benefits.
Instead tey are bringing it to scholls so the next generation has knows no distinction between what is natural and these other choices which are moral issues for parents
Its a belief and a choice, There is no one born gay or transgender
Do you honestly believe you chose to be straight? I know I didn't. I just know at some point I started liking girls, and I've been very straight ever since.
It simply isnt factual.
Care to show some evidence.
Their environment (not the womb)
Can you explain why the womb environment cannot play a huge role, despite the piles of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.
they may have sexually abused, or just simply abused.
Statistics do not back you up.
Teaching children at school a moral and value that is difference to parents is wrong on more levels than I could imagine would ever see in our country!
Its not a moral instruction. It simply says gay people are here. One way or the other they will have to get used to it.
And that's an infringement on everyone parents rights.
How?
But it is not equal, because it is not natural.
It is natural. But even if it is not, so what? Cars aren't natural. Should we stop issuing driver's licensees?
Instead tey are bringing it to scholls so the next generation has knows no distinction between what is natural and these other choices which are moral issues for parents
Guess what? People are different from you. Deal with it.
Last time but I think its important to know what is down the rabbit hole.
They dont know why, but at some point some people developed fears of dark, spiders, and other fears and compulsions, and addictions, and some people didnt?
Why out of identical twins where 1 is LGBT, medical confirmations have been done about gene structures etc. And conclude, 80 % of these IDENTICAL twin sets, that they dont actually share the same "born with it (LGBT)"
And the 20 % that did, were pretty much guarenteed conditions present that likely equally influence both twins, and affected both babies, and they likely also continued to influence each other, as well..
So the lie they tell us they may sincerely believe, and then the smart ones among them, they know its part of their agenda!
Apes and others in nature that go both ways so to speak, prove only one thing that the potential to CHOOSE EXISTS in other species as well! And a dog humps a chair, so what then does that enlighten us about sexuality?
So its not proof either. And those studies actually relate the behavior to spycosocial, not biological
Nice try though!
The question is, are we going to stop letting them lie to us, call it a choice made conciously or subconsciously.
Or make them provide proof, factual proof! Not theory or guess or probability.
Look, We all could swing both ways!
Given the right circumstances, environment, trauma, influence etc!
So now we are going to give all these blessings of confusing and conflicting circumstances, and let our kids just float among their peers, who are also being heavily influenced, and what justblet whatever happens happen?
So if your 2 nd grader is as heterosexual as he can be, and the environment of these dynamics pressure him into a lifestyle, because his best friend was more influenced by eeverything around him, and these circumstances were enhanced like on steroids! And created this environmeny by this naturalization of these unnatural relationships and sexuality.
Now you have a son who is a mess inside his own head because of it, is that just the fair thing to do, and YOUR sons conflict and the many others like him are just a casualty of progressive thought? Too bad for your children, so sad, but thats for the greater good??
Then even if your kid makes it out untouched by it, look around their age group for the available choices for your sons future natural marriage with children. Are you happy with the dynamics he will find himself in??
That fostered the choice in all these people, many of which hate the choice from a place in them that is an internal weep. And we are going to inflict a whole generation against their own natural destination. And its an experiment! Really, thats makes sense?
I dont because my environment didnt provide an influence that interested me!
Let them go with their latest agenda, last generation produced more. The next generation, with the presentation now will increase that amt like its a choice between chicken for dinner or pizza!
Its a crime against our children!! Regardless of any of the other miriad of reasons I have provided!
Will you have kids or grandkids in that generation?
I am literally crying inside for that generation!
We should be coordinating the largest week long rallies against every state capital, and supreme court building and wahington.
So big that we arent trying to block traffic but the sheer turnout we shut down roads for miles!!!
They have been trying to dismiss gender roles since feminism began! While trying to prove without inout of gender, what happens. And of course mose choose their gender role or some vaiation of it.
Now that experiment was just removing influences of actual gender!
This experiment, is adding to them all the element of other influence.
So the kids all together will have 8 hrs a day times 9 mos a year, times 12 plus years, include preschool programing and other society presense and by the time they are graduating, they would have 16 to 18 years of this!
So where natural sexuality was your kids greatest influence, within a few short years the opposite WILL be true!
Your kids will have a 50 50 chance at best! Why? Because of the diverse avenues of the same influence; from see spot run literarure to peers and friends and every activity they join in, are more and more opportunies of influence, you as a straight parent would not have fostered! So 50 / 50 may be a conservative estimate for your kid to have internal feelings of confusion and guilt for being at the wrong places and at the wrong times, and I used plural on purpose!
How much influence do you think busy tired working parents will have outside of school, when you factor in TV, gaming, play time, and hang out time with friends, and outside sports and activities, who also now have been indoctrinated with the same intensity! And w parents influence in todays culture is barely dinner hour!
Do you think your kids will be more or less a target for the deviant football coach, or the pedifile priest?
So when 2 preschool kids are playing and 1 gets inappriate as many do, just because they are simply learning about themselves but enhanced by bed time stories that are more confusing then ever! About relationships and their lasting implied impressions of underlying sexuality, Good luck objecting! You may end up in court!
Equal means Bill and John Smith are married and work in the community.
John is a Police Officer and Bill drives the school bus in the morning. The rest of the day Bill is a busy dad of 2 little boys.
Bill takes the boys to the grocery store where Miss Linda and Miss Patty work in the check out lines. They live next door and they are Mary’s mommies.
Time to hurry home to make dinner! When John comes home they enjoy dinner on the deck and play baseball in the yard.
Ok then, This text book piece I made up is just a peek into your children’s entire curriculum, including class led discussions in favor of the lifestyle of any choice.
We should be all marching against this!!!
After all the material is thrown at your son for 12 years of education, is that going to have any affect on him and all his peers of their perceptions of what family is?
So now, do you all actually WANT to your children neutered because that is exactly the decision you all are making If and when you have them?
You straight supporters are you ok with your son choosing the feminine role of Bill. What do you expect?
you say no big deal we have friends who are gay. Yea but that is no where near the classroom your kids will be in!
You maybe became aware from a tv show like Degrassi or some friends at school, and even in your generation it has become a more popular choice. But you didn’t go through kindergarten with a knowledge of if.
Congratulations all of you, it’s a 50/50 chance your child may choose a natural gay lifestyle. Enjoy your prom pictures of your son and his boyfriend.
They will see same sex marriage as natural as you all saw natural marriage!
They will not distinguish any natural difference!!
I'm not saying, if your kid chose to be gay you would love them less!
I am saying as a parent someday, do you want to teach your children its a NATURAL choice, and make it a choice like 2 kinds of cereal?
They will see normal happy gay parents, along side of and to be the same as hetero marriages.
No natural difference, their friends all influenced the same!
And you don't think your kids will be more likely than you to choose being gay.
And your ok w gay being a natural choice taught in schools.
Would you actually on purpose, nurture your kids to pick either gay or hetero?
"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you"
Sure, the Golden Rule. I can dig it.
I see many people who think like you, seem to apply this only one way.
Please elaborate.
Can you tell me how YOU apply this to Christians in your community, during times you wouldnt expect something in return?
If I'm in the position to help someone, I generally will. It doesn't matter what religion, race, sexual orientation, age or whatever they are. I try to be a good person.
Gays are not born gay. Doctors cannot determine at birth or even at any other preschool blood work or scan or physical test or even psychological test that says has any consistent proven identifiers or lab results that even begin to conclude with any accuracy at all, that this one is gay, or that one is transgender, or this one is straight.
And if you say it “develops” then by definition, it is not determined or originated at birth. So then it’s a choice or an event or influence occurs.
In the largest twin study ever completed on the topic, geneticists found that only 10-13% of all homosexual identical twins had identical twin siblings (co-twins) who were also homosexuals. That means that more than 80% of all homosexual identical twins have heterosexual twin siblings.
Nine studies suggest that children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents are approximately 7 times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual sexual preference." Because of influence NOT born gay
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Logically from your post babies aren't born straight either. And, since babies aren't born straight or gay, you have completely lost any point you were trying to make.
You aren't consistent though. If you want to treat gay marriage like religion, then you can't make laws to ban it. Once you stop trying to make laws to ban it, we can stop talking about it in school. I think it is fine not to teach about homosexuality as long as people like you stop trying to convince homosexuals they are bad people.
I said make it as legal as you want, but it has to follow similar properties as religion.
In other words, we cant teach religion at school, other than history, or practical info. We cant go in and teach sexuality and sin, or teach against homosexuality as a sin, in public school.
That is value based, morality education.
In the same way, the gay lifestyle has no place in schools either.
Because its morality and values based!
So gay lifestyles can be addressed in a measure of safety so kids protect against aids, but not in a way that makes it appealing or unappealing. School should have no say in morality!
Man and women sex ed is detailed into reproduction and pregnancy prevention. Gay sex is just basic protection
There is no need for anything further at school. Anything beyond that is value based and morality education.
Which isnt the job of schools, it belongs to parents!
Its the terminology and the action the terminology means
Government is disrespecting natural laws, and religious freedom!
We are supposed to have religious freedom, and be free to exercise our beliefs throughout our everyday lives!
In Reality - Same Sex Marriage NOW has more freedom and rites than religion!
Equal Presence, Equal Side by Side. No Distinction.
Gay Marriage has an equal rite to be present everywhere and in every way that family is portrayed or represented in society. Including Sesame Street and Disney Jr.
So like black and white , male and female. If Sesame Street features hetero families, and single parent families, 30 times each per quarter, mark my words, soon Sesame Street will also have to feature gay couple families, GO AHEAD add Poligamy. Then Sesame Street can featurevthat too, or 3 women maried or 3 men. Lets just let this stupid crap happen!
And many liberal writers, wont even wait to be asked!
Gay Marriage should never have been passed
At least not the version that WAS passed.
Gay Marriage should ONLY be an exception, NOT Equal!
Im not sure people understand all the implications of it being equal. Its not just fuzzy feelings, of them having more protection from bullies, or looked at by society as an equal person to us. Gay Marriage does not do either of these. What the EQUAL LAW actually does, is make it acceptable every where without any restrictions.
I'm not at all upset about, or mad at gays, what I am upset about is rites and freedom to have values a
So if we have family values, and are raising kids by those values schools can and will disregard our values and religious beliefs and teach alternate lifestyles right next to Natural Marriage, without even needing to ask parents!! They now have more sexual authority over our children than we parents do. Because marriage is marriage, no distinction period. It is as right to all as natural marriage. And that has a rite to be in school teaching values and sexual morality and religion does not!
An exception to give them whatever they need to have the marriage they desire. But its their marriage, so why do we ALL have to take part in it? Give that group of people freedom to take a life partner, have survivor benefits, and other joint benefits. An exclusive allowance! BUT DO NOT TAKE OUT FREEDOM AND RITES AWAY BY DOING IT!
BUT instead The Supreme Court made a ridiculously damaging law, that infringed on Naturally Married couples, and everyone not gay in society, removing the Naturally accepted definition of marriage, in favor of 1 small group.
