The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Strider324]

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

I feel ya, babe.

Man, I may save and frame this as the most classic ad numerum fallacy I've EVER seen.

Well, you could. But then someone might point out your total misunderstanding of what that particular fallacy means, and then...well... awkward!


"Happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." - Ps 137:9

It MEANS, my friend, (in this case, certainly) that pointing out that there are more Christians than gay people (which is a problem in the first place since many gays are Christian) does NOT mean that it is impossible for the larger group (Christians) to be oppressed by the smaller one.

Shoot, just look at the antebellum south if you want to see an example of the majority being oppressed by the minority.

Or just about any absolute monarchy in history.

IN other words, Strider, I don't seem to be the one who doesn't know what 'appeal to numbers' means.

Ay caramba.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

If you have some cogent way of reconciling the clear meaning of this fallacy with your tortured example, please do. Otherwise, it's time to admit your error here. I believe you and I reached a tacit agreement that people who own up to their mistakes are appreciated and respected.

Please indicate where I 'attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true'.

[micatala]

Would dianaiad say a photographer who refused to photograph an interracial marriage on religious grounds was within their rights?

Would dianaiad say an architect who refused to design a house for a black person, or a woman, or someone from a faith different than their own was within his or her rights?

Can dianaiad explain why the Catholic Church has not been forced to ordain female priests?

Can dianaiad, again going back to the issue she is avoiding, show that the Catholic Church or any other church has had to change their worship services, or who they consent to marry, based on any previous non-discrimination legal decisions or laws?

Try asking dianaiad.

????


I was. Pardon my habit of referring to people in the third person; it isperhaps sort of a quirk, and merely functions to depersonalize the discussion.


If you prefer I could simply say "would you say " . . . etc.

[dianaiad]

F<snip completely irrelevant political snipes>
Tell me; are you the ONLY person who can't buy booze on Sunday?

No. The law doesn't specifically refer to me.

What this has to do with the issue is anyone's guess.[/quote]

You have a problem with a perfectly even playing field, where the law applies to everybody, and nobody is excepted? It's not discrimination if everybody is affected equally now, is it?

Oh, and what does the law SAY about the reason for not selling booze on Sunday?

Actually, it now allows local communities to decide - and wouldn't ya know it, mine is chock full of evangelicals.

Which means nothing.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is also a fallacy.

Somthin' tells me that the reason for it is not religious....or trust me, bub, you'd be able to buy booze on Sunday.

Of course, outlawing Sunday sales has nothing to do with religion.

Actually, it probably doesn't. The rational MY community uses to limit (not completely forbid, but limit) the ability to buy booze on Sunday is because it is the last day of the weekend, and they want to prevent hangovers on the first day of the work week.

Didn't make sense to me, either...but it's not a religious reason!

As to that, sir, the only reason you HAVE a weekend with a day to rest...and drink booze...is because of someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy.'

LOL

When I was able to work I was expected to work on Sunday, and every other day of the week. Of course I didn't really mind, as I love construction. There's been more'n a time or two though, were I've had Christian bosses who would love to carry on about how wonderful their weekends off were, and how great a day they had on Sunday, and "How much work did you get done this weekend?"

....and you didn't point out the overtime laws in your state...or that it was absolutely your right to have those days off and NOT work the overtime, for which you got paid better?

If you didn't, why didn't you? I know of very few states that do NOT have labor laws that require employers to pay overtime for more than 40 hours a week.

Don't go blaming your boss for your greed...or the work ethic you had that got you working that much, either.

It forces me to continually refute unwarranted, outlandish claims.

Someone is holding a gun to your head, that you have to speak up and 'refute unwarranted, outlandish claims?' You can't just live your life without doing so? Odd, so many people manage...

Is someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to oppress homosexuals?

Odd, so many people manage to allow others the freedoms they seek for themselves

...........and I am 'oppressing homosexuals,' how, exactly, Joey?

I fail to see how defending someone's right to free speech and freedom of religion is oppressing homosexuals--unless not allowing them to enforce THEIR beliefs upon those who disagree with them is oppression, If that is so, then you have a very odd idea of the term.

It forces me to stay on guard against those who seek to water down science education. It forces me to stay on guard against those who would oppress their fellow human beings.

And without religion, you wouldn't have to guard against such things? Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, the "Young Turks" would have been rather pleased to hear that. Some of them might even still be alive and doing what they did.

I don't have Stalinists in my neck of the woods, nor Pol Potists, nor Leninists, nor Young Turks.

Rather beside the point, Joey. You said that without religion you wouldn't have to guard against such stuff. I simply pointed out that without religion, oppression still happens. Some of it rather nasty.

ARe you telling me that oppression that is NOT religion based is ok with you?

I have Christians to deal with.

So...if the Christians all disappeared, you wouldn't have to guard against oppression?

Really?

Observers' note: See how she tried to skirt around the issue of Christians' attempts to water down science education and Christian attempts to oppress others?

Joey, you are the one creating a strawman. For instance, I am a Christian. I know many, MANY Christians who are as against 'dumbing down science education' as you are. This is not a 'Christian' issue. You are committing a fallacy of composition here; just because one subset of a group does something, it does NOT follow that the entire group does it. So, of course, I ignored it. I was being polite...which, quite frankly, is something you would not be if I were to write something that fallacious about atheists.

