Being gay is a fetish.

[Whateverist]

They knew when to keep their mouths shut.  They had a modicum of shame - I'd say.  I don't recall any of them ever correcting their wayward christian brethren.......  

You know, Heywood is probably a nice guy (as kind as anyone, really) - it's just this thing.....lol.

Frankly I think theists would do well to talk about each other the way we do: the only thing theists necessarily have in common is believing in at least one god.  Too bad this doesn't appeal to most of them.  Same with admitting agnosticism in addition to their stated beliefs.  So easy to claim less and defend less but most won't let go of certainty which they seem to think is a marker of faith.  (Obviously it is the opposite.)  

[Heywood]

Our laws explicitly invoke equality, that our laws are contradictory in this regard when it comes to teh gays hardly needs further elaboration.  But, yes, we all toe the line - even if we don't agree on every particular, or we bitch and moan about it like impotent pricks.  Believe the gays did, in fact "move elswhere" in significant numbers, away from Dumfuckistan USA.  Probably shouldn't have had to..but, you know, gotta appease folks like yourself I guess.

You don't have to serve anyone..Heywood, understand?  But if you want to extract those profits......the situation is a bit different.  That's the arrangement.  Cry me a river.  Now, hey, don't think I'm playing the high ground.  I'd love to be able to turn out every cross fetishist I see....but I understand that this would shittify my community and my country, and I have enough respect for both not to let my own personal quirks damage this thing we've got going on.  Apparently, some people can't see past their little talismans.  Fuck em.

Yeah and your argument amounts too if you want to exchange goods and services....something human beings have been doing since before there were government.....you better follow the rules I have imposed on you.

It is still a crappy argument Rhythm.  You should be better than this if a better argument from your side exists.  What it comes down to is that in your opinion the right of self determination only exists when people are following your values.  If they arn't following your values then they should leave or die or become beggars.  Its a crap argument and you know it.  And don't be mad at me that I am calling it exactly they way I see it.  You wouldn't accept such an argument when gay rights were restricted.  You wouldn't accept people in no gay marriage states telling gays if they don't like it they should move.  But you double down on that same crappy argument now because that is all you got.

People have the right to be self determinant and there needs to be a damn good reason to restrict that right.  Preventing butthurt isn't a good reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah and your argument amounts too if you want to exchange goods and services....something human beings have been doing since before there were government.....you better follow the rules I have imposed on you.

Sure does.....why would that be a problem for you.......?

It is still a crappy argument Rhythm.  You should be better than this if a better argument from your side exists.  What it comes down to is that in your opinion the right of self determination only exists when people are following your values. 

-now if our government would just be sweethearts and enshrine my values into law...you'd have a point.  You should write them a letter to that effect.

 If they arn't following your values then they should leave or die or become beggars.  Its a crap argument and you know it.

-and now...I know that -you- know it...huh?

  And don't be mad at me that I am calling it exactly they way I see it.  You wouldn't accept such an argument when gay rights were restricted.  You wouldn't accept people in no gay marriage states telling gays if they don't like it they should move.  But you double down on that same crappy argument now because that is all you got.

I half expected you to google the word equality, but I should have known better?

People have the right to be self determinant and there needs to be a damn good reason to restrict that right.  Preventing butthurt isn't a good reason.

You'd have the very beginnings of a point if we weren't talking business, wouldn't you?  Businesses -do not- have an unrestricted and unique license to any such rights..and no one..business or private citizen..has the "right" to deny another theirs. You started down this road...by your own admission..to mindlessly troll...and so you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself arguing for such a vile and absurd position now. I'm certainly not surprised.

Hang it up man. Even I think you're better than this.......

[Heywood]

You'd have a point if we weren't talking business, wouldn't you?  Businesses -do not- have an unrestricted and unique licesne to any such rights..and no one..business or private citizen..has the "right" to deny another theirs.

Hang it up man.

People do business. Do you know what DBA stands for? It stands for "Doing Business As". Peoples right to self determination doesn't go away simply because they've decided to engage in business. You're not offering anything new. You're really just making shit up. You're really just saying, this is how I believe the world should work and thus I am right.

Further, People have the right to deny another theirs. A homosexual baker does not have to bake a cake that says, "God Hates Fags" for the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church. A homosexual baker has the right to refuse to service anyone or any church.

[Polaris]

Sure there will be those who will be gay because they choose to do so whether it be for a fetish, to be counter-cultural (piss off mom and dad, etc.), or because they just want to try something new.

That being said, with all the stigma against homosexuality, I am not sure most homosexuals would actually like to be homosexual if they could help it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have a point if we weren't talking business, wouldn't you?  Businesses -do not- have an unrestricted and unique licesne to any such rights..and no one..business or private citizen..has the "right" to deny another theirs.