It is irresponsible for Judges and law makers to pass a law, like Gay Marriage, without considering potential difficulties and consequences to society in the aftermath of the ruling and its total impact, the possible effects on all the other groups, in every demographics, businesses, schools, media content, children’s programing etc should be considered for the general welfare of all.
No law should ever pass that will cause society as a whole to suffer, and conflict with a healthy balance of morality and religion, and the natural behavior of most
Government is disrespecting natural laws, and religious freedom!
No, it isn't.
We are supposed to have religious freedom, and be free to exercise our beliefs throughout our everyday lives!
As soon as you cross the line of trying to make someone else exercise your beliefs you have a problem.
In Reality - Same Sex Marriage NOW has more freedom and rites than religion!
Not true at all. Churches have massive amounts of freedom.
So like black and white , male and female. If Sesame Street features hetero families, and single parent families, 30 times each per quarter, mark my words, soon Sesame Street will also have to feature gay couple families, GO AHEAD add Poligamy. Then Sesame Street can featurevthat too, or 3 women maried or 3 men. Lets just let this stupid crap happen!
People meet gay couples in real life. Why wouldn't sesame street have a gay couple at some point?
At least not the version that WAS passed.
That's the exact version that should have been passed. The gay marriage is handled exactly like straight marriage. It is stupid to do it differently.
Gay Marriage should ONLY be an exception, NOT Equal!
It isn't an exception though, so it shouldn't be treated like one.
Im not sure people understand all the implications of it being equal. Its not just fuzzy feelings, of them having more protection from bullies, or looked at by society as an equal person to us. Gay Marriage does not do either of these. What the EQUAL LAW actually does, is make it acceptable every where without any restrictions.
That's because imbeciles like you wouldn't allow it FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
I'm not at all upset about, or mad at gays, what I am upset about is rites and freedom to have values a
I am sorry that you don't even hate the people you aren't happy have rights.
So if we have family values
You clearly don't.
So if we have family values, and are raising kids by those values schools can and will disregard our values and religious beliefs and teach alternate lifestyles right next to Natural Marriage, without even needing to ask parents!! They now have more sexual authority over our children than we parents do. Because marriage is marriage, no distinction period. It is as right to all as natural marriage. And that has a rite to be in school teaching values and sexual morality and religion does not!
Oh no, I am sorry your kids will be forced not to hate other people having rights.
But its their marriage, so why do we ALL have to take part in it?
You aren't taking part in it you backward ass fuck.
Give that group of people freedom to take a life partner, have survivor benefits, and other joint benefits. An exclusive allowance! BUT DO NOT TAKE OUT FREEDOM AND RITES AWAY BY DOING IT!
You didn't lose any fucking rights you dipshit.
BUT instead The Supreme Court made a ridiculously damaging law
No law was made you dumb fuck.
that infringed on Naturally Married couples
No it didn't you asshole.
in favor of 1 small group.
In favor of every group now you fucking retard.
It is irresponsible for Judges and law makers to pass a law
They didn't pass a law jackass.
without considering potential difficulties and consequences to society in the aftermath of the ruling and its total impact
The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide if the bigots will be able to handle a ruling.
No law should ever pass that will cause society as a whole to suffer, and conflict with a healthy balance of morality and religion, and the natural behavior of most
No one is suffering. No law was passed. The Supreme Court decided to treat gay people like humans.
No you imagine a world where there is no gender, and no idea of what is natural sexuality, and no concern for others who want to raise their kids according to their own morals and values!
Me: This generation is already welcoming and excepting of gays.
Cartman: I am sorry that you failed.
Me: no you failed! I said Gays really do have great support
gays in the Bernie Generation have a great deal of support!
Cartman: You support addressing behavior before it comes up.
Me: You read wrong, re-read - Addressing behavior as it comes up does.
Me: this overstep in society is a disregard to gender period and natural family and sexuality period and a total disregard for others values period!
Cartman: Toward themselves. The society disregards others values when it comes to themselves. They don't care what you believe.
Me: Tell me how? Details please, and be proportionate, there are less than 4 % of gays and they have tons of support from society these days
Me: SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING MORALITY OR VALUES TO OUR CHILDREN, THAT IS A SEVERE OVERSTEP OF PARENTS RIGHTS!
Cartman: They aren't teaching morality.
Me: What is sexuality? Isn't that morality?
Not in the basic reproduction scientific aspect, I'm talking about sexuality, related to values and morality as seen in the guidance we parents give our children regarding sexual activity, marriage, raising children, and family.
Me: GAY lifestyle allowances by exception, SHOULD NOT BECOME OUR NEXT GENERATIONS NORM!
Cartman: We decided to wipe out bigotry decades ago. You are one of the final holdouts.
Me: (your a loner, Cartman) so I guess by "we" you mean a community of like minded individuals who share the same purpose and mission, and who hold the similar beliefs and views regarding morality, sexuality, behavior, family values and right and wrong?
So this community has been a united force working together for decades with an actual agenda concentrated on extinguishing the values and morality of people like me, who don't believe the same as you and your community? Really?
That sounds like a religion to me, and an overpowering mean one, don't you think it is?
So I understand, bla bla bla, this community you identify with has been working on this mission for decades, to purposely "wipe us out?" Jeese sounds harsh, why do you want that?
Is there a book or some links I can check out, that follow this course, so I can understand more of what your talking about and why you all believe its a good think for society?
And, when you say "bigotry" you talking about Christian "Bigotry," right?
And you mentioned the "final hold outs," are they the ones still holding onto Christian morality and values like me?
So the Christians who are still holding on to family values and morality are the "final holdouts" on your community's "hit list?"
Hmm, is the community close to it's goal? Because, I might need to find another country that has religious freedom to live in!
I assume you put "Bigotry" under the heading of religious beliefs regarding our preference of lifestyle , sexuality, marriage and family?
Me: And it certainly shouldn't be forced on all the parents that want to introduce sexuality according to their OWN values and morals.
You: That depends on how backward your values are.
Me: So, you and the strong arm of your community, has been "wiping us out for decades," will finally get to decide what values people are aloud to have, and you all will determine which ones are backwards, and which ones if any we are aloud to keep?
And you all get to decide our views, and force us accept the morals and values that you believe in, to replace our own? And we need to live by your communities idea of right and wrong in our own families and in our homes?
Me: Unless you want to make another statement, that says parents do not have rights!
You: Parents don't have the right to mind control.
Me: If we want to be the source of our children's values, and define sexual morality for our children, if it doesn't agree with LGBT and secularism, which I assume make up much of your community, then its mind control, and we are then dismissed from our parental rights and have no say in our children's public school education regarding values, on the basis that we want to "control our children's minds?"
I thought we were supposed to be able to control our children exposure and influence regarding values in our public schools, because values of morality were not supposed to be imposed on us.
So if we are the type of parents that exercise religious freedom in order to nurture and raise our children according to our own values regarding family and sexual morality, then isn't a value based education that defines sexual morality which contradicts our own values against our Rights as Parents?
So your community believes, we are not aloud as parents to control the value and moral education of our children in our public school, which are paid for by tax payers, because our values and morals are considered mind control, and we have no right to guide our children with values different your community decides should be being taught in public schools?
And we "bigot" parents are not fit to be in control of value education, but bigot people like you are?
So, lets see then; miserable ignorant people like you, who have a strong dislike for us Christians and our values, are now the acceptable guides of our children's values and your community is in control of our children's minds brainwashing and instructing our children in what to believe about family and sexuality?
And that''s in these children's best interest?
Are they a whole generation for experiment?
And that's better for our kids?
Or, is that better for people like you, and the gay community?
So you have a right to decide that our values are backwards, and the raising of our children according to the rules we set in our home are brainwashing?
So therefore we don't deserve rights to raise our family according to our beliefs, and religious freedom is outdated, according to you and the seculars that agree with you?
There shouldn't be any morality involved with sexuality. Someone else's sexuality doesn't affect you. You should not be governing what other people do with their sexuality.
It's mind control because you want the freedom to brain wash your children and prevent them from experiencing reality.
You have no fucking clue what is in the child's best interest.
Oh, and it isn't bigotry to tell people like you they are wrong. I don't care what background you have. Your views on gays are backward. It doesn't matter that you are Christian. Therefore, not bigotry.
Have you considered the impact of sexuality through the infiltration of schools by the recent ruling?
It has nothing to do with the recent ruling. The schools would be infiltrated either way.
Yes it does because you all are trying to push a counter culture through the entire next generation.
Will this movement have any negative impact on the next generation?
No.
Yes, it will be a huge impact on family values, and gender identity.
There will be no distinction between natural gender roles. If your communitiy is interested in adding to their numbers, this infiltration would do that.
And Ill anwer it for you.we accept gays but we do not foster creating gays.
We foster creating value driven men and women, that respect who they are as women or men and .kthers and fathers in natural marriage.
And we dont want less than 4 % of people in the USA and less than 1% parents are gay!! You all are forcing a chosen cultre, even if its not chosen, less than 1% of parent of students are gay, people who chose a lifestyle that we didnt, we dont want this counter-culture influence on our children for their values, over ours.
Do parents matter, when it comes to value based education?
Not parents like you.
This doesnt deserve an answer
Sould parents have the right to decide
What morals and values they choose for their children in schools?
No. You are hateful, and no one should learn morals from you.
Im not hateful, I like gay people. But the lifestyle they chose are not my values.
And beiing Black or Asian is NOT a sexual morality. Its race. Being gay is not a race, it is a sexual morality!
Parents who do not want their kids exposed to gay lifestyles like its a choice between hamburgers or turkey burgers for dinner.
That is exactly what it is
Its a choice, and its their choice. No they cant i fluence our children in that degree.
Its 1 thing to be a gay role model, its anther thing for gay representation appear as 50/50 throughout our public education
And it IS a sexual moral value. They are welcome to to live however they want. It is a moral that is right to them, but wrong to me.
Here is the best way I can explain it; Being gay is not wrong to them, and we dont have any desire to judge them. Live and live.
But it is wrong for me, as well as for 96% of people who dont.
And in schools the percentage of heterosexual parents parents
I have only heard bigots like you pretend that anyone claims it is a choice like hamburgers or turkey dogs.
Shouldnt they have a right to teach their kid about family values, not school?
I don't believe you personally should have the right to teach your family values. Do you think my opinion should affect what you teach your kids? Your moral opinion or anyones moral opinion is not welcome in schools.
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Depends on how fucked up the religious beliefs are. If the religious beliefs in question are fundamentally wrong, then it is fundamentally right to disrespect or file charges against the person for practicing fundamentally wrong religious beliefs.
Since the baker ignores what Jesus said about not discriminating against sinners, and is clearly making a moral judgement that the Bible forbids, it is fundamentally wrong for the baker to deny service. Also, since the baker is making an arbitrary judgement call about a single sin they are also being hypocritical. They don't verify that everyone they make a cake for is sinless. So, since they are lying about verifying that their principles aren't violated, they are fundamentally wrong and committing a sin by lying about the justification. Discrimination should always be disrespected.
Now, if the baker wanted to take Sundays off, it would be fundamentally wrong to disrespect them for it.
