Being gay is a fetish.

[John V]

If the religious right could keep their noses out of other peoples' business, we of the LGBTQ community wouldn't have to defend ourselves so fiercely.

Yet when a bakery owner wants to do just that - keep his nose out of a gay wedding - you guys want to force him to be involved.

[One Above All]

If the religious right could keep their noses out of other peoples' business, we of the LGBTQ community wouldn't have to defend ourselves so fiercely.

Yet when a bakery owner wants to do just that - keep his nose out of a gay wedding - you guys want to force him to be involved.

He wasn't invited to the wedding. All he had to do was bake a cake.

[Hatshepsut]

You, pro-gay advocates, are missing the point entirely. I am responding to the charge that opposition to homosexual behavior is akin to bigotry...it [is] not bigoted to hold unfavorable opinions or discriminate against people because of actions in which they freely engaged and for which they were entirely responsible.

Indeed, such opposition need not stem from bigotry. If so, especially if one plans to institute a discriminatory policy, then it is necessary to supply a compelling reason. So while I blanch at Multiculturalism's raucous cries of "rape apology" and "homophobia" that silence all but their own party lines, I also see failure to supply compelling reason on the part of those who favor various bans against homosexuals.

If it's only a dinner party for members of Nall Ave. Baptist Church at issue, then yah. They can exclude the "adulterous." Their social services centers operating without money from Uncle Sam need not counsel abortion. But these fellas seem to go beyond that, to make state and national platforms for our polity while asking the taxpayers to subsidize a few of their charities. The Salvation Army, an organization I love (and which has helped me in the past), gets 15% or so of its budget from the feds. Not bad compared with many groups but still raising doubts near the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.

Opposition itself isn't bigotry but it's likely to be suspect, given our history of official repression and private violence in this arena.

[Brian37]

You, pro-gay advocates, are missing the point entirely. I am responding to the charge that opposition to homosexual behavior is akin to bigotry...it [is] not bigoted to hold unfavorable opinions or discriminate against people because of actions in which they freely engaged and for which they were entirely responsible.

Indeed, such opposition need not stem from bigotry. If so, especially if one plans to institute a discriminatory policy, then it is necessary to supply a compelling reason. So while I blanch at Multiculturalism's raucous cries of "rape apology" and "homophobia" that silence all but their own party lines, I also see failure to supply compelling reason on the part of those who favor various bans against homosexuals.

If it's only a dinner party for members of Nall Ave. Baptist Church at issue, then yah. They can exclude the "adulterous." Their social services centers operating without money from Uncle Sam need not counsel abortion. But these fellas seem to go beyond that, to make state and national platforms for our polity while asking the taxpayers to subsidize a few of their charities. The Salvation Army, an organization I love (and which has helped me in the past), gets 15% or so of its budget from the feds. Not bad compared with many groups but still raising doubts near the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.

Opposition itself isn't bigotry but it's likely to be suspect, given our history of official repression and private violence in this arena.

Um no, the false claim of "I am not a bigot but I simply disagree" and your last line in your post gives it away.

It is the same bad logic well intended liberal theists on the left.

Ignorance makes sense when people don't know better. But when time progresses and some still cling to an antiquated past, the ignorance goes from unintended to willful.  

If one wants to say "not all those apposed to gay marriage are bigots" I would say they are being half assed about it. We can look to the treatment of not only gays, but the treatment of minority Muslims and non Muslims and gays and Christians in the Middle East.

If one is against gay marriage then don't be half assed about it. Do what the middle east does, have them arrested, or murdered by the state, or look the other way like Russia who pulls the same crap "we won't kill them" but if a mob assaults them we look the other way. Which their current laws promote.

