Christians being Persecuted in North America?

[Joykins]

Plus she wasnt a trained activist. She was just a person whom the activists found to be a good test case since she was a good, Christian woman.

She'd been active in the civil rights movement since the 1940s and underwent activist training at the Highlander Folk School in the 1950s. Look it up. Not that this makes her any less a good Christian woman, but she wasn't used by activists. She was an activist working against racial injustice--she knew exactly what she was doing and why.

 

[Marius27]

Mate, I appreciate what you're saying, but I was a nurse until a few years ago, and fairly well across the literature on this subject, and I think you'd do well to look for sources more recent than 1978. Until '07, at least, the consensus has been that in utero AND post natal environment and experience play a factor. As does genetics. Like virtually all behavioural characteristics.

I've seen no evidence showing that post natal environment has any impact. I've seen evidence that the brain is physically wired differently in utero based on hormone fluctuations in gay people.

The fact that gays are found in every culture, every family, every environment, and every situation relatively consistently pretty much dispels that theory.

 

[GenetoJean]

I've seen no evidence showing that post natal environment has any impact. I've seen evidence that the brain is physically wired differently in utero based on hormone fluctuations in gay people.

The fact that gays are found in every culture, every family, every environment, and every situation relatively consistently pretty much dispels that theory.

I dont see how. We arent saying that some arent born that way but we just think circumstances can affect some to be that way.

 

[Armoured]

I've seen no evidence showing that post natal environment has any impact. I've seen evidence that the brain is physically wired differently in utero based on hormone fluctuations in gay people.

The fact that gays are found in every culture, every family, every environment, and every situation relatively consistently pretty much dispels that theory.

Nonsense. It just means that the environmental effects, whatever they are, exist in all cultures, families and environments.

edit: what JtoG said. I personally like the bucket analogy, genetics determines the size and shape of the bucket, environment determines how much and what is put into it.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Check the polls. Acceptance for the LGBT community is becoming more and more a reality. Granted, we're not where we should be. But, we're a heckuva lot further along than we we were.

In 20 years from now people will look back at the gay marriage debate and laugh at those opposed to it. What side of history do you want to be on?

God's side.

 

[Marius27]

I dont see how. We arent saying that some arent born that way but we just think circumstances can affect some to be that way.

Then you would expect to find a higher ratio of gays in certain demographics, families, or cultures where those circumstances are more common. I've still seen no legitimate evidence that events make people gay.

 

[Marius27]

God's side.

Supporting God's children is being on God's side.

 

[Marius27]

Nonsense. It just means that the environmental effects, whatever they are, exist in all cultures, families and environments.

edit: what JtoG said. I personally like the bucket analogy, genetics determines the size and shape of the bucket, environment determines how much and what is put into it.

What environmental effects are you referring to? How do those effects re-structure the brain in areas that occur during fetal development? Parts of the gay brain are structured in a similar way to straight members of the opposite-sex.

 

[XtianAgain]

God's side.

Quit blaming God for your own bigotry. The people who opposed civil rights thought they were on "God's side" too. Turns out now they are laughed at by those of us who knew different.

 

[jazzflower92]

Quit blaming God for your own bigotry. The people who opposed civil rights thought they were on "God's side" too. Turns out now they are laughed at by those of us who knew different.

People who are apart of the gay movement seems to think things will be all black and white when it has more gray areas than they appear.

 

[GenetoJean]

What environmental effects are you referring to? How do those effects re-structure the brain in areas that occur during fetal development? Parts of the gay brain are structured in a similar way to straight members of the opposite-sex.

All I am saying is I think that SOME cases of abuse and/or neglect can cause a person to only seek relationships with people of the same sex. I also think if a person has went most of their life being rejected by members of the other sex then find a member of the same sex who shows them attention they may end up only going to members of the same sex for affection. I don't know if their brains are wired differently or not.

 

[XtianAgain]

People who are apart of the gay movement seems to think things will be all black and white when it has more gray areas than they appear.

No gray area. Either gay people have equal rights or they don't. What's the gray area?

 

[jazzflower92]

No gray area. Either gay people have equal rights or they don't. What's the gray area?