So, in the first case it is fundamentally right to disrespect their religious beliefs because they are trying to change my beliefs. And, in the second case it would be fundamentally wrong for me to disrespect since I would be forcing my beliefs. I really hope this explains it, but I am pretty sure it won't.
So you believe there should be a religious dictator that controls others beliefs.
No, that's you. You want that. That's all you have been asking for. You have only advocated for your own religious beliefs and completely failed to recognize that the actual victims here have their own beliefs being violated. Do you really think the gay people that go into a bakery agree that being gay is morally wrong?
And the Supreme Court should follow specific guideline to approve religious freedom or deny religious freedom?
You aren't asking for religious freedom, you are asking for the right to discriminate. You don't get to discriminate. Sorry, those are the rules.
And the citizens are only free to choose approved religious freedom?
Of course you can only have approved religious freedom. Otherwise Sharia law would be applicable in America. Why don't you get your head out of your ass and realize that there are worse religious freedoms that you would allow?
Isnt that called religious restriction, and not religious freedom?
No, it is called restriction, not religious restriction. You aren't being restricted based on your religion, you are being restricted because you are trying do do something the is detrimental to society. We can't have people stop doing their jobs.
I answered all those questions. Why do you think it is ok to establish Sharia law in this country?
I love how you claim I am deflecting, but you never gave me an explanation for why you want people to prevent you from getting married and why you want people to deny you service in a restaurant.
When did i say every religious freedom needs to be protected?
When you called it religious restriction, you nutjob.
If a father wants to murder his daughter for not marrying within her arranged marriage
You wouldn't be allowed to say anything about it because you have clearly stated you are against any form of religious restriction.
There are things to consider murder is murder
Not according to your arguments. You keep telling us that if he murders his daughters for religious reasons we can't say anything because it would restrict his religious freedom.
And the girl has a right to life and liberty. So dads religious freedom, cant overstep hers.
But gays aren't entitled to the liberty of going to a bakery and ordering a cake? Not being able to order a cake is a loss of liberty, but not being able to avoid your voluntary job is not losing liberty.
So in this case dad cant murder his daughter And he cant force her to marry because a contract is not enforceable under duress.
The gays are the daughter in the scenario we are discussing. You are advocating for the loss of liberty.
Ok if i'm an animal rights activist, and my job is taking someones dead pet, andbstuffing them like a taxidermist.
And i do not believe in hunting! And someone brings me a deer, and i say no, i dont believe in hunting, do i have a right to turn away the hunter and his dear while i gladly do miss smiths dog which is a giant mastiff?
Or since i own my business, am i required to make exceptions to my belief and also do the deer
You don't stuff deer. If you are willing to stuff pet deer for non hunters but not stuff deer that were hunted you would be making an exception to your beliefs. The bakery is not being asked to provide a service they don't provide. You are equating not doing a specific action for anyone with not doing a general action for a specific person. You can't choose your clientele, you can choose your services.
Fo you ever see deer heads in cabins, or hunted stuff raccoons
No one has a pet deer! They are hunted. And im specifically talking about a hunted animal. Use a bear if you like taxidermist will memorialize the pet but not the act of hunting, strictly based on her beliefs!!!
And here you go avoiding like the other times!
The comparison was-
A hunted killed deer! And A pet, someone wants memorialzef which is a dog, I used Masiff, even though its size is mot needed for a variable I chose ywo large animals.
But we can use small. A hunted fox, and a german shepherd if you like!!
Same deal, taxidermist says yes to dog but no to hunted fox.
Jesus man, you can't stick with your fucking analogy for 2 fucking arguments? In your bullshit unthought out story of a ridiculous taxidermist you mentioned that you only stuff pets. Deer aren't pets, so you wouldn't be stuffing deer. You, the taxidermist that only works on pets, would not be stuffing a deer. It would not be a service listed.
You are basically asking if a cake baker should be required to sell cookies. Your question is fucking stupid and you have been given a perfect response that you are too fucking dumb to understand. This is why your belief system is dying in this country. The younger generation is more educated.
And I get you think that, and Im not sure why your gen is so unwilling to share the space with others who disagree with you.
But its ruining relationships and balance in communities.
There is reasonable balance and cooperation, and tolerance too.
Tolerance if someone isnt friendly how they said no.
And tolerance to believe different.
We older Christians dont want to keep a gay couple from being happy. An exclusive law for their benefit is between the gay couple the gov and God. Just not a law thats going to force it on others they need to be able to choose on their own.
And its pleasant anyway.
Gays and Millennials should fight with us not against us.
We all should never let anyone take away religious freedom, and force anyone into anything against conscience.
Do we want to create people who stand for nothing, and do things without having a concience to consult?
Society without people of faith would be very dark, and we are all dark enough. Its people of faith that keep the lights on, if no one had a conscience, and everything were permisable, then who would hold self accountable when no one was looking.
The more people have conscience the better people are to one another.
Your gen is the darkest ive ever seen, you are all mean, and heartless, no concern for how others think or feel.
Do you have any idea what that will look like when you remove the light around you also?
And I get you think that, and Im not sure why your gen is so unwilling to share the space with others who disagree with you.
I will let you disagree with me if you let me punch you in the face. My new religious beliefs say I can punch people ion the face. I know it isn't written down any where and I know that all of my other religious beliefs say I shouldn't punch people in the face, but I am declaring that punching you in the face is something my religion condones.
But its ruining relationships and balance in communities.
It isn't. It is actually fixing relationships.
There is reasonable balance and cooperation, and tolerance too.
And, the baker should have been reasonable.
And tolerance to believe different.
I don't care what you believe. But, as soon as you start claiming that you can act improperly toward me because of your beliefs you throw off the balance.
We older Christians dont want to keep a gay couple from being happy.
I know. You guys want to exterminate them. Keeping them from being happy is nowhere near enough for you.
Gays and Millennials should fight with us not against us.
You detest both those groups.
We all should never let anyone take away religious freedom, and force anyone into anything against conscience.
Bullshit. It goes against my conscience to continue to allow religion to convince people that evolution is false. Do you think I should be allowed to go on a crusade to end churches that teach evolution is false?
Society without people of faith would be very dark, and we are all dark enough.
I knew you were racist as well as homophobic.
Its people of faith that keep the lights on, if no one had a conscience, and everything were permisable, then who would hold self accountable when no one was looking.
You guys don't hold yourselves accountable. That's why you are losing the Millennials. They can see you are full of shit.
The more people have conscience the better people are to one another.
Religion removes your ability to think critically about your conscience.
Your gen is the darkest ive ever seen, you are all mean, and heartless, no concern for how others think or feel.
Every single generation says this about the generation that follows them.
Do you have any idea what that will look like when you remove the light around you also?
You are blocking the light. You think just because light seeps in around you that you are creating it.
Actually, you are trying to force your will. Saying that you won't do something for someone unless they change is trying to force your will.
Did you grow up with anyone that removed your choices.
Unreasonable, hateful, without regard for what you think or feel?
If there are 35 bakers and you can only choose between 30 of them, haven't your choices been removed?
Sep of Church and State is supposed to protect religious freedom.
No, it is supposed to protect all freedom.
Its so not 1 group takes over all by force.
You are only fighting for your group.
We Christians actually did not overtake you by force.
There is no force being used by either side.
No 1 restricted your choices, or forced you to choose natural sexuality. There is a place for all things
Except for religion, right. That bullshit gets to be everywhere.
We dont force beliefs on others we tolerate all
Are you for real? Christians don't even tolerate other Christians.
If that is fair to you, and this discussion didnt challenge that thought then there isnt anything i can do.
There actually is one thing you can do. You can finally explain why you want someone to prevent you from getting married and why you want someone to not serve you in a bakery.
Law and religion! Law should never make law against religion, and religion should not be honored against law.
Religions, most of them! Believe gay sexuality is immorality.
Religion all of them, have beliefs surrounding sexuality.
Christians- 1000s of sects, Catholics, Jews, Muslims
They most all, have sexual morality beliefs that strictly hold to - sex is to be within natural marriage. And no deviation, no adultery. Many chures will excommunicate. Catholics wont allow 2nd marriages in church, unless widowed or its a reasonable explanation for divorse, like innocent but spouse was adulterous, or abusive.
Now they dont police engaged couples, and pry into their sex life, although some churches actually do!
There are many devoted Christian churches will be involved during engagements to help couples be accountable to wait till married! And if stray there is repentance, cleansing, but if rebellious against beliefs of church, they may excommumicate the couple.
Muslims will kill the dghter and the guy for sex outside of marriage, in America they may simply excommunicate from family and mosque. Strict Jews may also excommunicate.
The Catholics really won't pry unless given a reason of concern, and samr with other churches its a moral they teach but don't police the congregants.
So law, church and state separation is like a balanced see-saw
Gov - American specific. Gov is supposed to have a set of laws that are based on general beliefs of all populous, and based on divine inalienable rights. Its law that is basic natural rights all human kind deserve. Your right to have life and not have it taken from you. Your right to own without someone taking from you, to make a living and provide for your family. So you have the right to have food clothing and fair wages, or fair trade of goods, you have a right to believe and have freedom to believe, a right to pursue and believe, without disturbing the rights of others. So 1 person cant say i have a right to eat so im going to legally steal your crops. And the other person gov cant say he has a right to eat, so you must give him yours!
So basic inalienable rights are not for or in opposition to religion, and they are based on natural laws. And since every occupant is made up of 1000s of groups of religion, laws are made to the peace and safety of ALL, and never in favor of 1 group.
So all religions except a few, believe in 1 husb and 1 wife.
So mormons ask to change marriage law the answer is no. why?
Because, it would be a lw for 1 or a few that would be against the religious beliefs of the many groups. So gov cant make a law in favor of 1 and then force it on all the others against their beliefs
Because that is a breech of church and state.
If the mormons were given the exception, then society which is made up of all these people who have an allegience of concscience to their religion would have to give allegience to a law made in favor of 1 group who believes this, and then force it on all.
So both mormons and gov would be in breech of church and state.
Law when made, should be neutral. It should not require a Muslim to go against basic inalienable rights and the law of the religion. So the Muslim can give allegiance to religion and country without failing 1 or the other. Same with all Christian faiths.
If they said yes to many wives they would be forcing it. And the Christian, would then have to choose for religion against law of country or for law of country against their religion.
So law is supposed to be made for law breakers. But its not supposed to be made then create law breakers.
Law and religion! Law should never make law against religion, and religion should not be honored against law.
That's a fucking contradiction. If a law is honored over a religion it was made against the religion.
Religions, most of them! Believe gay sexuality is immorality.
Still shouldn't be honored against the law.
Religion all of them, have beliefs surrounding sexuality.
Still shouldn't be honored against the law.
They most all, have sexual morality beliefs that strictly hold to
You guys aren't actually. That's a big problem I have. The baker is only checking for one sexually immoral action. Being gay isn't the only sexually immoral action you can take. If the baker was actually looking at all sexual immorality we could have a discussion. But, no baker does, so nothing is being strictly held.
And no deviation, no adultery.
They have no problems with adultery cakes.
Because, it would be a lw for 1 or a few that would be against the religious beliefs of the many groups.