As for "Christian attempts to oppress others.." Yeah, some Christians attempt to oppress others. The same argument works there as for the science thing. The fact is, Muslims attempt to oppress others, too. So do Hindus, and Wiccans, and atheists...PEOPLE do that, regardless of the religious beliefs or philosophies.

In this case, it was a gay couple oppressing a Christian photographer, and the law allowing them to do so.

This is a fairly common tactic - where a strawman is created in hopes of not having to debate the issue at hand.

Yes, Joey, you are indulging in that tactic yourself right now.

What right? The right to force someone to provide a service that they do not advertise, wouldn't offer to anyone else, and is against their religion, just because you think you are special and deserve it?

Nope. Because it's the right thing to do. Funny how so many Christians are incapable of grasping such an elementary concept.

It's 'the right thing to do' to force someone to attend an event that is against their beliefs? To force them to perform a service that makes them actively support and approve of something that is against their religion/beliefs?

How in any universe that you know about is THAT 'the right thing to do?"

Should I have the right to hold a knife to your ribs and force you to say the pledge of allegience, "Under God,' and all, because *I* think it's the 'right thing to do?"

Tell me. What is the difference between a law forcing Elane Photography to shoot this gay Commitment ceremony, even though the event is very much against her religion, and a law requiring everybody to attend church on Sunday, or find themselves in the stocks on Monday?

Hmmn????

I contend that there is none--except of course that one could get OUT of the stocks on Monday and go to work on Tuesday. Elane Photography was driven out of business.

Right; so you have the right to tell others that they have freedom of speech...as long as they don't actually say anything?

I've never said such.

You just....did, when you said that only silent prayer was acceptable around you.

What I, and the courts, have said, is that religious folks shouldn't be allowed to proselytize to a captive audience under the auspices of government.

Now THAT is moving the goal posts. Since when is a prayer 'proselytizing?" Trust me, Joey; I was a missionary. I know proselytizing. An opening prayer at a graduation ceremony, or a valedictorian saying 'I thank my parents, and my Heavenly Father, for getting me here to day" is not it.

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography?

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

Ok, so don't. Your choice.

Oh, and that IS the point, Joey. It's your choice. It would be my choice, too, to do my best to photograph that ceremony so that the two will have great memories. It was NOT Elane Photography's choice, and she, as an artist and someone for whom a commitment ceremony was against her most deeply held beliefs, should have the absolute right to make it.

And say no.

.............and even though I would shoot the ceremony if I were asked, if it were demanded of me at the point of a lawsuit, I'd rather burn down my studio.
<snip>

No, they should not have been discriminatory in that way. I would not have. However, the 'you have to see things my way and do what I want you to do or I will ruin you" attitude is even more wrong than the original discrimination.

Yet so often Christians seem compelled to do just that - "See it my way, or burn in Hell!"

That only works if one believes, first, that there is a hell, and second, that the Christian in question can send you there.

If you don't, then it's a rather silly comparison, don't you think, to 'do it my way or I'll sue you blind and force you to do what I want you to? The first only works if you share belief systems. The second works on everybody.

Now THAT is a problem.

Having a photographer refuse to shoot a commitment ceremony? The photographer loses money and reputation, becomes known for being a bigot....and the couple finds another photographer who would do a better job anyway.

An indication that karma is a real and genuine phenomenon.

So why didn't this gay couple trust to karma? Why did they take a legal sledgehammer to Elane Photography?

This way? Sorry. It REEKS of oppression--and not against gays. The gay couple wasn't hurt in any way by this. Elan photography was destroyed. How is this NOT oppression beyond acceptability?

This has been explained to you throughout this thread. That you refuse to accept such, or are unable to incorporate this into your thinking is not my fault.

All I have heard throughout this thread is...it's legal, so it's OK.

Sorry, but the legality of this isn't quite determined yet. The appeals process isn't done...and the fact that there IS an appeals process for this sort of thing indicates that 'it's legal, so it's OK" isn't a concept set in stone.

Indeed, if *I* were to use this argument with you, we wouldn't be having a discussion about gay rights at all, would we? After all, gay marriage is only legal in a very few states; in the rest of them, it is not. So...that settles that, right?

But I don't have the freedom, as an individual of conscience, to pledge allegiance to this nation, a nation for which I've served, unless I also accept that whole "under God" deal - which I don't.

Don't go there; that irritates me, too. Not the part about 'under God' in and of itself, particularly, but...the original writer didn't put it in there. That is annoying.

I think it's clear to all who read this thread that you would prefer we live under the oppressive boot of theocracy.

Really?
.....and your reason for that is what, exactly;
...my objection to the phrase 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance?
...the fact that I am FOR gay couples having equal civil rights with married couples?
...my defense of the idea that everybody should have the right to believe and practice his/her religion (or lack of one) without interference, as long as that practice does not force those who disagree with them to do something they don't want to do?


But you are correct; I WOULD like the world to go by at least one of the 'Articles of Faith" of my religion; #11. It goes:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

If you want to consider that me wanting everybody to live under a theocracy, (shrug) OK.