What gay marriage has as an effect is the gray area. How some activists are really pushy about enforcing acceptance about it. Or the fact that some gay awareness places tend to edit out instances of questionable behavior from their side. Also my suspicion when gay history is going to be enforced it will be whitewashed by people with an agenda.

 

[XtianAgain]

What gay marriage has as an effect is the gray area. How some activists are really pushy about enforcing acceptance about it. Or the fact that some gay awareness places tend to edit out instances of questionable behavior from their side. Also my suspicion when gay history is going to be enforced it will be whitewashed by people with an agenda.

No disrespect to you...But, it doesn't matter if you accept it. Some people don't accept interracial marriage. You can't make people believe anything. My issue is should it be legal? I think it should. They're tax paying citizens.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Supporting God's children is being on God's side.

No, supporting what He says (in His word) is supporting Him, not what man says....

 

[Sasquatchit]

Perhaps the many that claim they r not being persecuted for righteousness sake r actually the ones that r sitting on the fence. The many that don't feel the blunt end of the stick r actually not showing they r any different than the world, and if this is the case, then they r not going to feel persecuted.

If u r going to play it safe by not standing up for what is right, then I suppose u r not going to feel any degree of persecution.

Who does the fence belong to?

 

[Healed_IHS]

The cases of wedding photographers, etc, are difficult. The problem is that some businesses are legally considered "public accommodations." Going back to the civil rights era, they aren't allowed to discriminate. Do you want hotels to be able to turn down blacks, and say "they can always go to another hotel." Probably not. So we have two issues:

* should photographers and wedding venues be public accommodations. I don't know. But this was a decision made in good faith before gay marriage was an issue.
* should gay marriage be covered? Probably. No discrimination probably means no discrimination.

Great post. The way I would answer the question (as I am white) if I would mind if a hotel turned me down because I am white, my answer is "that would be fine". It is like being a smoker. If a restaurant caters to people who don't smoke by not allowing smoking, that is fine. The restaurant who caters to smokers will gain that much more trade while non-smokers will visit the first.

Prejudice doesn't need to be a govt/civil rights affair. We can simply let free trade take over.

To relate it back to a place refusing to serve homosexuals. That is fine, a company can just open up and refuse to serve heteros. Which company would gain all the profit from the homosexual community.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Great post. The way I would answer the question (as I am white) if I would mind if a hotel turned me down because I am white, my answer is "that would be fine". It is like being a smoker. If a restaurant caters to people who don't smoke by not allowing smoking, that is fine. The restaurant who caters to smokers will gain that much more trade while non-smokers will visit the first.

Prejudice doesn't need to be a govt/civil rights affair. We can simply let free trade take over.

To relate it back to a place refusing to serve homosexuals. That is fine, a company can just open up and refuse to serve heteros. Which company would gain all the profit from the homosexual community.

The difference between refusing customers because they are white and refusing customers because they wish to smoke in your restaurant are really big, though.

A white person's whiteness is not doing any harm to anyone.

A person who is smoking is puffing smoke into the air, which can make other people cough, have asthma attacks, and second hand smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer.

You're also comparing a dangerous active behavior with an immutable trait, a smoker visit a restaurant and not smoke but a white person can't enter a building and stop being white.

So... there is a big difference and plenty of justification for refusing to allow a person to smoke in an establishment. I don't know of any justification for refusing to serve a customer because of the color of their skin.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Yes, but this isn't about the customers right to be there, regardless of if they are doing something harmful or not. It IS, however, about the right to own property and what that propert ownership means. The proprietor is the one who has to justify their procedures to creditors in the form of paying the bills, as long as that gets done they exclude whoever they wish. Someone else will always be around to reap from it.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Yes, but this isn't about the customers right to be there, regardless of if they are doing something harmful or not. It IS, however, about the right to own property and what that propert ownership means. The proprietor is the one who has to justify their procedures to creditors in the form of paying the bills, as long as that gets done they exclude whoever they wish. Someone else will always be around to reap from it.

A business owner doesn't just have to own up to creditors. They have to own up to the government and its restrictions.

So... if you want to open a business and refuse service to people based on race, gender, religion, etc, be prepared for the negative consequences.