No, it is because a married man is not being denied the opportunity to get married. He is already married. He can't claim that he has been denied the chance to be married.
Law when made, should be neutral.
Yep. Good thing the new marriage law fixed that.
If they said yes to many wives they would be forcing it.
Well, actually no not at all. The religion has requirements for you to follow, not for everyone else to follow. If your neighbor Bob has 5 wives, it doesn't affect your religion at all.
So law is supposed to be made for law breakers. But its not supposed to be made then create law breakers.
Law and religion! Law should never make law against religion, and religion should not be honored against law.
That's a fucking contradiction. If a law is honored over a religion it was made against the religion.
Religions, most of them! Believe gay sexuality is immorality.
Still shouldn't be honored against the law.
Religion all of them, have beliefs surrounding sexuality.
Still shouldn't be honored against the law.
They most all, have sexual morality beliefs that strictly hold to
You guys aren't actually. That's a big problem I have. The baker is only checking for one sexually immoral action. Being gay isn't the only sexually immoral action you can take. If the baker was actually looking at all sexual immorality we could have a discussion. But, no baker does, so nothing is being strictly held.
And no deviation, no adultery.
1st of all it would be an invasion of privacy!
2nd of all she has no idea how a 1st marriage fell apart. And she has no right nor social comfort level discussing their sexuality when she is simply baking cakes. BUT a guy and a guy getting married is an apparent issue and its apparentluly immorality without prying or asking or anything.
Now if 1 gay guy came in and said I want Steve and Sue on a cake, and she has no idea, she probably wouldnt ask either umless she was given a reason. Like if the guy is talking about his boyfriend Sue, or he was behaing in a way that indicated he was gay, she may ask a basic question regarding wedding details.
If details during the cake order cause her to interpret Sue as a man, them she has a right to confirm its not going against her faith.
she cant ignore interpretting something she needs to question for processing the order.
But if the guy ordered with no indication, she mighy not have a readon to ask. Like if he ordered on line with basic instructions Steve an Sue.But she has the right to ask if a question is raised within her conscience!
They have no problems with adultery cakes.
It would be inappropriate to discuss how many marriages, or why he is not with wife. But if she knows him, and knows he was an adulterer she also may deny his cake! But a gay couple is visually discernable. The others she would have to invade privacy and be inappropriate to gather. And thats not right either!
Because, it would be a law for 1 or a few that would be against the religious beliefs of the many groups.
No, it is because a married man is not being denied the opportunity to get married. He is already married. He can't claim that he has been denied the chance to be married.
No his belief is many wives, so to him he hs not met his belief of many wives. And also I am not saying the law cant gove the gay couple or even the mormon a law that allows practice of beliefs, i am saying it cant be a matter if discrimunation thereby forcing either of these beliefs on all others! Though in the case of mormons, many wives are married by force into it, so id say the law should not grant for the rights of the women!
The gay couple is consensual, a civil union marriage would be purely for the benefit of the gay couple. And should not be for the force onto all others. So in that case a law of exception for the benefit of 1 that has minimal to no impact on others, would compare to, some religious people do not believe in immunizations. Depending on public safety, a law of exception may exclude from immunizations. A break out in measles though may recind, for public safety. Or may limit their exception. Like they can opt out of all but measles etc
Law when made, should be neutral.
Yep. Good thing the new marriage law fixed that.
If they said yes to many wives they would be forcing it.
No, its forcing it against beliefs of all, the only fair law is exclusive, but not on all!
So if gov gave exclusive to the gay couple. The couple can enter the state marriage contract. And register with state and federal for all benefits of marriage partnership! Such as buying a home in joint tenancy, or inheritace, survivorship, or medical benefits.
And community and churches participate by personal choice, not force. Which on a happy occassion, why would you want a photographer there all day who clearly feels forced. Wouldnt you choose a photographer that is there under his own accord??
So couple is celebrating tying their union!
Go to a baker, 1 says "i cant, religious reason Muslim, Christian whatever," great no penalty, no hate crime, no throwing icing! Baker didnt thow baking pans at them!
Couple goes to another baker, and their glad to.
Great no one is hurt.
We all suffer unhappy moments in stores. We may leave bugged or pissed, hapoens all the time! For a few minutes, or maybe it makes our whole day lousy! But there are no scars.
The baker saying "I cant" was upsetting, but not tragic!
But her being dragged to court is tragic, her being fined is tragic, and her closing her business is devastating!
The gay couple being told "I can't do it" what is the life altering damage here. Its nothing less tha ambulamce chasing! Why do you think thats an acceptable match of damages?
Supreme Court breech of church and state. Its damaging tk communities and divisive, and negative for gays also!
Law against all created a dynamic for breaking a law that should only exist for the gay couples benefit, not to incriminate people for religious beliefs!!
Back to no to many wives:
Well, actually no not at all. The religion has requirements for you to follow, not for everyone else to follow. If your neighbor Bob has 5 wives, it doesn't affect your religion at all.
Actually yes it does, because it is a conflict to society from caterers to realtors to tax accountants to financial planners.
And employers providing benefits. And as I mentioned before it is a crime against women, who feel compelled by their pastors and other men, and the other women are compelled to.enforce the will of these men. And then, if divorce occurs who gets what assets.
So it is a matter of rights of women pressured, and giving an exclusion for them is not necessarily denied because of all others, but if all others where considered, then it would have to be exclusive. Participation of others by choice, not force.
In utah, they have turned a blind eye. Not making law of allowance, but till recently cohabitation was allowable, not certification. Meaning most townships have occupancy laws. Like no more than 3 adults unrelated living together. Student housing exceptions are prome real estate because of these lawd!
But in utah till recently they did not disturb a man wife and 3 other adult women unrelated cohabitating. I think they recently have been addressing that more strictly.
So law is supposed to be made for law breakers. But its not supposed to be made then create law breakers.
Ok, but no law was created.
Yes Supreme Court ruling - same sex marriage wasnt written as exclusive exception, which if it were it absolutely would have been fine! Because not forced on all, would allow for religious freedom, still give the couple all benefits of marriage, and give the community the choice individually for participation. And no one like the baker would be sued, the couple could have a fun celebration with people happy to be involved, churches wouldnt have to rewrite bylaws to protect themselves, and no one would be scrutinizwd for what they believe ot dont believe. Everyone enjoys rights and freedoms without anyone being denied their rights and freedoms.
And society is happy working togethervand being a cimmunity that is healthy and vibrant, with everyone happy, not this 1/2 miserable, and the other 1/2 causing pain and this potential of loosing your livlihood for your faith! Freedom of religion should protect what you believe as long as you are not trampling anothers rights.
Giving gays a law exclusive was acceptable for all.
Unless gays want to trample others rights. Then thats a different conversatuon. Then we are back to selfishness!
So, now all of a sudden you don't care about helping others sin.
2nd of all she has no idea how a 1st marriage fell apart. And she has no right nor social comfort level discussing their sexuality when she is simply baking cakes. BUT a guy and a guy getting married is an apparent issue and its apparentluly immorality without prying or asking or anything.
Bullshit. She has already made the ridiculous decision to discuss sexuality when simply baking cakes.
Now if 1 gay guy came in and said I want Steve and Sue on a cake, and she has no idea, she probably wouldnt ask either umless she was given a reason. Like if the guy is talking about his boyfriend Sue, or he was behaing in a way that indicated he was gay, she may ask a basic question regarding wedding details.
That's not allowed. Stop invading privacy.
If details during the cake order cause her to interpret Sue as a man, them she has a right to confirm its not going against her faith.
No she doesn't. You just said she isn't allowed to discuss sexuality when simply baking cakes.
But if she knows him, and knows he was an adulterer she also may deny his cake!
Bullshit. That will never fucking happen because you Christians don't hate adulterers, you only hate gays.
The gay couple is consensual, a civil union marriage would be purely for the benefit of the gay couple.
Every single marriage only benefits the 2 people getting married.
And should not be for the force onto all others.
Nothing is being forced on you.
The baker saying "I cant" was upsetting, but not tragic!
Of course it is fucking tragic. It is tragic whenever religion is used to tear us apart instead of bringing us together.
But her being dragged to court is tragic, her being fined is tragic, and her closing her business is devastating!
It is only tragic that she didn't get a chance to fix the situation before going to court. The fine is only tragic because it was excessive. But, it is in no way tragic that she closed her business. She had no problems running her business after the incident and closed the business on her own.
Actually yes it does, because it is a conflict to society from caterers to realtors to tax accountants to financial planners.
Bob creating more work for those people doesn't change the way you practice your religion.
And employers providing benefits. And as I mentioned before it is a crime against women, who feel compelled by their pastors and other men, and the other women are compelled to.enforce the will of these men. And then, if divorce occurs who gets what assets.
Someone else's assets are no concern of yours.
Yes Supreme Court ruling - same sex marriage wasnt written as exclusive exception, which if it were it absolutely would have been fine!
First, that makes no sense. Writing it as an exception but treating it exactly the same doesn't change the moral ramifications. Second, a Supreme Court ruling isn't a law.
Because not forced on all, would allow for religious freedom, still give the couple all benefits of marriage, and give the community the choice individually for participation.
Since you don't seem to realize this: you aren't being required to have a gay wedding.
Everyone enjoys rights and freedoms without anyone being denied their rights and freedoms.
False. No matter what, the gays are being denied the freedom to use the bakers that hate gays.
Freedom of religion should protect what you believe as long as you are not trampling anothers rights.
No shit lady. Stop protecting the religious freedom to trample rights.
Unless gays want to trample others rights. Then thats a different conversatuon. Then we are back to selfishness!
The only selfishness is shown by you for only defending your own religion's rights.
Honestly, i took this time, and you were important enough to take this time. Hopefully there is a reason, and hopefully it somehow helps you or God touches you or your closer to being touched
I have 3 Millennials of my own. Well youngest is 19, and her friends are here every day, the other 2 have similar arguments.
My youngest gets it, still stubborn on some, but she understands the otherside of religious freedom, light went on a tiny bit for my oldest,
And I got her to watch God is Not Dead
I recommend it!
Very eye opening. You can see how miserable secularism and atheism can be, and heartless.
A world without people who are free to believe, would be a world ful of you and your responses to others.
Very eye opening. You can see how miserable secularism and atheism can be, and heartless.
There was no atheism in that movie. The fucking professor calls himself god. How can you not believe in god and call yourself god. The entire movie is a strawman argument.
A world without people who are free to believe, would be a world ful of you and your responses to others.
That doesn't make any sense. You are against freedom to believe what you want, and I am against the freedom to do whatever you want.
Shame on the Supreme Court for your breech of chuch and state.
Its a crime made by government against its citizens and its a crime against the constitution which commands congress shall nake no law prohibiting free exercise of religion.
And the breech created a law, that created a situation for all to break the law or give up religious freedom!
Shame on the Supreme Court for your breech of chuch and state.
They didn't affect your religion, you asshole.
Its a crime made by government against its citizens and its a crime against the constitution which commands congress shall nake no law prohibiting free exercise of religion.
