Being gay is a fetish.

[Hatshepsut]

If he's going to pick and choose which weddings to go to based on what the happy couple do with their genitals, then he should stick to something he is prepared to offer to everyone equally.

Ummm....no. He should make his business policies clear in advance if he's not going to serve everyone who comes to him. I'm given to understand the Indiana baker failed to do so, instead trying to back out after reaching a contract. The newlyweds should be able to sue him for that. I also realize we have made a race exception to the rule that small businesses can choose which customers they accept. Yet refusal to allow blacks to sit at lunch counters was rampant at the time, making it nearly impossible to eat out if you were black, while today few businesses object to serving gays or even ask if they are.

Extending "public accomodations" rules to sexual orientation minorities solves a problem which doesn't exist.

[Esquilax]

You, pro-gay advocates, are missing the point entirely. I am responding to the charge that opposition to homosexual behavior is akin to bigotry. That gets thrown around a lot, but is completely ignorant as I showed earlier. I advocate natural law, not only with respect to the issue at hand, but for a whole range of moral issues, like adultery and incest. You guys disagree. We both hold sincerely held beliefs. Disagreement over sincerely held beliefs is not bigotry.

It is when those sincerely held beliefs are baseless and targeted directly at a group of people based on their nature. What the hell would you consider bigotry, if you exclude ideas that are believed? Racists sincerely hold their racist beliefs, doesn't mean they aren't bigoted. Are you now limiting bigotry to only beliefs people espouse but don't really believe in? You've completely stripped the word of all meaning, now.

Not to mention, you "advocate for natural law,"... while ignoring the naturally occurring homosexuality that takes place among many species, humans among them.

In order for an opinion or action to qualify as bigoted it must be unfair. Gender is inherently subjective and involves beliefs about one identity based on desires and feelings.

Couple things: firstly, yet again, sexual orientation is not the same thing as gender identity, so even if we take you seriously you're still wrong. Secondly, no, gender is not "inherently subjective," and if you think that it is, then I challenge you to switch to female for a bit.

Likewise it 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.

Again, I don't think the insistence that you're not being bigoted, just judgmental and asshole-ish, really works in your favor. Seems more like you want to avoid the negative consequences of the beliefs you hold, rather than making sure those beliefs are at all justifiable... which they aren't.

Nearly everyone on your side take traditional opinions (not all of which are religious) about homosexuality personally. I can understand that because it is an affront to your strongly held beliefs about gender identity and pronounced feelings. In the same way people of faith have strongly held beliefs about their religious identity and inclinations toward certain spiritual experiences and consider gay-positive advocacy offensive. Again, these are differences of opinion. Those opinions may be uninformed, stupid, and even disrespectful, one way or the other, and reasonable people can disagree, but any comparison between opposition to homosexuality and race/sexism is nothing more than ignorant hyperbole.

Do you care at all about the fact that your beliefs are completely unjustifiable and arbitrary? This entire screed is little more than you trying desperately to escape negative labels, rather than answering for the very clear problems in your, yes, bigotry. It's been something of a running theme with the homophobes in this thread; none of you can actually hack it in the real argument, and so you're reduced to wheedling damage control in an attempt to make sure we can't use words that will make you look bad when describing you.

The earthly conjugal love between a man and a woman corresponds with the spiritual union of the male and female principles. 

Uh Oh! Seems like you're going to have to establish the existence of spiritual anything before we can consider that argument justifiable!

[Chas]

I love when atheists like Brian beclown  themselves by making claim to human rights while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

It saddens me when religious clowns are unable to understand that human rights are determined and agreed upon by humans and do not rely on supposed "transcendent absolutes".

[robvalue]

Hatsch: So do you think it would be acceptable for a baker to have as his official stated policy, "I cater for non-gay weddings"?

[Hatshepsut]

Hatsch: So do you think it would be acceptable for a baker to have as his official stated policy, "I cater for non-gay weddings"?

I think he's foolish to decline money. You can't afford that in independent food service. But his business, not mine.

[Regina]

I love when atheists like Brian beclown  themselves by making claim to human rights while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

Leave it to the "transcendent absolutes" to dictate what "human rights" are, you get Medieval Europe; Witch-hunts, executions over petty crimes, irrational laws. You also get, which is still happening, an open denial of scientific evidence that actually puts us in danger (such as denying global warming)

As Richard Dawkins said, human rights and modern morality have come on over centuries of rational discussion and logical debate. They're not plucked out of thin air, and they make for a better society than "this book says this is the law, so follow it". I know which society I'd rather live in. Everything should be open for discussion and debate, and yes that includes the right for gays to marry. However, some things like gay marriage there are very weak arguments against, which is why the argument fails and why you make an ass of yourself for trying. Stay pressed though.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I love when atheists like Brian beclown  themselves by making claim to human rights while simultaneously denying transcendent absolutes.