HOWEVER, saying this doesn't violate any religious principle you have, does it?

Sort of. It violates my "religious" principle of claiming fealty to a god I can't show exists - and compounding the error by forcing others to do so.

Careful, Joey. You come awfully close to admitting that atheism is a religion, there.

Still, I know what you mean, and I do get it. I also agree with you...and do note that not saying the pledge of allegiance won't get you sued. Saying it and leaving out the offending phrase won't get you an injunction forcing you to say those words, either.

By the way, you are quite free to not say it. Nobody is going to put you in jail, or sue you, or destroy your livelihood if you skip that part--or skip it altogether.

Of course I don't hafta say it - that's beside the point. The point being that unless I say it, I have not pledged to my allegiance to this nation.

Sure you have. Leave those words out.
But the whole POINT Is that you don't 'hafta say it." Elaine of Elane Photography 'hasta' go against HER religious beliefs now, though, doesn't she?
<snip to end>

[dianaiad]

Would dianaiad say a photographer who refused to photograph an interracial marriage on religious grounds was within their rights?

Would dianaiad say an architect who refused to design a house for a black person, or a woman, or someone from a faith different than their own was within his or her rights?

Can dianaiad explain why the Catholic Church has not been forced to ordain female priests?

Can dianaiad, again going back to the issue she is avoiding, show that the Catholic Church or any other church has had to change their worship services, or who they consent to marry, based on any previous non-discrimination legal decisions or laws?

Try asking dianaiad.

????


I was. Pardon my habit of referring to people in the third person; it isperhaps sort of a quirk, and merely functions to depersonalize the discussion.


If you prefer I could simply say "would you say " . . . etc.

If you wanted to depersonalize it, you wouldn't use my name on every line.
Since I AM right 'here,' so to speak, referring to me in the third person indicates considerable disrespect; as if the person to whom you are referring isn't worth addressing, so that you'd rather get the answer to what s/he would think from someone else.

It is, in fact, more than a little insulting.

In this case, yes "would you say?...": would be preferable. At least that way I know that you might actually be interested in what DIANAIAD thinks, rather than what someone has to say ABOUT Dianaiad.

[otseng]

BULL EXCREMENT!

THEY ARE EVIL!

THEY ARE OPPRESSORS!

THEY ARE TO BE DAMNED IN THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE THEY USE TO DAMN YOU!

These pig-hearted advocates of oppression will twist any tale, distort any fact, and present to you "but, but, but if liberty..."

WHEN YOUR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" THREATENS THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS, TO HELL WITH YOUR RELIGION, AND TO HELL WITH THE FREEDOMS YOU CLAIM FOR THAT RELIGION! AND TO THE VERY HELL YOU CONDEMN OTHERS WITH YOU!

YOU ARE SCOUNDRELS, YOU ARE SCOURGE, YOU ARE A POX ON ALL THE FREE PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET!

To Hell with you!

To Hell with your worn out excuses!

To Hell with your hatred of your fellow human beings!

AND TO HELL WITH YOUR GOD!

Moderator Warning

I consider this to be a little over the top. Need to scale back the rhetoric please.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 221:

You have a problem with a perfectly even playing field, where the law applies to everybody, and nobody is excepted? It's not discrimination if everybody is affected equally now, is it?

Considering that so many Christians think the law of marriage applies only to them, I laugh if the face of your statement.

For me, that folks are discriminated against, regardless of how many are discriminating, or how successful such is, is the issue.

What do we get in support of this deal? "I'm just scared to death I might have to recognize these folks as human beings deserving of the very rights I reserve for myself."

It is a ludicrous argument, based on the oppressors' fear of ending up being the ones suffering that which they so eagerly inflict on others.

Oh, and what does the law SAY about the reason for not selling booze on Sunday?

Actually, it now allows local communities to decide - and wouldn't ya know it, mine is chock full of evangelicals.

Which means nothing.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is also a fallacy.

I accept that folks'll have to use their judgement here.

My contention is that since the law allowing communities to decide this issue, my community leaders have been silent.

Actually, it probably doesn't. The rational MY community uses to limit (not completely forbid, but limit) the ability to buy booze on Sunday is because it is the last day of the weekend, and they want to prevent hangovers on the first day of the work week.

And the rationality folks use to oppress homosexuals is "My God don't like it"...

"So don't you 'llow them their rights, cause it might make my God upset."

"And if you 'llow them their rights, you might be impeding my right to hate 'em to my core."

On that last'n, I contend that if folks refuse to accept that peaceful folks deserve rights, those objecting to such are just hateful, sour cusses we oughta run out of town.

Didn't make sense to me, either...but it's not a religious reason!

I understand a lot of stuff doesn't make sense to you. Like that folks are deserving of the rights you seek to reserve for yourself.

....and you didn't point out the overtime laws in your state...or that it was absolutely your right to have those days off and NOT work the overtime, for which you got paid better?
...

I was a salaried employee.

The point remains. On those occassions where I had bosses who professed Christian beliefs and values, I was never "forced" to not work weekends or Sundays. I s'pose now you'll argue they were respecting my beliefs.