They haven't passed any laws prohibiting exercising religion. The have prohibited being an asshole.
And the breech created a law, that created a situation for all to break the law or give up religious freedom!
Shame on the Supreme Court for your breech of chuch and state.
They didn't affect your religion, you asshole.
Its a crime made by government against its citizens and its a crime against the constitution which commands congress shall nake no law prohibiting free exercise of religion.
They haven't passed any laws prohibiting exercising religion. The have prohibited being an asshole.
And the breech created a law, that created a situation for all to break the law or give up religious freedom!
Hate is not a religious freedom.
So Cartman - How is the Christian baker being accused of hate?
Did she call them names? Did she throw icing at them?
Or did she simply say I cant?
So saying I cant is saying i hate you??
So is the taxidermist displaying hate when she says no to the hunter? Should we prosecute her for hate?
So Cartman - How is the Christian baker being accused of hate?
They hate gays and are not actually following the religion.
Did she call them names? Did she throw icing at them?
She treated them like animals by kicking them out of the store.
Please show me, And even if she said leave my store. Are we thin skinned? I was in Philly a few years back, with a group giving food and blankets to homeless, I was wearing pants, I went into a church to use their bathroom, and was told no because I was wearing pants. Which the gentleman followed with saying I wasnt of faith, and I should not wear pants. I was ticked off a little, but there was no damage. I found another bathroom and continued my activity!
Or did she simply say I cant?
When you lie to customers you are showing your hate.
There is no crime against lieing and I have no idea why you say she was lieing. Regardless there is no crime against lieing.
So saying I cant is saying i hate you??
When you can do it, totally.
She cant was for her beliefs. Her beliefs are not your to scrutinize! Nor the gay couple nor the gov nor the courts. They are her beliefs. Beliefs ARE NOT A CRIME! The gay couple had no right to challenge her and her religion. Now Im questioning entrappment?
Regardless, answer is no, please leave my store, find another baker and enjoy the rest of your plans!
So is the taxidermist displaying hate when she says no to the hunter? Should we prosecute her for hate?
She isn't saying no to the hunter, she is saying no to the deer.
The baker wasnt saying no to the perso asking for cake!
She was saying no to the same sex marriage!
You are too fucking stupid to know the difference. It's a shame really
I think you should consider my points and be fair to others.
Again do you have a mother, has any Christians supported or helped you or volunteered their time so you can enjoy something.
These are people real people who are nice and generous.
And sometimes its ok to disagree and walk away.
But its never ok to trample the rights of others. And you should at the very least respect others boundaries!
Please show me, And even if she said leave my store. Are we thin skinned?
Maybe the baker should show love like Jesus said instead of not showing anything.
There is no crime against lieing and I have no idea why you say she was lieing. Regardless there is no crime against lieing.
I never said she was committing a crime you illiterate fuck. I said she was showing her hate. She was lying because she is fully capable of making a cake.
Her beliefs are not your to scrutinize!
You scrutinize everyone else's beliefs, so fuck you.
Beliefs ARE NOT A CRIME!
She is being attacked for her actions, not her beliefs.
The baker wasnt saying no to the perso asking for cake! She was saying no to the gay narriage!
She makes cakes for weddings, you fucking asshole. She was saying no to the people.
She wasnt saying no to marriage she was saying no to sexual morality that is part of gay marriage.
She clearly doesn't care about sexual immorality because she doesn't verify that every customer she encounters is being sexually moral.
Sexuality and intamacy are a component of marriage.
And, in a live and let live philosophy you should only be concerned about the sexuality and intimacy of your own marriage.
Because someone says they cant, isnt disrespecting your belief.
If im into rock and roll, which i am, i am not going to a club that plays electro music crap and making them change it.
Just because we disagree doesnt mean we disrespect.
If i tell friends i dont want to go because i hate the music, im not saying i hate my friends.
And im not disrespecting those who like that crap, even though it is like nails on a chalk board.
Ill just find a club with rock, and be happier with my choice, then trying to fit me into a club that plays electro music
No one who has a belief should scrutinize anothers beliefs, but when it clearly against your beliefs you should be free to make the value choice that matches your faith.
If im a protestant and wished to marry in the catholic cathedral that I was raised in, and they said no because i am no longer catholic, i may be disappointed, but i understand. And i move on
This happens everyday to many many people, and you never see it in the news, because religious freedom can manage their beliefs without hostility
And funny, if a catholic went to a protestant church to be married, they probably would.
So me being protestant should have a right to go after the bigot catholic church.
Religious freedom, the catholic is free to turn me away for doctrine
And the protestant is free to accept for religious frredom
They both are free to act according to their beliefs
If im a protestant and wished to marry in the catholic cathedral that I was raised in, and they said no because i am no longer catholic, i may be disappointed, but i understand. And i move on
Bakeries aren't religious institutions. Churches aren't allowed to sell you stuff. But, I guess you wouldn't understand that difference.
You have to give up some of your freedoms to run a business. You get compensated by getting the opportunity to make money.
Gov isnt allowed in either of thos so what is the point of religios freedom and not prohibit if you cant exercise what you believe?
If you exercising what you believe involves committing a crime you are all for the government being allowed to stop it. You don't actually believe the government shouldn't be allowed to stop some exercise of religion. Some religious freedoms aren't allowed to be exercised, like Sharia law.
People go into business to govern their businesses the way they want to!
If i work at walmart, i play by walmarts rules during work.
So if I believe believe in marriage that has potential for reproduction, but a gay person is in line buying wedding invitations, its not my business, its walmarts. And i can choose to scan or quit.
Im a checker, its not my business to scrutinize what people buy
If i'm a Muslim and work at walmart, and I dont believe in ham, since i choose to work at walmart i scan ham, or quit walmart.!
If I have my own store and someone wants me to stock ham, i have a right to not stock ham. Its my business.
And this also is diff from the marriage license clerk, because marriage licenses are her entire job!!.
So state needs to accomadate her, because when she took her job, it lined up with her conscience, and they need to honor her religious freedom!
Now a state may refuse to hire someone, who says i can do all the job i am applying for but this. Then maybe the state can decide on a different applicant. As long as they have same qualified or more qualified, because they cant not hire because of her religion!
But this woman who has had her job signing marriage licenses cant be forced against her conscience or fired, because thats a crime against her religious freedom.
If it were my own business I wouldn't have to file all the paperwork with the state would I? Why would I require paperwork?
People go into business to govern their businesses the way they want to.
Actually, no they don't.
If I have my own store and someone wants me to stock ham, i have a right to not stock ham. Its my business.
Yeah, but you aren't stocking ham for anyone. That's your business model. That has nothing to do with your religious belief. It is well known that you can't get ham at every business establishment.
And this is diff from the marriage licenseclerk, because marriage licenses are her entire job. So state needs to accomadate her, because when she took her job, it lined up with her conscience
She refused to allow the state to accommodate her.
But this woman cant be forced against her conscience or fired. Because thats not fair to her religious freedom
You need to define religious freedom before we can give it to everyone. Since she wasn't practicing Christianity, since Christianity says to follow the law of the land, how was she exercising religious freedom?
Were you left in your room without a mother to hug you.
Of course not, that's why I didn't end up as fucked up as you.
What did your mom believe?
She believed that do unto others as you want done to you meant to look at what you are doing to the other person and govern what you do instead of looking at what the other person is doing and judge them as being an asshole.
Did you ever go to a youth group or a summer bible day camp?
Depends on how fucked up the religious beliefs are. If the religious beliefs in question are fundamentally wrong, then it is fundamentally right to disrespect or file charges against the person for practicing fundamentally wrong religious beliefs.
Depends on how fucked up the religious freedom you are asking for is. If you want Sharia law, then no, that religious freedom is not allowed. Why do you want Sharia law?
I don't think this is covered by Sharia law, but even if they claimed that it did and they need to follow Sharia law, they should be prosecuted for violating the agreement to conduct a business in this country.
Cartman is right. A secular society that allows for religious freedom must have an independent set of moral standard that the various religions fall within. So it really does depend on how fucked up the the belief in question is with regards to the commonly applied law.
Furthermore, to determine whether or not the baker is following religious beliefs it is appropriate to look at how they do business with other religiously designated sinners. Since the baker refuses service to some sinners and not to others, there is likely a non-religious bias at play.
Finally, Jesus established the separation of church and state when he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is Gods". The determination of contracts (i.e. Marriage contracts) is a matter for state. The bible may say the homosexuality is wrong, but it never said anything about governmental contracts of marriage. It certainly didn't say it must be one man and one woman (ask David's many wives).
We are not a secular society! We are a society that has religious freedom. That is not a secular society!
It would be inappropriate to discuss how many marriages, or why he is not with wife. But if she knows him, and knows he was an adulterer she also may deny his cake!
But a gay couple is visually discernible. The others she would have to invade privacy and be inappropriate to gather. And thats not right either!
Mormons belief is many wives, so to him he hs not met his belief of many wives. And also I am not saying the law cant gove the gay couple or even the mormon a law that allows practice of beliefs, i am saying it cant be a matter if discrimunation thereby forcing either of these beliefs on all others! Though in the case of mormons, many wives are married by force into it, so id say the law should not grant for the rights of the women!
The gay couple is consensual, a civil union marriage would be purely for the benefit of the gay couple. And should not be for the force onto all others. So in that case a law of exception for the benefit of 1 that has minimal to no impact on others, would compare to, some religious people do not believe in immunizations. Depending on public safety, a law of exception may exclude from immunizations.
A break out in measles though may recind, for public safety. Or may limit their exception. Like they can opt out of all but measles etc
Law when made, should be neutral.
Forcing it against beliefs of all, the only fair law is exclusive, but not on all!
So if gov gave exclusive to the gay couple. The couple can enter the state marriage contract. And register with state and federal for all benefits of marriage partnership! Such as buying a home in joint tenancy, or inheritace, survivorship, or medical benefits.
And community and churches participate by personal choice, not force. Which on a happy occassion, why would you want a photographer there all day who clearly feels forced. Wouldnt you choose a photographer that is there under his own accord??
So couple is celebrating tying their union!
Go to a baker, 1 says "i cant, religious reason Muslim, Christian whatever," great no penalty, no hate crime, no throwing icing! Baker didnt thow baking pans at them!
Couple goes to another baker, and their glad to.
Great no one is hurt.
We all suffer unhappy moments in stores. We may leave bugged or pissed, hapoens all the time! For a few minutes, or maybe it makes our whole day lousy! But there are no scars.
The baker saying "I cant" was upsetting, but not tragic!
But her being dragged to court is tragic, her being fined is tragic, and her closing her business is devastating!
The gay couple being told "I can't do it" what is the life altering damage here. Its nothing less tha ambulamce chasing! Why do you think thats an acceptable match of damages?
Supreme Court breech of church and state. Its damaging tk communities and divisive, and negative for gays also!
Law against all created a dynamic for breaking a law that should only exist for the gay couples benefit, not to incriminate people for religious beliefs!!