Hang it up man.

People do business.  Do you know what DBA stands for?  It stands for "Doing Business As".  Peoples right to self determination doesn't go away simply because they've decided to engage in business.  You're not offering anything new. You're really just making shit up.  You're really just saying, this is how I believe the world should work and thus I am right.  

Further, People have the right to deny another theirs.  A homosexual baker does not have to bake a cake that says, "God Hates Fags" for the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church.  A homosexual baker has the right to refuse to service anyone or any church.

If anyone proposed that their rights did go away...we'd be having a conversation...but since no one did, we aren't.   Do you need me to participate in this..or can you wing it solo? A homosexual baker has no such right, btw, but neither does a heterosexual one..so I guess they're square on that count...lol. If that right existed, your pew bag buddies wouldn't be trying their best to pass the laws granting it..you get that...right?>

[Thumpalumpacus]

For myself, I have reasoned out that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. I have reasoned that it doesn't provide the same value.....

And how do you know that?

[...] unless there is a a God and He has deemed it such.  It is simply unreasonable to expect a Godless completely naturalistic world to be egalitarian as many of you atheists believe it to be.

No one expects  the world to be egalitarian. Here in this country, we do expect people to be treated equally.

[Heywood]

And how do you know that?

You should have paid attention.

---

If anyone proposed that their rights did go away...we'd be having a conversation...but since no one did, we aren't.   Do you need me to participate in this..or can you wing it solo? A homosexual baker has no such right, btw, but neither does a heterosexual one..so I guess they're square on that count...lol.  If that right existed, your pew bag buddies wouldn't be trying their best to pass the laws granting it..you get that...right?>

According to the state of Colorado any baker can refuse to bake a cake that reads, "God hates fags" but a Christian baker opposed to gay marriage has to bake a cake for a same sex marriage.

[robvalue]

I just realized something. We estimate that 99% of species that ever lived have gone extinct. I think the reason so many species went extinct is because they made cakes for their homosexual members. If only they had the sense to refuse to make them cakes, maybe all those species would still be here today. I suppose we'll never know for sure.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Believers can tolerate living in an over-sexualized and materialistic society but believers shouldn't be expected to condone, celebrate, or materially support the neo-pagan sensibilities of secular culture.

Believers should not expect to have their bigotries ignored. If a person values the ruminations of a Bronze Age tribe of goatherders over the dignity of a human being to the point that he is willing to deny another human equal treatment, then that  fact is pertinent and should be pointed out.

---

If the issues around homosexuality are only differences of opinion about morality, then making pro-gay public policies amounts to forcing your liberal secular irreligion onto others, in clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment (in the USA).

Firstly, policies like allowing gay marriage, or allowing gay couple to adopt, are not pro-gay. They are pro-equality. A "pro-gay" policy would extend rights or privileges  to gays that heterosexuals don't enjoy.

Secondly, equality in civil society is not a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue. If your religion impels you to deny equal rights to others, then perhaps there's another country whose laws more closely comport with your views where you'd find living more amenable?

Also, lol at your marrying "liberal" and "secular", and labeling them both "irreligion". Your filters are strong if you see everything in that light. Your thinking is sloppy if you conflate political outlook, governmental philosophy, and religious views.

---

... "Pro-gay" policies are policies of "equality" - google the word, it's important.

Not when public funds are used to sponsor a Gay Pride parade or when a court order forces you to take 'sensitivity' training. 

Have you complained yet about government funding going to religious charities? Have you campaigned to have the tax-exempt status of churches rolled back?

I didn't think so.  You want to eat your cake, and have it, too.

---

Yes, because being ordered to treat a human being like a human being after (presumably, if you're in a court, after committing a crime) is SUCH a bad thing.

The longer I'm here, the more the resident theists make me sick. What happened to all the good ones that used to be here.

Would you want to be associated with this group here, who justify bigotry, excuse slavery, pray for other to contract fatal diseases, and demonstrate a vile amorality?

If I were a Christian, the last thing I'd want is to be seen supporting this group of charlatans who wouldn't know a good deed if it bit them in the ass.

---

Yeah and if gays don't like gay marriages restrictions they should pack up and move somewhere else.  Your response is utterly stupid.  

Speaking of utterly stupid, you seem to have forgotten the fact that gays have the right to equal treatment under the law, guaranteed them by the 14th Amendment.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

---

And how do you know that?

You should have paid attention.

I missed the part where you laid out your qualifications to speak on the value of homosexuality. Do you have any direct experience with it? Or are you simply smuggling your own biases into the conversation again, and hoping no one will notice?