...........and I am 'oppressing homosexuals,' how, exactly, Joey?

By arguing they don't deserve the very rights you take advantage of.

Or, by arguing they don't deserve the very rights of which you take advantage.

Me and proposition ending sentences with don't get along.

I fail to see how defending someone's right to free speech and freedom of religion is oppressing homosexuals...

Because that free speech is essentially "let's all oppress homosexuals".

unless not allowing them to enforce THEIR beliefs upon those who disagree with them is oppression, If that is so, then you have a very odd idea of the term.

I admit to an odd term for freedom.

I contend it should be for all.

You advocate refusing homosexuals to be recognized by the government as "married". I contend this is the oppression. This, this, "let's not let them have what we're having a great big time enjoying" is the oppression.

The oppression is not in, "Well that's a goofy thing did or said there". The oppression is in "To heck with you you human being I absolutely refuse to accept that you may be deserving of the rights I reserve for myself".

Rather beside the point, Joey. You said that without religion you wouldn't have to guard against such stuff. I simply pointed out that without religion, oppression still happens. Some of it rather nasty.

I was, and am, specifically refering to oppression of homosexuals by religious folks, as it relates to the OP.

But you're right, if a bunch of Stalinists and Leninsists and such start invading, yeah, I'll have to speak against them.

I will NOT be silent in the face of the oppressor.

ARe you telling me that oppression that is NOT religion based is ok with you?

I contend the only worth oppression is against the oppressor.

So...if the Christians all disappeared, you wouldn't have to guard against oppression?

Really?

Well, it'd for sure free me up a good bit.

What's your argument here? "Be glad we're the ones oppressing folks cause these other oppressors are just efficient as all get out"?

Joey, you are the one creating a strawman. For instance, I am a Christian. I know many, MANY Christians who are as against 'dumbing down science education' as you are.

You have now admitted that some Christians are attempting to do such. I figure the observer is astute enough to understand that by not mentioning such clarifiers as "some" or "many" that the point is made.

In this case, it was a gay couple oppressing a Christian photographer, and the law allowing them to do so.

Bull feathers.

It was a public business hiding behind "God ain't too proud 'bout y'all, so I'm not gonna follow the law."

It's 'the right thing to do' to force someone to attend an event that is against their beliefs? To force them to perform a service that makes them actively support and approve of something that is against their religion/beliefs?

Oh please. History is rife with theists using a captive audience to spread their ill informed, ancient "beliefs".

How in any universe that you know about is THAT 'the right thing to do?"

Because I intuitively understand that harming folks is something I ought not be proud of - unless such folks are setting about to do them some harming themselves.

Should I have the right to hold a knife to your ribs and force you to say the pledge of allegience, "Under God,' and all, because *I* think it's the 'right thing to do?"

The question is, should you have the right to tell the government who is and who ain't deserving of the privileges of marriage based on the fact they dig on their own.

Tell me. What is the difference between a law forcing Elane Photography to shoot this gay Commitment ceremony, even though the event is very much against her religion, and a law requiring everybody to attend church on Sunday, or find themselves in the stocks on Monday?

Because it's best we didn't allow folks to pick and choose who are worthy human beings based on the opinion of a god they absolutely can not exists, much less to have an opinion on the comings and goings of humans.

I contend that there is none--except of course that one could get OUT of the stocks on Monday and go to work on Tuesday. Elane Photography was driven out of business.

I find it a bit funny, and a bit sad, that you'd use a punishment set forth by Christians to try to support your argument.

You just....did, when you said that only silent prayer was acceptable around you.

What part of "a silent prayer goes undetected" are you struggling to comprehend?

I have no problem with folks praying - as long as they don't use the government "pulpit" to do so.

What I, and the courts, have said, is that religious folks shouldn't be allowed to proselytize to a captive audience under the auspices of government.

Now THAT is moving the goal posts. Since when is a prayer 'proselytizing?" Trust me, Joey; I was a missionary. I know proselytizing. An opening prayer at a graduation ceremony, or a valedictorian saying 'I thank my parents, and my Heavenly Father, for getting me here to day" is not it.

Call it what you will, the point stands. When folks deign to speak for me in the name of a god, I object.

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

Oh, and that IS the point, Joey. It's your choice. It would be my choice, too, to do my best to photograph that ceremony so that the two will have great memories. It was NOT Elane Photography's choice, and she, as an artist and someone for whom a commitment ceremony was against her most deeply held beliefs, should have the absolute right to make it.
And say no.

.............and even though I would shoot the ceremony if I were asked, if it were demanded of me at the point of a lawsuit, I'd rather burn down my studio.

You're genuinely struggling with the concept of serving the public, ain't ya?

That only works if one believes, first, that there is a hell, and second, that the Christian in question can send you there.

If you don't, then it's a rather silly comparison, don't you think, to 'do it my way or I'll sue you blind and force you to do what I want you to? The first only works if you share belief systems. The second works on everybody.
Now THAT is a problem.

I think the comparison is legitimate.

Given that so many Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept, the fact remains there's condemnation aplenty therein.

So why didn't this gay couple trust to karma? Why did they take a legal sledgehammer to Elane Photography?