The real question is whether or not homosexuality is a protected class in the State in which an occurrence takes place. If a given state holds them as a protected class, then feeling uncomfortable doing wedding pics or wedding cakes for gay people is equivalent to denying service because you are uncomfortable with a marriage between people of different races. Religious freedom is only valid when it is within the bounds of our established secular law.
Tattoos are a very visible sin. So is wearing garments of more than one kind of fabric (Lev 19). Should the cake maker turn down the guy in the polyester suit and a cotton shirt?
An answer to a debator defending legal actions against Christians based on "sin is sin" argument.
Religion is a protected class, and should be!
Gays should not be a protected class, because hate against any group is equal hate!
Im a Christian, and I dont think tatoos are a sin. Others may, its their freedom to do so!
Born again religions, may not judge where or why a person has tattoos, and likely wouldn't judge their tattos. They may have a story to tell, let them!
A church i stepped into several years back in Philly while handing out food and blankets with my church group refused to let me use their bathroom because I am a woman and was wearing pants. Yhey may believe differently and are strict about other things that other churches are not strict with. And it should be ok to believe either way, and I could care less about what they believe, thats their business, my beliefs are my business! Tolerance, live and let live.
I have a belly ring, and one of my favorite people in the world is my baby, youngest daughter, because she is sweet. She has a guage earing, and has had purple to teal hair since she was in jr high.
Wawa and Starbucks won't hire her, because visually she has an unnatural color hair. But, there are plenty of jobs that will. So she chooses to keep her crazy colors, and work where they dont have an issue with it!
Many churches dont think certain vices are sin, like smoking or social drinking. There are varying degrees of doctrines. Thats why religious freedom is so important!!!! Many sects if Christianity are evem loose on sexual preference, most I know are strict.
But it is not up to people, or government, or courts to scruitinize anyone's beliefs Including gays who have religious beliefs that are inclusive of sexual orientaton, unless a real crime has been commited. Just like freedom of speech of every degree is protected!
Both speech and religious freedom are personal expression regarding what they think and believe about everything that matters to them!
Disabilities are not a choice and being black isnt a choice either, although honestly, America needs to head in a different direction where all people regardless of race, all are equaly protected, and NOT especially protected!
Protected classes should be represented of all groups of people and found in every race and culture! Such as disabilities, and religions, ages, and gender.
I' ll explain:
Religion because it effects all races, genders, classes, and found in every walk of life. Every religion from Christian to Muslim to Jews etc, and also religions that are permissive, and are inclusive of gay membership and leadership should have religious freedom. Does it mean we won' t bump into each other at times, but how about we behave politely and say excuse me! Or ok discussed agree to disagree! Isnt that what a "progressive" society is all about!
Disabilities protected because they need to compete according to the abilities they do have. And people with disabilities are present in every group. And age, because they have to compete against younger candidates, and again age is a factor for every group so it is selective of none. And women, because they need to compete equally against men who have different strengths, and women need to be able to compete according to their strengths, and not limited by the weaknesses they may present in a workplace, physically, or even regards to future pregnancies, birth, maternity leaves, sick kids, and other family responsibilities that could cause bias or expense of down time or added health insurance costs. Up till recently health insurances have been higher because of reproduction. An example are the nuns who recently fought cost of health insurance inclusive of reproductive ability. And they are abstinent, (except for some who change their mind and take directions leading out of the vocation)
The following groups of classes are across the board represented in every single group of race and culture. So American 1st!
America is multi cultural so every culture should be protected classes - American 1st, and white 2nd, italian 2nd, black 2nd, gay 2nd, married 2nd, single 2nd, economic class 2nd.
But in every American group of people, there are equally specific groups whovshould be protection from discrimination.
And its reasonable, because it puts competing equal for all in every group. But it can't be given above religious freedom of all, or its selective group breeching separation of church and state because then it prohibits the free exercise of religion for all, except for 1 such as LGBT.
Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. it's a lifestyle, and sexual choice. Even if you believe it was genetic, every baby is born with the same option of choice, and genetic or not can choose it.
But in common every group has:
Disabled, Age, Gender, and Religion.
We as a society should have moved beyond the racial division to the next phase atleast 10 years ago. Not adding more divisions!!
There will always be bullies, for everyone, in every group.
Reverse discrimination is just as much a problem as discrimination!!
The baker could even be an example of this, she was signaled out in reverse discrimination, legally, for her beliefs. Yet not 1 case invoving Muslims was brought forth even though they believe the same. There is footage showing 3 Muslim bakeries who also would not make a cake against their own religious beliefs!
Discrimination for sexual orientation opens religions up for open hunting season as targets to be abused by anyone who is sexually oriented protected.
Re: Transgender bathroom laws: We were not likely aware or able to notice transgenders in bathrooms. But creating laws, protecting them in discriminations and allowing choice of bathrooms are also open hunting season by anyone who wants to exploit others, for personal gain, political media attention, or both, and also for preditors. So if transgenders are really living like their identity, then go in, close the door, and dont draw unneeded attention. And live amd let live! If arrested, there is defense! You dont NEED a law for that! Bring your doctors report and it isnt an issue! Maybe an exclusive allowance if identified could prevent problems instead of creating them. NC didnt randomly make a law, they made it in response to extreme demands made by groups like LGBT! So be mad at them!
The problem is, special interest groups want to be special, superior, stand out, have special privelages, and allowances. They want to be able to control society, and discrimination laws are a license to control and abuse others. They are only divisive, and cause unfairness to others resulting in further discrimination, and reverse discrimination!
And this is the liberals play ground, the more problems they create, the more it looks like you all need them!
There will always be hate crimes for everyone. Fat, ugly, body shaming, gay, short, black, white, spanish, asian etc.
Compete as Americans, put these divisive groups out!
And we will be the America we intended to be since 1776!
Religious freedom was and is inclusive of all. It is ours by Constitutional guarantee!
Society corrected many issues, special interest groups stop progress by extremes! Now its time to move past it all and simply be American.
Making some groups a protected class, leaves others unprotected
Ex. the baker, florist, and the marriage certificate clerk. All who should have had resposible society step in and protect them, and provide alternatives of other businesses, or signers.
These exclusive special interest groups are divisive.
Examples: Making an excluse black statement, and forcing us to see you as black is counter productive. We dont want to "have" to like you because you are black. We want to like you because you have integrity, and you care about others, and you do a great job, and we want to laugh and enjoy the fun things in your culture and celebrate our differences, like the fun we have with italian families, or the drinking irish, or the fun we poke at the Amish, or the fun we have with gays, (who used to actually be enjoyed by communities, who are now pissed off, thanks to LGBT!) Or fun women drivers or "hey you guys," or the formality of ladies and gentlemen.
Groups start for good, but then when they arive to a point of growth and adjustments in society for further corrections, they go backward with extremes. Such as Feminist, good movement then extreme. Black movement - good then extreme. When the extreme defines you, and now your group becomes selected for rights and freedoms, while the rest of society is forced into giving theirs up, then you have gone from arrived, to going backwards!!!
I liked gays before this crap and after I now have trust issues, not because they are gay, but because of their activism. The extreme pushed your acceptance from general acceptance, even equal without discriminatory notice, to extreme overstepping into forced acceptance, then division and notice.
You have to decide the goal, if your goal is takeover, then your a jackass, and selfish, and un-American!
I grew up with alot of black friends, but when I went to a grocery store and a few ignorant people decided that being black gave them a right to walk through me, instead of equally being girls in a grocery store, I was pissed! Why because i dont like black people? Or because i dont like people who want to force their will on me and bully me because they are black.
Now that was 30 years ago, why is this more present, instead of history? Because black people make being black an issue, instead of making themselves equal, they want to enforce selective blackness, instead of celebrating blackness. Same deal w gays.
We will never force change on people without creating divisions and discrimination. Even Ben Carson says, he grew up poor, worked hard and directed his life where he wanted. NO ONE STOPPED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, and no one stopped him because he was poor. And he didnt paint himself white or pretend he was white, or behave like he was white. He embraced being American first, and being black 2nd. Yet his own race call him names, uncle tom, playing the white game.
Newsflash its NOT the white game he played, its the American game he played.
There are some bad officers, but generally if White Black Spanish Gay Tatoo filled biker, or whatever, respect law enforcement, and if you respect them and they are still harsher than they should be, sue them, or take them up the chain.
But its not ok to wave your arms around cuss the officer out, and appear threatening no matter who you are, and as Chris Rock says, you probably wont get your ass kicked.
But thats not what these groups want, and its not the messafe they are giving to the people they claim to defend!
Instead they push them further into the eye of the storm and divide society into the discrimination and into reverse discrimination hurting all of society including the people they say they are fighting for!
Most people feel like I do, we are angry because we are being forced, and its divisive!
Im angry at groups like LBGT! AND Black Lives Matter!
Yet I have gay young adults at my house everyday!
Im angry because we have moved beyond many things and these groups do the opposite of their supposed intention.
We didnt even notice transgenders in our bathrooms till LGBT decided to make us notice!
My daughter has a transgender friend (s)he is absolutely undetectable! We honestly wouldnt stare long enough to notice.
So if you experience anger, thank LGBT.
A same w BLM!
We want people to respect each others rights and share society.
You have bought some lies, Christianity isnt your enemy, they are not bullying you.
But also sexuality is a big deal to just about every religion.
And we have a right to believe what we want.
And you do also, if special interest groups would stop being bullies, we all would be better off.
We are a mixed up diverse group of Americans!
We love Ben Carson, he is not black to anyone.
I hate Obama, black has nothing to do with it!
The problem with the black special interest and gay special interest, isnt we dont like them!
Its we value being American plain and simple
Ben Carson, doesnt come out and say like me because I am black. He says like me because i am Ben Carson!
The gay kids that come to my house dont say like me because I am gay, they say like me because I am kind and a loyal friend, and I have value because of who I am, and also gay. Not because I am gay I force you!
DIVISIVE! Read my letter to gays on this post, it applys to BLM also!
Gay also has sex attached, sex is morality. And everyone has a right to have a belief and raise their children accordingly without influence forced upon their family and their values.
Exclusive laws to gain your personal goals are acceptable. Laws forced on all is not.
I dont expect everyone to like and agree with me, neiither should anyone else. Should the baker have to hire you, or bake a cake.
Well all should be a protected class!
She cant assume you are sexually in private offending God or her faith. As far as hiring every single person should be able to sue if there is valid discrimination.
Examples:
I am 4'11" Italian considered Caucasian, if I apply to the baker and she hires an applicant with less crudentials, that should be investigated. As to why, what discrimination had her choose a less qualified applicant?
If I am black same deal, but the black person and me should be on equal footing on possible discrimination.
If i am gay, same deal. She has no right to pry into privacy, privacy is a right.
So when gays gain exclusive law, it wiuld be better to make their sexuality like Hippa laws, a matter of choice and permission for a gay to share or not share their civil union status. And if she hires a lower quality applicant sue!
But a wedding cake is different, because thats disclosure of sexuality in intent to marry, and that is her right to believe differently about family values, sexuality, and same sex marriage.
So turning down the job is her right because she has religious beliefs. And it is more beneficial for the gay to hire someone that is supportive or neutral, because no one wants to have their wedding filled with people who are forced to be there!
