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?

[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).

[dianaiad]

<SNIP TO HERE>

Gays can get married.

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

No, Joey, they can get MARRIED.

Exactly the way heterosexuals would. The ONLY difference between what we would have then and what we have now is that religions can't get all hot and bothered about how sinful gay marriage is, and can't decide to make gay marriage illegal because marriage is between one man and one woman. The law would then say fine, if that's how you feel about it, don't recognize gay marriage. However, you WILL recognize properly contracted civil unions, because THAT'S where you get the legal civil rights.

In the meantime, y'all get married anywhere you want to.

And you will be married.

What you will NOT be able to do is force those who honestly feel that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman to recognize such marriages within their belief systems.

As I keep saying....it solves all the problems, for everybody. However, like you, the gay rights activists don't like the idea because everybody wins. It's not enough for them to win. Everybody else must lose.

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.

That's the problem, isn't it? They aren't. I don't think so. Marriage has been a combination of male/female for most, if not all, of history. IT's the definition of the term.

You may think it is bigoted for me to feel that way...I, frankly, don't give a damn what you think.

What I DO think is that I have no right to enforce my beliefs on those who don't agree with me. And they do not have the right to enforce their beliefs on me.

At least I"m trying to figure out how to give everybody what they CLAIM they want.

All you want is the utter defeat of every point of view but yours, and y'know what, Joey?

I'm tired, it's late, my back fence neighbors are having a lovely wedding in their back yard, that I can see from my deck. It's lovely, it's simple, and I'm about to go sing at it.

So....have an evening. I'm done here. /size][/u][/i]

[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.

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).

Just a comment on your take regarding the artistic merit of wedding photography as art:

The vast majority of art throughout history has been 'commissioned." That is, someone hires an artist to commemorate an event, an idea or a person, and that artist goes on to create that art, and (hopefully) get paid for it.

Michaelangelo. Da Vinci., All of the sculptures of Greek and Roman art. Even photographers who are now considered artists, like Ansel Adams and others were working on commission. For you to dismiss wedding photographers as somehow 'not artists' and thus not to be given the same courtesy that artists get--because of the event they are covering--

is a very condescending attitude, and one that my daughter, who has a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Photography and DOES do weddings, would have a problem with.

What makes art, art, is what is DONE with the camera and the subject, not the nature of the subject itself.

As for the rest of the subject, I have said what I have said; I'm done talking.

[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'.

I assume you just missed this.

Can you support your contention that I committed this fallacy or will you do the honorable thing and admit your error?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 229:

Gays can get married.

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

No, Joey, they can get MARRIED.

Let's see if this statement holds up to your own words...

...
However, you WILL recognize properly contracted civil unions, because THAT'S where you get the legal civil rights.
...

That you continue to play word games indicates to me a desire to obfuscate.

The fact remains, you object to gay marriage, and seek to bar the government from recognizing such, by using a concocted term - civil unions.

Who gave theists the right to define words?

Who gave theists the right to reserve words for their own exclusive use?

It is my contention that the word marriage holds significant secular meaning, and the only reason theists seek to refuse others the right to use this term, in a secular government setting, is because some theists refuse to accept homosexuals as decent, worthy human beings.

...
And you will be married.

Not me. I'd rather shack up with a chick than strap on a ball and chain.

What you will NOT be able to do is force those who honestly feel that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman to recognize such marriages within their belief systems.

And what you're trying to do is force others to use a concocted term because you don't respect their right to use a word of such historical and cultural significance.

As I keep saying....it solves all the problems, for everybody.

That is patently false, and shame on you for saying it.

That many homosexuals seek government recognition as married puts the lie to your statement.

How 'bout this. Let's have churches to use the term "civil union", and have the government use "marriage".

Do you find my solution acceptable?

However, like you, the gay rights activists don't like the idea because everybody wins.

The only winner in your scenario is those folks who refuse to accept homosexual marriages as legit.

It's not enough for them to win. Everybody else must lose.

The same can be said for those who propose an unacceptable solution, and then carry on about how it "solves everything".

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

That's the problem, isn't it? They aren't. I don't think so. Marriage has been a combination of male/female for most, if not all, of history.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Slavery has occurred for the vast majority of human history.

Do you miss "the good old days"?

IT's the definition of the term.

Only for religious zealots, who in turn petition the government to enforce such a definition, where it is well understood by folks who actually study words that their definitions are fluid.

Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to allow...

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
...

Do you contend the folks who actually study language have erred?

Or do you seek to fall back on "we religious folks are sole proprietors of this word"?

You may think it is bigoted for me to feel that way...I, frankly, don't give a damn what you think.

It's obvious you don't give a damn what people think, and especially so if those folks think their unions deserve the same governmental recognition you seek to reserve for your own unions.

What I DO think is that I have no right to enforce my beliefs on those who don't agree with me. And they do not have the right to enforce their beliefs on me.

I'm unaware of any marriage, gay or straight, that forces you to change your beliefs.

At least I"m trying to figure out how to give everybody what they CLAIM they want.

Another patently false statement.

Many gay folks want marriage. That you refuse to accept this is what they want is your own problem.

All you want is the utter defeat of every point of view but yours...

The exact same thing can be said about you.

It's kinda what happens in debate.

I'm tired, it's late, my back fence neighbors are having a lovely wedding in their back yard, that I can see from my deck. It's lovely, it's simple, and I'm about to go sing at it.

Let's just hope they ain't having a "ghey" wedding.

[East of Eden]

In fact there has probably never been a time in history when more are coming to faith in Christ than today.

Eh, not so much....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

This might surprise you, but there's a world outside of the US:

[East of Eden]

You should be very happy about that situation. The time will come when religion and myth will be as out-dated and reviled as which craft, and then, you will be glad that you can't be discriminated against.

Bob

Don't hold your breath, the death of Christianity has been predicted for 2,000 years, and tens of millions have been killed in the futile effort. In fact there has probably never been a time in history when more are coming to faith in Christ than today. Truly, the church is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

I have a suggestion for Elaine here in NM the next time two gays want her services: During the shoot excercise your rights to free expression of religion and tell them that homosexual activity is an abomination in God's sight that leads to hell, and that they need to repent and be saved. Perhaps then they will feel more comfortable with another photographer.

I assume your numbers include those whom Christianity burned alive in a festive public setting as the faithful cheered?

Full disclosure and everything.....

'Tens of millions' would necessarily mean the recent atheistic Communist regimes. Stalin killed twice as many a week at one point than the Spanish Inquisition did in it's entire history.