Because that's the tool best fit to the job.

Would you prefer they just blow it up or shoot folks, like so many Christians do to abortion clinics and providers?

All I have heard throughout this thread is...it's legal, so it's OK.

Sorry, but the legality of this isn't quite determined yet. The appeals process isn't done...and the fact that there IS an appeals process for this sort of thing indicates that 'it's legal, so it's OK" isn't a concept set in stone.

And we appeal to a Supreme Court with avowed Christians (and others).

Indeed, if *I* were to use this argument with you, we wouldn't be having a discussion about gay rights at all, would we? After all, gay marriage is only legal in a very few states; in the rest of them, it is not. So...that settles that, right?

No, it doesn't settle it. Until are are free, the struggle continues.

I think it's clear to all who read this thread that you would prefer we live under the oppressive boot of theocracy.

Really?...>I note some caveats where I may have misunderstood, to follow<

Yes, really. I contend your refusal to accept gay folks as legitimate human beings, and your advocation regarding rejecting them the right to marriage is evidence in support.

.....and your reason for that is what, exactly;
...my objection to the phrase 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance?

I did misunderstand your statement. I thought you were saying it shoulda been there from the get go. I 'pologize for misrepresenting your position here.

..the fact that I am FOR gay couples having equal civil rights with married couples?

Bully.

You reject gay folks having the government recognize their marriages as just that. You use a concocted term, "civil unions" to hide behind this fact.

...my defense of the idea that everybody should have the right to believe and practice his/her religion (or lack of one) without interference, as long as that practice does not force those who disagree with them to do something they don't want to do?

And my point is, hate 'em all ya want - just don't restrict their rights to the very same rights you reserve for yourself.

Look, I ain't cool with some dude hitting on me. And I dang sure ain't cool with some dude asking for my hand in marriage. But, what I really ain't cool with is that dude ends finding him some dude that will take his hand, and then we say "to heck with you and that other'n there you brought in".

But you are correct; I WOULD like the world to go by at least one of the 'Articles of Faith" of my religion; #11. It goes:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

And I contend that when your worship of a god you can't show exists, and can't show has an opinion on human affairs, then you ought not have any say in how folks peaceably carry on.

If you want to consider that me wanting everybody to live under a theocracy, (shrug) OK.

The observer will make such a determination for themselves.

I'd hate for 'em to think I was cool with oppressing folks, but that's just me.

Sort of. It violates my "religious" principle of claiming fealty to a god I can't show exists - and compounding the error by forcing others to do so.

Careful, Joey. You come awfully close to admitting that atheism is a religion, there.

Still, I know what you mean, and I do get it. I also agree with you...and do note that not saying the pledge of allegiance won't get you sued. Saying it and leaving out the offending phrase won't get you an injunction forcing you to say those words, either.

But the fact remains, if I've not said the entire pledge, it is otherwise null and void.

Sure you have. Leave those words out.
But the whole POINT Is that you don't 'hafta say it." Elaine of Elane Photography 'hasta' go against HER religious beliefs now, though, doesn't she?

No.

She is perfectly free to continue her hatred outside of the public square.

[JoeyKnothead]

>rebuke<

I 'preciate that you (and the mods?) allowed me to say such and only receive a warning.

On this issue, I contend, it's not a matter of rhetoric, but what is right.

With this kind rebuke in mind, I'll endeavor to use less colorful language.

[dianaiad]

...........and I am 'oppressing homosexuals,' how, exactly, Joey?

By arguing they don't deserve the very rights you take advantage of.

Or, by arguing they don't deserve the very rights of which you take advantage.

Me and proposition ending sentences with don't get along.

With all due respect, Joey, that's bunk and you know it. Let's have it; I've been posting here long enough.

Exactly what rights am I arguing that gays 'don't deserve," exactly?

the civil rights attendant upon legal marriage?
The rights to live and work without being discriminated against in their workplace or in their right to live where they please?
The right to live their lives and be happy?

In fact, have I ever, even once, advocated anything but this: that they don't have the right to force me to approve of their lifestyle in my own faith?

I fail to see how defending someone's right to free speech and freedom of religion is oppressing homosexuals...

Because that free speech is essentially "let's all oppress homosexuals".

even if it were, it's still free speech, Joey. However, I dare you to find anything that I have said that even remotely equates to that.

Then back off. I'm getting very tired of the over-the-top rhetoric you are using with me, as if I were kicking in gay doors carrying ropes, whips and barbed wire. If you use that sort if language with me, where do you have left to go against people who really ARE out to do damage to gays?

unless not allowing them to enforce THEIR beliefs upon those who disagree with them is oppression, If that is so, then you have a very odd idea of the term.

I admit to an odd term for freedom.

I contend it should be for all.

Evidently not, Joey. "All" includes fundamentalist Christians who don't want to be forced to participate in ceremonies that are against their religion.

"ALL," believe it or not, includes those who disagree with you on stuff.

You advocate refusing homosexuals to be recognized by the government as "married". I contend this is the oppression. This, this, "let's not let them have what we're having a great big time enjoying" is the oppression.