Leave it to the "transcendent absolutes" to dictate what "human rights" are, you get Medieval Europe; Witch-hunts, executions over petty crimes, irrational laws. You also get, which is still happening, an open denial of scientific evidence that actually puts us in danger (such as denying global warming)

As Richard Dawkins said, human rights and modern morality have come on over centuries of rational discussion and logical debate. They're not plucked out of thin air, and they make for a better society than "this book says this is the law, so follow it". I know which society I'd rather live in. Everything should be open for discussion and debate, and yes that includes the right for gays to marry. However, some things like gay marriage there are very weak arguments against, which is why the argument fails and why you make an ass of yourself for trying. Stay pressed though.

The point is that human rights come from a higher authority than personal opinions, group consensus, state mandate. If these are source of one's human rights, then they can be taken away by the same processes. You have human rights regardless of whether the government recognizes them or not. 

I am open to the idea that the state legal prohibitions and social justifications against sodomy laws and prohibitions against gay marriage may not be as compelling as once believed. But the hyperbole, false accusations, and vilification of those with opposing views does not produce meaningful discussion of the issues. They lead only to resentment. As I said earlier, I have a live-and-let-live attitude with regards to peoples personal lives. They are accountable only to themselves and the Lord. Yes, I have a very traditional attitude towards various heterosexual and homosexual practices based on my sincere belief that proper behavior can be rationally determined by observation of the dispositional properties of the human body in conjunction with desired ends and values. This belief is consistent with my other opinions about the mind, human nature and the nature of reality. These issues I have discussed elsewhere and have not found the arguments against my positions rationally consistent or compelling.

In contrast to claims of people like Esquilax, my claims are not arguments of convenience to justify whatever opinion I have at the moment. They adhere as a somewhat complete and generally consistent whole. In fact, the recent gay marriage issue has caused me to further develop my beliefs in that area as well as others. For example, I now feel there is a compelling natural law argument against smoking apart from the health issues involved. Previously, I would have been less inclined to condemn various sexual practices but have come to a better understanding of how these specific types of sin undermine the Providential order.

[robvalue]

Hatsch: So do you think it would be acceptable for a baker to have as his official stated policy, "I cater for non-gay weddings"?

I think he's foolish to decline money. You can't afford that in independent food service. But his business, not mine.

It is the gay community's business, though. If you allow one person to make a blatantly discriminatory code of practice, you must allow everyone. Where will you draw the line? What kind of services aren't then allowed to be blatantly discriminatory?

And it may become your business if you find yourself in a group arbitrarily being discriminated against in the future, because it's allowed to stand.

It may not be a problem at the moment, but it wasn't that long ago things were really bad from this point of view. I'm sure there are some people who would still like to bring it back, if we allow them to. To some people, being bigoted may be worth the loss of earnings. I wouldn't want to put that to the test.

I don't mean to come off as aggressive, I only mean to debate in a friendly way I'm not accusing you of trying to bring back the dark ages.

[abaris]

I am open to the idea that the state legal prohibitions and social justifications against sodomy laws and prohibitions against gay marriage may not be as compelling as once believed. But the hyperbole, false accusations, and vilification of those with opposing views does not produce meaningful discussion of the issues.

Well, aren't you merciful in your - yes - bigotry. Fact is, it doesn't concern you in your personal little bubble of your life, who's loving who and who's marrying whom. Noone forces you to follow suit. You can be on your knees 24/7 if that's your idea of a meaningful life. The whole idea is of people like you keeping their noses out of other people's personal lives and to not push for legislation to make their existence more difficult.

[Hatshepsut]

In contrast...my claims are not arguments of convenience to justify whatever opinion I have at the moment...

Makes us strange bed-fellows as I don't buy the gay agenda yet I avoid the thoughtless whisk broom of intolerance the Evangelical wings so lovingly fondle. We've had ugly official attitudes toward gays, with J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI snorting "homosexual perversion" and the American Psychiatric Assn. defining it as ailment until DSM III-R. Seems we've had small problems with private violence as well. Bullying in the schools, local college jocks on "faggot-barking" missions Friday nights for years before the cops finally stepped on it.

But yes, we are sadly stuck on whatever's fashionable this Tuesday, with George F. Will "grievance groups" now numbered in the hundreds bellowing for legislative hay to drop into the trough. Yet even here, I think we need to distinguish between laws extending liberty, such as gay marriage, which are desirable in a free land, and those that make questionable political allocations, such as municipal hiring and benefits quotas.

....you get Medieval Europe; Witch-hunts, executions over petty crimes, irrational laws. You also get, which is still happening, an open denial of scientific evidence that actually puts us in danger (such as denying global warming). ... As Richard Dawkins said, human rights and modern morality have come on over centuries of rational discussion and logical debate...

Ahh...King Richard Dawkins in armor on high horse at the standard of Modern Morality, giving the cry "Climate change deniers!" as his army surges forth to battle for Right...with logical debate? Since Magna Carta when have rights ever come about through a rational process? We've had rare moments of sanity, perhaps at the UN just after WWII, but this is a messy arena indeed. I can respect Mr. Dawkins opinions on biology. I doubt he's the best historian or sociologist, however.