If you say you are not against something, but don't agree with it, the issue is that you simply find it yucky. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree with you Hats in that there must be a compelling state interest when restricting personal liberties. With respect to religious organizations using tax money to provide services an important distinction is whether they can use such funds to provide a specific public good without being forced to provide another service over and above the service they are prepared to provide. If you run a soup kitchen is it absolutely necessary to also provide dietary education? Or if you provide two distinct services one secular and the other religious, why is wrong to provide funding to the secular service so long as provision of the secular service is not contingent upon the religious one?

[Hatshepsut]

Um no, the false claim of "I am not a bigot but I simply disagree" and your last line in your post gives it away.

A perfect example of the Multiculturalist tactics I spoke of, if less blatant than "homophobe." And possibly advanced without a complete reading of the post.

I don't keep myself in a state of willful ignorance regarding gay rights movements, same-sex attraction as a physiological and psychological phenomenon, or the fact that our world is changing. I don't agree with Mezmo!'s "traditional" points of view either. I'm willing to refrain from smearing him with the label of "bigot" for holding them, however. Name-calling now substitutes for genuine argument to such an extent that meaningful discussions can no longer be held. Those who want our social clock to stay set at 1953 are about to be outvoted and lose their battle, a welcome development to me. But it's easier to call them "ignorant retards" than to explore why  they held those views or why  they were once a majority.

Or if you provide two distinct services one secular and the other religious, why is wrong to provide funding to the secular service so long as provision of the secular service is not contingent upon the religious one?

Because it's hard to keep the books separate. Alongside dietary education we might not require is the "sermon before soup" ditty. The VA will pay for veterans to enter Salvation Army rehabs even though religious instruction is part and parcel to the program there, with all residents required to comply with chapel attendance and so on. I can understand this to some extent. The Salvation Army costs less than $3000 for six months where a 14-day hospital-based program easily runs sixty grand. I went through the Salvation Army and found it a loving, quality environment so I'm biased in their favor as well. Still these VA payments represent federal subsidy of a clearly religious program. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess that's unconstitutional.

[Silver]

Hatshepsut:
to explore why they held those views or why they were once a majority.

Because they are retards.  Clearly.  

[Brian37]

Um no, the false claim of "I am not a bigot but I simply disagree" and your last line in your post gives it away.

A perfect example of the Multiculturalist tactics I spoke of, if less blatant than "homophobe." And possibly advanced without a complete reading of the post.

I don't keep myself in a state of willful ignorance regarding gay rights movements, same-sex attraction as a physiological and psychological phenomenon, or the fact that our world is changing. I don't agree with Mezmo!'s "traditional" points of view either. I'm willing to refrain from smearing him with the label of "bigot" for holding them, however. Name-calling now substitutes for genuine argument to such an extent that meaningful discussions can no longer be held. Those who want our social clock to stay set at 1953 are about to be outvoted and lose their battle, a welcome development to me. But it's easier to call them "ignorant retards" than to explore why  they held those views or why  they were once a majority.

This isn't brain surgery here. I get what you are saying. My mom is still a Catholic and for a long time thought my atheism was a "phase". But we are not talking about people we personally know. We are talking about the collective climate that holds human rights back.

[abaris]

We are talking about the collective climate that holds human rights back.

More to the point, it holds human development back. The LGBT issue is just one out of many.

Not surprising really, considering we're talking about Iron Age morality and not even from the most developed region of the time.

[Brian37]

We are talking about the collective climate that holds human rights back.

More to the point, it holds human development back. The LGBT issue is just one out of many.

Not surprising really, considering we're talking about Iron Age morality and not even from the most developed region of the time.

To be fair to the current big three trouble makers causing the most problems in the traditions of Abraham, we must still recognize that religion as an idea is a bad idea, not in that you can stop it, but in that it is divisive. If the big three did not exist, our species would still compete by falsely thinking placebos constitute right.

Humans have to get over the idea that a mere label is a patent holder on our species morality. No modern religion was around 4 billion years ago, and the meteor that killed the dinosaurs had no concern about it's survival either. We cant get rid of our differences, but we can accept we are the same species.