You forget; I am ALSO advocating that the government refuse to recognize HETEROSEXUALS as 'married." That is, take the government all the way out of the religious/philosophical view of marriage. Make the whole thing even, equal...and legally contractual; everybody gets civil unions.

Then everybody can go get married any way, and anywhere, they like. The civil rights go with the civil unions, whether you are gay, straight or play both sides. The marriage is dependent upon your beliefs....and with those, you can either accept, or reject, them as you will.

This would make life a lot easier for everybody. Gays can get married. Fundamentalists don't have to think they ARE married, but they sure have to give them their civil rights.

This solves everything. There are only two groups who don't like the idea; fundamentalists who think they have the right to dictate everybody else's morals, and gays--who want, not equal civil rights, but superior ones; that is, not just the right to marry and have the civil rights that go with that, but the right to force everybody else to change their beliefs and religion in order to approve of them...to force people to perform services they don't advertise, for events that are against their religion, just because the client is gay.

So if you want to call protecting MY right to speak, and choose what services I offer in a business, and to believe as I wish, and to express my opinions...if you want to call all that "oppressing' the people who disagree with me, then I have a book by Orwell you might like. He has a concept in there called 'newspeak."

The oppression is not in, "Well that's a goofy thing did or said there". The oppression is in "To heck with you you human being I absolutely refuse to accept that you may be deserving of the rights I reserve for myself".

As long as that is restricted to speech, that's not oppression either. OPPRESSION requires force; that is, the ability to enforce one's opinions on someone else, by force of law or force of....force.

In the case of Elane Photography, then, who was oppressing whom? Elaine simply said 'I don't want to participate in your ceremony." THEY said "you will to or we will ruin you.." and they did.

Rather beside the point, Joey. You said that without religion you wouldn't have to guard against such stuff. I simply pointed out that without religion, oppression still happens. Some of it rather nasty.

I was, and am, specifically refering to oppression of homosexuals by religious folks, as it relates to the OP.

You weren't in that paragraph. You had expanded your point all the way to the pledge of allegiance, prayer and selling booze on Sunday. If you are going to be specific, Joey, be specific.

But you're right, if a bunch of Stalinists and Leninsists and such start invading, yeah, I'll have to speak against them.

I will NOT be silent in the face of the oppressor.

I see that.
Trouble is, you seem to have a binary approach here; you react to verbal disagreement with rhetoric worthy of genocide.

ARe you telling me that oppression that is NOT religion based is ok with you?

I contend the only worth oppression is against the oppressor.

So...if the Christians all disappeared, you wouldn't have to guard against oppression?

Really?

Well, it'd for sure free me up a good bit.

What's your argument here? "Be glad we're the ones oppressing folks cause these other oppressors are just efficient as all get out"?

My point is that you seem to have blinders on, and blame 'Christians' for every evil under the sun. If somehow we all DID disappear, who would you use as a target then?

Joey, you are the one creating a strawman. For instance, I am a Christian. I know many, MANY Christians who are as against 'dumbing down science education' as you are.

You have now admitted that some Christians are attempting to do such.

Never denied that, Joey.

I figure the observer is astute enough to understand that by not mentioning such clarifiers as "some" or "many" that the point is made.

No. When whole sale attacks that claim that 'Christians" or "Atheists" do this or that, the intention is to claim that ALL do. Your rhetoric certainly implies that. If you mean 'some,' rather than 'all,' then WRITE 'some,' rather than 'all."

In this case, it was a gay couple oppressing a Christian photographer, and the law allowing them to do so.

Bull feathers.

absolute truth. <snip to end, as being repetitive>[/u][/b]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 226:

...........and I am 'oppressing homosexuals,' how, exactly, Joey?

By arguing they don't deserve the very rights you take advantage of.

Or, by arguing they don't deserve the very rights of which you take advantage.

Me and proposition ending sentences with don't get along.

With all due respect, Joey, that's bunk and you know it. Let's have it; I've been posting here long enough.

I'm content with letting the observer make their own conclusions in this regard.

Exactly what rights am I arguing that gays 'don't deserve," exactly?

The right to be married.

the civil rights attendant upon legal marriage?
The rights to live and work without being discriminated against in their workplace or in their right to live where they please?
The right to live their lives and be happy?

In fact, have I ever, even once, advocated anything but this: that they don't have the right to force me to approve of their lifestyle in my own faith?

Are you not on record as opposing the rights of homosexuals to have their unions considered marriage?

I grant you this - you have consistently stuck to a position of "I'm all for 'em, unless I gotta accept 'em".

I fail to see how defending someone's right to free speech and freedom of religion is oppressing homosexuals...

Because that free speech is essentially "let's all oppress homosexuals".

even if it were, it's still free speech, Joey. However, I dare you to find anything that I have said that even remotely equates to that.

It is my contention that by refusing to accept homosexual unions as marriages, you have in a vocal manner espoused oppression of homosexuals.

Then back off...

I will back off of NOTHING (except forum rules, if only for now) when I see my fellow human beings oppressed.

...I'm getting very tired of the over-the-top rhetoric you are using with me, as if I were kicking in gay doors carrying ropes, whips and barbed wire. If you use that sort if language with me, where do you have left to go against people who really ARE out to do damage to gays?