Why would anyone want that?
You are welcome to go to churches and even start churches that are ministries that have no moral beliefs in opposition to the sexual morality inclusive of gay couples.
An exclusive laws can protect you for everything without making people feel forced and resent you! Force will make anyone resent anyone!!!!
There are better solutions to your issues in society, and the LGBT agenda isnt one of them. And neither is BLM.
Gays should not be a protected class, because hate against any group is equal hate!
Im a Christian, and I dont think tatoos are a sin. Others may, its their freedom to do so!
Born again religions, may not judge where or why a person has tattoos, and likely wouldn't judge their tattos. They may have a story to tell, let them!
A church i stepped into several years back in Philly while handing out food and blankets with my church group refused to let me use their bathroom because I am a woman and was wearing pants. They may believe differently and are strict about other things that other churches are not strict with. And it should be ok to believe either way, and I could care less about what they believe, thats their business, my beliefs are my business! Tolerance, live and let live.
I have a belly ring, and one of my favorite people in the world is my baby, youngest daughter, because she is sweet. She has a guage earing, and has had purple to teal hair since she was in jr high.
Wawa and Starbucks won't hire her, because visually she has an unnatural color hair. But, there are plenty of jobs that will. So she chooses to keep her crazy colors, and work where they dont have an issue with it!
Many churches dont think certain vices are sin, like smoking or social drinking. There are varying degrees of doctrines. Thats why religious freedom is so important!!!! Many sects if Christianity are evem loose on sexual preference, most I know are strict.
But it is not up to people, or government, or courts to scruitinize anyone's beliefs Including gays who have religious beliefs that are inclusive of sexual orientaton, unless a real crime has been commited. Just like freedom of speech of every degree is protected!
Both speech and religious freedom are personal expression regarding what they think and believe about everything that matters to them!
Disabilities are not a choice and being black isnt a choice either, although honestly, America needs to head in a different direction where all people regardless of race, all are equaly protected, and NOT especially protected!
Protected classes should be represented of all groups of people and found in every race and culture! Such as disabilities, and religions, ages, and gender.
I' ll explain:
Religion because it effects all races, genders, classes, and found in every walk of life. Every religion from Christian to Muslim to Jews etc, and also religions that are permissive, and are inclusive of gay membership and leadership should have religious freedom. Does it mean we won' t bump into each other at times, but how about we behave politely and say excuse me! Or ok discussed agree to disagree! Isnt that what a "progressive" society is all about!
Disabilities protected because they need to compete according to the abilities they do have. And people with disabilities are present in every group. And age, because they have to compete against younger candidates, and again age is a factor for every group so it is selective of none. And women, because they need to compete equally against men who have different strengths, and women need to be able to compete according to their strengths, and not limited by the weaknesses they may present in a workplace, physically, or even regards to future pregnancies, birth, maternity leaves, sick kids, and other family responsibilities that could cause bias or expense of down time or added health insurance costs. Up till recently health insurances have been higher because of reproduction. An example are the nuns who recently fought cost of health insurance inclusive of reproductive ability. And they are abstinent, (except for some who change their mind and take directions leading out of the vocation)
The following groups of classes are across the board represented in every single group of race and culture. So American 1st!
America is multi cultural so every culture should be protected classes - American 1st, and white 2nd, italian 2nd, black 2nd, gay 2nd, married 2nd, single 2nd, economic class 2nd.
In every American group of people, there are equally specific groups whovshould be protection from discrimination.
Its reasonable, because it puts competing equal for all in every group. But it can't be given above religious freedom of all, or its selective group breeching separation of church and state because then it prohibits the free exercise of religion for all, except for 1 such as LGBT.
Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. it's a lifestyle, and sexual choice. Even if you believe it was genetic, every baby is born with the same option of choice, and genetic or not can choose it.
But in common every group has:
Disabled, Age, Gender, and Religion.
We as a society should have moved beyond the racial division to the next phase atleast 10 years ago. Not adding more divisions!!
There will always be bullies, for everyone, in every group.
Reverse discrimination is just as much a problem as discrimination!!
Your pref is psychological or emotional, but there is no physical origination for your preference
We all have the same equipment, you may be emotionally drawn or obsessed by someone and you establish comfort with the unnatural.
'Genetic' or 'without choice' doesn't mean that there must be a physical origin. Do you think that your preference against broccoli was something you chose, or something nature chose?
It goes from Gay to Bi.
Can you explain what you mean here?
There have been babies born with rare abnormalities, but no babies born gay !!
As Cartman said, if you're only looking at physical traits at birth, and you're claiming that if they're not there at birth it's a choice, then you would also be making the argument that going through puberty is a choice, being tall is a choice, the way you think about anything is a choice, etc..
Broccali is a bitter, left to yoursrlf you might choose sweet
But nurturing will make the favored choice.
We all are born with many indicators, and that doesnt matter because influence will have a stronger pull.
We are natural families, sexual morality is a value, thats why it has no reason to be present except basic in sex education protection and disease and protection
Yes sexual attraction is not only a physical response. It is an emotional response. If there is an unnatural sexual preference, there is an emotional reason for the response.
Probably in the same way that many people have a type, or avoid a type.
define 'sexual morality
Sexual morality is the value an individuals places on their sexuality.
The higher the value of an individuals sexuality, the higher their standards of morality.
The lower the value of an individuals sexuality the lower their standards of morality.
Parents value their children's sexuality. I never saw a dad leaving the hospital with a new born daughter with out saying something crazy showing how protective of his baby daughter's sexuality he will be.
Sexual attraction is nurture driven, factors often daughters are attracted to men like their dad. The could have had a negative occurrence that steers people in different directions.
Nurturing also can be exposure with peers or other circumstances
Often an emotional obsession, 1 needed 1 needs, that can contribute to a romantic involvement. Often the initial encounters with sex are awkward.
Really emotionally they are having sex ahead of maturity.
They often arent secure in themselves and its better to have a higher value of sexuality and wait till kids know themselves well enough to have less negative feelings.
I feel sorry for the next generations. They will be surrounded by more pressure to do things they dont know themselves well enough to do and it will leave brutal scars on them.
LBGT doesnt care about that, but if you have gone through difficulty, you cant think creating a culture that is immersed in content replacing the idea of natural marriage is going to make them feel any better when they are talked into something they are not ready for!
I would say that people are born with preferences, but acting on those preferences is a choice. I didn't choose to be straight, but dating people of the opposite sex is a choice I make
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
He she or it says "I would say that people are born with preferences, but acting on those preferences is a choice. I didn't choose to be straight, but liking people of the opposite sex is a choice I make"
My point back -
Yea right! Because every baby is born with preference! You've got to be kidding me!
How can this make sense to ANYONE? So then, these kids over in this group are born with a sweet tooth, and this group if kids were born to prefer vegitables??
We have to call it out!
Its one thing to give the what they need for living their own choice, its another thing to call it equal and let it invade and destroy or entire society, and to screw religious freedom while their at it!
And this moral value is a belief, like any religion! But those values are aloud to parade in our kids school, who most were born of natural sexuality, some helped by enhancement due to difficulties. But 100 of which were born, from male plus female!
Shouldnt the nature of their existance dictate the influences allowed BY GOVERNMENT?Isnt anything else vue based education?
Last I checked we werent oud to have "value based education"
And this is UNNATURAL VALUE BASED EDUCATION"
So will you all celebrate with them when Disney produces its first prince and prince fairy tale??
We should be 100% everyone present at every state capital! And Washington! To the point by sheer numbers, they'd see people for miles and miles. All for a week same week same statement in every state and in Washington!
We should all show up on this, and ne as big as the sea!!
My personal position on this is that there are certain people who choose to be gay for whatever reason, and certain people who are born with stronger biological or environmental inclinations in that direction, and that all people are born with at least some tendency towards bisexuality. Honestly, I find the acts of male gay sex not appealing in the least because of the particular way that it's often engaged anally, which I just find in particular to seem unsanitary to me. That said, if you want to be gay, be gay. Just kindly don't elaborate on your sexual escapades with me unless I ask; and then, kindly be forgiving if I make a face. lol
If we're talking about being biologically more inclined to be gay though, I had forgotten, but one day in class my teacher revealed to us that women who were under extreme stress during World War II while their men were away at war were statistically more likely to have boys who identified as gay. I thought you guys might find that interesting!
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Very important points you should read about the gender bathroom issue and potential for crimes.
The point is this does occur.
And even if in some far fetched world it didnt, which it actually does!
Once the law is a Real Law, it will be almost impossible to prosecute perverts who peep, in ladies rooms and dressing rooms too!
So, this law will open up crimes against women and little girls and give pradators legal arguments that will almost always escape prosecution!
And stores, concerned citizens that are aware of deviant predators, law enforcement, and the courts will have their hands tied by this law and will not be able to keep women and little girls safe in these areas.
Because
1 - they will have an a legal argument of defense thanks to a law
And
2 - a law would justify law suits from preditors, who should be prosecuted and justify suit against accusations on the grounds they are " transgender"
3 - the political correct environment would excuse these preditors day in and day out, as people walk away and question the confusing circunstance they just witnessed, or they will in general fear accusing a peedator because of not wanting to offend a transgender.
My suggestion is no law allowing it!
And let the issue go.
If you are truely transgender, you most likely really look feminine, and just do it. Go into your stall, do your thing, wash your hands and finish your shopping.
But if its a law, you will effectively have given predators a free pass, and thats unconcienciable!
You hear many incidents of peepers in bathrooms and dressing rooms, AND DRESSING ROOMS will come if not passed in one swoop along with bathrooms!!
Dressing rooms are really the end game of the law. Bathrooms are just the foot in the door!
A few dynamics you guys need to think about before you jump in and be fair at the cost of great unfairness.
A guy could rape in a bathroom with or without this law.
The difference with the law not only is being uncomfortable, and there are varying degrees of that.
A 10 year old girl going to a public rest room with a an older transgender would be very scarey for her too.
You cant make a law with a small picture. You have to be responsible and look at the different scenarios and apply it.
An even bigger issue is this, a guy could rape or peep in a bathroom anyway, with or without law.
But with the law passed, you WILL tie up just prosecutions of offenders!
You have a perv peeking or worse, with this law, these crimes will occur with nasty peepers in frequency beyond current incidents.
But because of this law, you wont be able to touch perverts legally using these areas.
Its a matter of chaos, and its to confusing to prosecute them.
And they will prey on it! And hide through this law, legally.
Its a perfect legal argument, to go out and do it again and again. Without even a smack. As a matter of fact, the pervert will actually sew stores and concerned citizens AND WIN!
Without a bathroom law, if a customer or employee sees a 40 year old guy in the girls room, and it looks suspect, they can act on it! And can call someone, and have it investigated.
With this law, deviant behavior will get a free pass, and the law will protect preditors.
By easily claiming they are trangender.
And approaching them will guarenteed to get the concerned person who is accusing appropriately in trouble, and sued. Because he can sue, he will sue! And be able to continue being free preditors!
So the look at at impact of a law like this, and weigh it with common sense, and also knowledge of the legal process!
