Being gay is a fetish.

[robvalue]

I actually thought he was going to "spank the baker". Now I feel the hand wavering...

[abaris]

No. As I said, I would support a gay bar if it refused service to apparently heterosexual couples and asked them to leave.

I suppose I have some libertarian leanings.

Yeah, but as I said before, which you conveniently ignored while playing the victim, churches aren't like private enterprises. They reach out and try to insinuate what they call values into legislation. Which means, bigotry becomes law in some cases. And in other instances, even more revolting, so called missionaries successfully pushed for anti gay legislation in Africa. Legislation that carrys a life sentence for being gay and acting on natural impulses.

So no, your so called libertarianism ends at the church door.

[robvalue]

And... no answer Alpha? Won't you spank the baker?

Why mention the gay club if you're just going to allow any baker to discriminate willy nilly?

[Vox Populi]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_...in_animals

This may be interesting:

" As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors.[3][4] According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species.[5]"

I never knew that all these species have fetishes. 

[John V]

If you support equality for gays, that is not the way the argument works. Religious bigotry has been the social norm, heterosexuals are not the ones who are the minorities who have had a history of gays denying them service. This is about human rights. Either you are for equal protection under the law or you are justifying treating others as second class citizens.

You haven't established that gays constitute a class of citizens for this purpose.

Show me the scientific evidence proving that people are born gay, and I'll agree that they deserve the same protections as racial minorities.

Until then, it's a behavior or lifestyle. I support the rights of people to freely associate. Free association implies exclusion.

So, as noted before, as a citizen in a democratic republic, I'll go with the majority position. But, if I were voting, I'd vote to allow the baker to reject a request to make a cake for a gay wedding.

---

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_...in_animals

This may be interesting:

" As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors.[3][4] According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species.[5]"

I never knew that all these species have fetishes. 

Reading on:

According to Bruce Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity – including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex – than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[6] Bagemihl adds, however, that this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7] Simon LeVay introduced the further caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] 

[Esquilax]

Show me the scientific evidence proving that people are born gay, and I'll agree that they deserve the same protections as racial minorities.

Until then, it's a behavior or lifestyle. I support the rights of people to freely associate. Free association implies exclusion.

Believing one thing, based on no evidence, until evidence of the contrary is produced, is an argument from ignorance, not a legitimate position.

[John V]

Show me the scientific evidence proving that people are born gay, and I'll agree that they deserve the same protections as racial minorities.

Until then, it's a behavior or lifestyle. I support the rights of people to freely associate. Free association implies exclusion.

Believing one thing, based on no evidence, until evidence of the contrary is produced, is an argument from ignorance, not a legitimate position.

Sure is. But as I've given evidence, such as twins studies, for my position, I'm not doing that.

Further, Brian said that I have no scientific understanding of reality regarding human sexuality, so it's perfectly legitimate to ask to see the scientific evidence which I supposedly don't understand. 

[Esquilax]

Sure is. But as I've given evidence, such as twins studies, for my position, I'm not doing that.

The twin study, at best, rules out a purely genetic predisposition, it's not evidence that homosexuality is a choice or a lifestyle. Purely genetic/completely conscious choice is a false dichotomy, especially in light of the fact that, most likely, it's due to a combination of factors. But the simple lived experience of other people completely invalidates this claim that it's some conscious choice and nothing more; for all your talk about evidence you're certainly willing to completely ignore that whenever it's brought up.

Further, Brian said that I have no scientific understanding of reality regarding human sexuality, so it's perfectly legitimate to ask to see the scientific evidence which I supposedly don't understand. 

What's not legitimate is you deciding that your wild, only partially justified assertion stands until proven wrong, especially when the science itself has not come to a conclusion yet. Study is still ongoing, even your twins studies have additional factors that could explain the results due to the mechanisms of how twins form, and so it is completely ludicrous for you to assume that your position is somehow the default.

[robvalue]

"Christian" is a choice, but I wonder what Christians would make of any establishment being able to refuse to serve any Christians? If it's OK for one, nothing to stop it eventually being the case that almost everyone does is it if Christianity became a minority.

Would they shrug their shoulders and go, "Fair enough, I made my choice."

These kinds of laws protect everyone, it's worth remembering that you never know when you might become the minority.

[John V]

The twin study, at best, rules out a purely genetic predisposition, it's not evidence that homosexuality is a choice or a lifestyle. Purely genetic/completely conscious choice is a false dichotomy, especially in light of the fact that, most likely, it's due to a combination of factors.

No, considering that I'm arguing against the comparison to skin color, it's valid.

But the simple lived experience of other people completely invalidates this claim that it's some conscious choice and nothing more; for all your talk about evidence you're certainly willing to completely ignore that whenever it's brought up.

For all your use of logical fallacies, you're certainly willing to ignore confirmation bias when it suits you.

What's not legitimate is you deciding that your wild, only partially justified assertion stands until proven wrong, especially when the science itself has not come to a conclusion yet.

At least I'm partially justified. All you have is personal testimony which could result from confirmation bias, and - you do this a lot - you accuse me of an argument from ignorance when you're smack dab in the middle of one yourself.

Study is still ongoing, even your twins studies have additional factors that could explain the results due to the mechanisms of how twins form, and so it is completely ludicrous for you to assume that your position is somehow the default.

I could understand high, but less than 100%, concordance due to such factors, but not concordance rates as low as 7%. Also note the comparison to race. Twins are concordant on skin color at or near 100%.

---

"Christian" is a choice, but I wonder what Christians would make of any establishment being able to refuse to serve any Christians? If it's OK for one, nothing to stop it eventually being the case that almost everyone does is it if Christianity became a minority.

Would they shrug their shoulders and go, "Fair enough, I made my choice."

These kinds of laws protect everyone, it's worth remembering that you never know when you might become the minority.

A difference between you and me is that I tend to work with what is current or likely, while you tend to take things to the hypothetical extremes.

I value free association. Yes, I like to be with like-minded people and exclude others. I understand that means that others are also allowed to group together and exclude me. I find this to be a more interesting world than one of forced conformity.