It is my contention that you "really ARE out to do damage to gays" when you voice opposition to their enjoying the same rights and freedoms you enjoy.

unless not allowing them to enforce THEIR beliefs upon those who disagree with them is oppression, If that is so, then you have a very odd idea of the term.

I admit to an odd term for freedom.

I contend it should be for all.

Evidently not, Joey. "All" includes fundamentalist Christians who don't want to be forced to participate in ceremonies that are against their religion.

Let's amend that then... I contend freedom should be for all but those folks who hide behind god belief in an effort to oppress human beings.

"ALL," believe it or not, includes those who disagree with you on stuff.

And it is my firm conviction, and contention, that we should stand against those who oppress others "in God's loving name". These folks, I contend, are worthy of not being allowed to say who's deserving of rights - given their common track record of refusing rights to folks.

You forget; I am ALSO advocating that the government refuse to recognize HETEROSEXUALS as 'married."

Reckon why that might be, now that homosexuals seek to use the term.

That is, take the government all the way out of the religious/philosophical view of marriage. Make the whole thing even, equal...and legally contractual; everybody gets civil unions.

I read this to mean, "Now that gay folks are wantin' in on it all, let's just scrap the whole deal."

Then everybody can go get married any way, and anywhere, they like. The civil rights go with the civil unions, whether you are gay, straight or play both sides. The marriage is dependent upon your beliefs....and with those, you can either accept, or reject, them as you will.

Why is it so important we scrap such an historical and culturally significant term?

This would make life a lot easier for everybody.

Instead of just saying, "Y'all go on and carry on, I'm just gonna be over here in my church hatin' ya to beat the band".

Lets all of us, each and every one, never make life easy for the oppressor!

Gays can get married.

Not according to you. They can get "civil unioned".

Fundamentalists don't have to think they ARE married, but they sure have to give them their civil rights.

It is my contention their civil rights include having their unions recognized as the marriages they are.

This solves everything.

You insult folks' intelligence.

There are only two groups who don't like the idea; fundamentalists who think they have the right to dictate everybody else's morals

That's exactly what you propose to do... "Marriage ain't moral unless my bunch says it is."

I contend marriage is moral when folks love one another and seek government sanction, and government rights and privileges in such regard.

and gays--who want, not equal civil rights, but superior ones;

I direct the observers' attention to this obviously fraudulent statement.

I contend it is fraudulent based on the common Christian claim that these folks are not worthy of the very rights many Christians seek to reserve for themselves.

that is, not just the right to marry

"JUST NOT THE RIGHT TO MARRY" But I'm here to tell ya, my solution offers 'em the same rights.

I am, frankly, fed up with this argument - "I'm all cool with 'em, and want for 'em just every bit of it - 'cept that bit there I don't want for 'em".

and have the civil rights that go with that, but the right to force everybody else to change their beliefs and religion in order to approve of them...to force people to perform services they don't advertise, for events that are against their religion, just because the client is gay.

Nobody's forcing you to reject your hatred. Hatred in the form of rejecting rights for others you seek to reserve for yourself.

So if you want to call protecting MY right to speak...

When you use your right to speak in an effort to subjugate others, I lose concern for your right to speak.

When you seek for yourself (marriage in case ya ain't following along) what you seek to deny others, you, and your god, are the dictionary definition of a :censored:.

and choose what services I offer in a business, and to believe as I wish, and to express my opinions...if you want to call all that "oppressing' the people who disagree with me, then I have a book by Orwell you might like. He has a concept in there called 'newspeak."

You're just gonna continue to reject the notion that a public business oughta do something so dastardly as to serve the public ain't ya?

As long as that is restricted to speech, that's not oppression either. OPPRESSION requires force; that is, the ability to enforce one's opinions on someone else, by force of law or force of....force.

And you seek to force the government's hand regarding what constitutes a legitimate marriage.

n the case of Elane Photography, then, who was oppressing whom? Elaine simply said 'I don't want to participate in your ceremony." THEY said "you will to or we will ruin you.." and they did.

The photographer simply said, "To heck with you and your rights".

You weren't in that paragraph. You had expanded your point all the way to the pledge of allegiance, prayer and selling booze on Sunday. If you are going to be specific, Joey, be specific.

I contend such is valid. That religious folks have a pattern - a provable pattern - of trying to inflict their superstitions on others is, I contend, undeniable by anyone but the most mentally unbalanced. It is relevant to the case at hand because you and perhaps others have hidden behind "but dangitall, it affects my ability to hate the freedoms these folks seek" - because a god that can't be shown to exist has an opinion that god can't be shown to have.

But you're right, if a bunch of Stalinists and Leninsists and such start invading, yeah, I'll have to speak against them.

I will NOT be silent in the face of the oppressor.

I see that.
Trouble is, you seem to have a binary approach here; you react to verbal disagreement with rhetoric worthy of genocide.

Bully.

You presented a strawman, and I responded.

Funny you mention genocide, in that the god you worship preaches a form of genocide against homosexuals.

My point is that you seem to have blinders on

DO NOT INSULT ME WITH SUCH LANGUAGE!

If I get in trouble for such, you oughta too.

and blame 'Christians' for every evil under the sun. If somehow we all DID disappear, who would you use as a target then?