You may not want to hear this, but dont reject true evaluation of legal process, to defend your views.
If you can say the trade off of letting preditors be preditors and continue to get away with it, and perping toms or worse will be excused in droves in the legal process over this law, then fine. Have a good day. We agree to disagree.
And like I said, just do it.
We wont likely question your gender, if you are really transgender.
But a law will aid preditors!
And you being sure has control of the legal process and loopholes, assuring these preditors will have to prove something? Prove something that is gray, against someone saing they are protected as a transgender? Proof of the incident would be very gray and extremely difficult to prove or disprove, no matter how clear the incident is?
Law is a funny thing!
The burden if proof is on the accuser.
Word against word, ask a lawyer what would likely happen!
He may not have to show much at all, if anything. Afterall, "trangenders" will be protected. You would have to have proof of what you saw.
Or its word against word!
A few dynamics you guys need to think about before you jump in and be fair at the cost of great unfairness.
A guy could rape in a bathroom with or without this law.
The difference with the law not only is being uncomfortable, and there are varying degrees of that.
A 10 year old girl going to a public rest room with a an older transgender would be very scarey for her too.
You cant make a law with a small picture. You have to be responsible and look at the different scenarios and apply it.
An even bigger issue is this, a guy could rape or peep in a bathroom anyway, with or without law.
But with the law passed, you WILL tie up just prosecutions of offenders!
You have a perv peeking or worse, with this law, these crimes will occur with nasty peepers in frequency beyond current incidents.
But because of this law, you wont be able to touch perverts legally using these areas.
Its a matter of chaos, and its to confusing to prosecute them.
And they will prey on it! And hide through this law, legally.
Its a perfect legal argument, to go out and do it again and again. Without even a smack. As a matter of fact, the pervert will actually sew stores and concerned citizens AND WIN!
Without a bathroom law, if a customer or employee sees a 40 year old guy in the girls room, and it looks suspect, they can act on it! And can call someone, and have it investigated.
With this law, deviant behavior will get a free pass, and the law will protect preditors.
By easily claiming they are trangender.
And approaching them will guarenteed to get the concerned person who is accusing appropriately in trouble, and sued. Because he can sue, he will sue! And be able to continue being free preditors!
So the look at at impact of a law like this, and weigh it with common sense, and also knowledge of the legal process!
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
Being gay is an emotion. Many people call it being happy. You can be gay or not during times of your life. (If you were talking about homosexuality, use the right term for it.)
I wonder if the PA Govenor thought this through, if not, why not?
Being able to get a liscence change in PA, is actually even worse!
Imagine a world where people who would exploit and take advantage of innocent people, or be legal perverts can by laws selectively plan to become a protected class!
Hmm, no problem with that, is there?
Black people are born a protected class. But "transgenders" can choose to be a protected class!
Anyone can NOW dress up and become a protected class! Yea!
Gays should not be a protected class, because hate against any group is equal hate!
Im a Christian, and I dont think tatoos are a sin. Others may, its their freedom to do so!
Born again religions, may not judge where or why a person has tattoos, and likely wouldn't judge their tattos. They may have a story to tell, let them!
A church i stepped into several years back in Philly while handing out food and blankets with my church group refused to let me use their bathroom because I am a woman and was wearing pants. They may believe differently and are strict about other things that other churches are not strict with. And it should be ok to believe either way, and I could care less about what they believe, thats their business, my beliefs are my business! Tolerance, live and let live.
I have a belly ring, and one of my favorite people in the world is my baby, youngest daughter, because she is sweet. She has a guage earing, and has had purple to teal hair since she was in jr high.
Wawa and Starbucks won't hire her, because visually she has an unnatural color hair. But, there are plenty of jobs that will. So she chooses to keep her crazy colors, and work where they dont have an issue with it!
Many churches dont think certain vices are sin, like smoking or social drinking. There are varying degrees of doctrines. Thats why religious freedom is so important!!!! Many sects if Christianity are evem loose on sexual preference, most I know are strict.
It is not up to people, or government, or courts to scruitinize anyone's beliefs Including gays who have religious beliefs that are inclusive of sexual orientaton, unless a real crime has been commited. Just like freedom of speech of every degree is protected!
Both speech and religious freedom are personal expression regarding what they think and believe about everything that matters to them!
Disabilities are not a choice and being black isnt a choice either, although honestly, America needs to head in a different direction where all people regardless of race, all are equaly protected, and NOT especially protected!
Protected classes should be represented of all groups of people and found in every race and culture! Such as disabilities, and religions, ages, and gender.
I' ll explain:
Religion because it effects all races, genders, classes, and found in every walk of life. Every religion from Christian to Muslim to Jews etc, and also religions that are permissive, and are inclusive of gay membership and leadership should have religious freedom. Does it mean we won' t bump into each other at times, but how about we behave politely and say excuse me! Or ok discussed agree to disagree! Isnt that what a "progressive" society is all about!
Disabilities protected because they need to compete according to the abilities they do have. And people with disabilities are present in every group.
Age, because they have to compete against younger candidates, and again age is a factor for every group so it is selective of none.
Women, because they need to compete equally against men who have different strengths, and women need to be able to compete according to their strengths, and not limited by the weaknesses they may present in a workplace, physically, or even regards to future pregnancies, birth, maternity leaves, sick kids, and other family responsibilities that could cause bias or expense of down time or added health insurance costs. Up till recently health insurances have been higher because of reproduction. An example are the nuns who recently fought cost of health insurance inclusive of reproductive ability. And they are abstinent, (except for some who change their mind and take directions leading out of the vocation)
The following groups of classes are across the board represented in every single group of race and culture. So American 1st!
America is multi cultural so every culture should be protected classes - American 1st, and white 2nd, italian 2nd, black 2nd, gay 2nd, married 2nd, single 2nd, economic class 2nd.
In every American group of people, there are equally specific groups who should be protection from discrimination.
Its reasonable, because it puts competing equal for all in every group. But it can't be given above religious freedom of all, or its selective group breeching separation of church and state because then it prohibits the free exercise of religion for all, except for 1 such as LGBT.
Sexual orientation should not be a protected class. it's a lifestyle, and sexual choice. Even if you believe it was genetic, every baby is born with the same option of choice, and genetic or not can choose it.
But in common every group has:
Disabled, Age, Gender, and Religion.
We as a society should have moved beyond the racial division to the next phase atleast 10 years ago. Not adding more divisions!!
There will always be bullies, for everyone, in every group.
Reverse discrimination is just as much a problem as discrimination!
These are all words that say they are a guess, no matter how many "studies" they note. Their studies are BS propaganda
1 making an excuse then trying to formulate a law of science and
2 trying to validate it for others. " its not our choice, it is also natural" but NO its not!
Now Im not saying that there isnt a compulsion.
But then its a mental disorder. So it is mental disorder to depravity of unnatural choice.
And whatever degree, they are welcome to live their lifestyle of their choice!!
It comes from different a different start for each, from getting attention to abuse from environment to peer pressure !
But even if a mental disorder to choice. Thats a wide variety of originations to THROW onto our next generation!
And the Bernie gen and waco adults that think like them are too programmed to stop the train wreck.
I am so sad for their babies
In the largest twin study ever completed on the topic, geneticists found that only 10-13% of all homosexual identical twins had identical twin siblings (co-twins) who were also homosexuals. That means that more than 80% of all homosexual identical twins have heterosexual twin siblings.
These are all words that say they are a guess, no matter how many "studies" they note. Their studies are BS propaganda!
1 making an excuse then trying to formulate a law of science and
2 trying to validate it for others. saying" its not our choice, and it is also natural"
But its not!
Now, Im not saying that there isnt a compulsion. But whatever compulsion they decide as a lifestyle.
Then is it a mental disorder?
So then its everything from a mental disorder to depravity of unnatural sexual choice. But we dont normalize alcohol to our children, or gambling.
Why would you think exposing the mrxt generation to this extreme degree is reasonable?
And whatever degree, they are welcome to live their lifestyle of their choice!!
It comes from different a different start for each, from getting attention to abuse from environment to peer pressure !
But even if a mental disorder to choice. Thats a wide variety of originations to THROW onto our next generation!
And the Bernie gen and waco adults that think like them are too programmed to stop the train wreck.
I am so sad for their babies!!
In the largest twin study ever completed on the topic, geneticists found that only 10-13% of all homosexual identical twins had identical twin siblings (co-twins) who were also homosexuals. That means that more than 80% of all homosexual identical twins have heterosexual twin siblings.
Fact: Gays and bisexuals do not choose to be that way.............
LibProlifer(1681) Disputed 1 point
Prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove that being gay is a choice.
LibProlifer(1681) Disputed 1 point
Yes or no: Can you prove without religion that homosexuality is a choice?
Me:
Right back at you!
Yes!!!!
Because you have 0 different anything. And anyone given the influence can and also does make the same choice.
Choice exists in everyone.
And since it does, and its proven, some LGBT do choose it.
And readily admit circumstances!
Which you all conveniently say "they are not real gays!"
Really please provide the factual data of these physical confirmations! Please??
Well, there is none!
No diff data exists between 1 who knows they chose it due to influence or trauma, and you who chose it for a different reason, which you say is by birth!
The only thing it proves , is different motivation! You chose it because of whatever reason, and you excuse by saying it was out of you ability to choose. No, not true. It may not have neen your choice to have been abused, and maybe not your choice that you had a difficult emotional crush! And maybe you have no control of it, like a gambler doesnt, or an alchoholic doesnt.
And maybe your perfectly happy and fine with your choice, and no fight inside. Great, enjoy!
But we will fight and say NO to your equal presence in our kids lives!,
You all are welcome to marry, and if allowed adopt kids who otherwise would have no one!
We dont hate you or dislike you, we simply dont want you all to be our next generations role models!
I really would love to see LadyMinxFart weigh in on this debate.
Especially on my earlier post about how I think that many Lesbians are what they call Emotional Lesbians. That is, due to a bad past experiences with men they simply chose to have sex with females from no on.
And that there's a much higher percent of these emotional gay women than there is of men who are gay. That is....gay men are more apt to have been born gay than are Lesbians.
Sure, there are some Lesbos who were born that way. Too much testosterone while in the womb, perhaps. But there is still a good amount of them who were originally of hetero Inclination.
I doubt she will opine, however, as she Almost never speaks of gay issues. Yet she claims they are her favorite debates!
"I really would love to see LadyMinxFart weigh in on this debate."
LadyMinxFart... Nice. If you wanted me to reply so bad why didn't you just pm me ?
"I doubt she will opine, however, as she Almost never speaks of gay issues. Yet she claims they are her favorite debates!"
I said that they are fun to read. Watching Christians go ballistic is amazing ! You are right ! I am not going to go against you because I learned that replying to debates is pointless. My point will not get across to said person I am debating with and there point went get through to me.
So yeah. I know when to pick and choose my battles and debates like these are the ones I usually do not reply to.
Is it fundamentaly right or wrong to disrespect or file charges against a person for exercising their religious freedom in their lives and in their business according to their personal convictions and beliefs by refusing to contract wedding services that go against their religion regarding sexual morality?