It is my contention that if Christians weren't committing evils, they'd bear no blame.

As it is, I contend it's just evil as all get out to reserve for oneself what they refuse to extend to others.

Joey, you are the one creating a strawman. For instance, I am a Christian. I know many, MANY Christians who are as against 'dumbing down science education' as you are.

You have now admitted that some Christians are attempting to do such.

Never denied that, Joey.

Then you agree your accusation of me presenting a strawman was false.

I figure the observer is astute enough to understand that by not mentioning such clarifiers as "some" or "many" that the point is made.

No. When whole sale attacks that claim that 'Christians" or "Atheists" do this or that, the intention is to claim that ALL do. Your rhetoric certainly implies that. If you mean 'some,' rather than 'all,' then WRITE 'some,' rather than 'all."

Lets put it this way... You propose restricting the right of all homsexuals to have their unions recognized as marriage - a commonly understood, culturally significant term.

In this case, it was a gay couple oppressing a Christian photographer, and the law allowing them to do so.

Bull feathers.

absolute truth.

As is typical with many theists, all you can do is claim truth, while being utterly incapable of showing you speak it.

[micatala]

Would dianaiad say a photographer who refused to photograph an interracial marriage on religious grounds was within their rights?

Would dianaiad say an architect who refused to design a house for a black person, or a woman, or someone from a faith different than their own was within his or her rights?

Can dianaiad explain why the Catholic Church has not been forced to ordain female priests?

Can dianaiad, again going back to the issue she is avoiding, show that the Catholic Church or any other church has had to change their worship services, or who they consent to marry, based on any previous non-discrimination legal decisions or laws?

Try asking dianaiad.

????


I was. Pardon my habit of referring to people in the third person; it isperhaps sort of a quirk, and merely functions to depersonalize the discussion.


If you prefer I could simply say "would you say " . . . etc.

If you wanted to depersonalize it, you wouldn't use my name on every line.
Since I AM right 'here,' so to speak, referring to me in the third person indicates considerable disrespect; as if the person to whom you are referring isn't worth addressing, so that you'd rather get the answer to what s/he would think from someone else.

It is, in fact, more than a little insulting.

In this case, yes "would you say?...": would be preferable. At least that way I know that you might actually be interested in what DIANAIAD thinks, rather than what someone has to say ABOUT Dianaiad.

I think you are reading way too much into this. I won't say I never refer to forum members in the second person, but if you look at my posts, you will often see me refer to people in the third person. I believe I am far from unique in this regard. It is in fact very common in debates. Often, in a public debate, especially between 2 parties, they often refer to each other as "my opponent."

Another reason it occurs is that it acknowledges others are participating and there is also an audience who is not participating but only reading the threads.


At any rate, I certainly meant no insult or disrespect. As I said, it is a habit of mine, perhaps a bit quirky, but again, far from unique, even on this forum.




I see you and joey have had quite a back and forth. However, I would ask for answers to the questions above.




A couple of additional comments.

As on another thread on this issue, I acknowledge your solution of removing "marriage" from the legal lexicon and having the government only sanction "civil unions" and leaving "marriage" for people to deal with in their churches or however else they wish is definitely an improvement over what we have, and could be considered reasonably fair. I do point out, however, that others could consider this unfair in that the it could be perceived as a way to prevent gays from the institution of marriage with its traditional connotations.

Thus, I do not agree that the only reason some do not agree with your solution is that they have some kind of nefarious agenda, whether that includes "forcing their beliefs on CHristians" or whatever else.



I also think you simply aren't acknowledging the business aspect of this situation. See my first question above.


I can see you have somewhat of a point in bringing up the "artistic" aspect, but the problem is a person doing wedding photography does not very well fit the idea of an artist as it exists today. They do not sell their individual photos on the open market, for example. They do not display their photos in art galleries. While they do make what might say are "artistic decisions," they certainly do not in general have the wide artistic license typical of studio artists. Clients typically have a pretty narrow range of what they are looking for, and don't want their photographer exercising a whole lot of creativity. They are typically choosing a photographer because they like what that photographer has done at other weddings and they want the same thing.

Thus, the idea that a wedding photographer is exercising their "free artistic speech" rather than providing a well-defined service for a fee as a public business doesn't really hold a lot of water.




You feel Elane had her free speech and religious freedom rights violated. I think we need to be clear there is a difference between what Elane's rights are as an individual and what they are as a proprietor of a business, and what her responsibilities are in each case.

Certainly, no one has violated Elane's individual free speech rights or her religious freedom as an individual. She is free to have her opinions about gays and practice her religion.



However, as a business, Elane's photography business is not allowed to discriminate, not only on the basis of gay or not gay, but for gender or other reasons, regardless of her personal religious beliefs. Again, if Elane's religious beliefs included considering interracial marriage as evil or ungodly, this would not justify refusing service to interracial couples.



Businesses are not churches. Churches DO have wide latitude to discriminate. The Catholic church can refuse to ordain women, or marry gays even in jurisdictions where that is legal, or perform divorces, or perform a marriage between a Catholic and a person of another faith (although I don't believe they do this anymore).