Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[TLK Valentine]

Nobody changed their policy about race-mixing. But they lost their tax break.

And that became the rallying cry of "persecution!" among the Religious Right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course children can consent.
It's still illegal though.

Psychologically, some of them can consent. Legally, they lack the maturity to do so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of what?
People finding their lifestyle wrong?

No, of people trying to use the law to further their own religious agenda.

For instance...people trying to use the force of law to deny them marriage licenses, to deny them spousal rights in legal and medical matters, matters of adoption, and to attempt to get legal exemptions to business license regulations with the aim to deny service to them.

Can you imagine if right-wing Christians got the same treatment as gays? They'd be crying up a storm. As it is, they're mad and claim it's a war on them because many entities in society have opted to start using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"...can you imagine if how fired up they'd be if business started saying "I'm not putting any religious references on that cake" or "only people who believe in evolution are allowed to adopt" or if there was a push to only allow atheists to get marriage licenses?


Basically, what it looks like (to me at least), is that some Christians have become so used to preferential exclusivity, that they've gotten this warped view that inclusion and equality is somehow an attack on them because they're not viewed as "the special one" anymore. Almost like when the only child gets a new baby brother and is mad because they don't get all of the focus from mom & dad anymore.

They themselves choose to be different and show it off.
Not all of them of course.

By "show it off", you mean acting the same way with their partners in public that we straight people do? (Holding hands, kissing, etc?)

I know many fundamentalists have this false notion that "religious freedom means, if I don't approve of something, nobody else should be allowed to do it in public because I don't want to have to see or hear it"...but that's not what it means. If people weren't allowed to express themselves in public in ways that other people didn't like out of fear of them being offended, then nobody would be allowed to do anything.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, of people trying to use the law to further their own religious agenda.

Or any beliefsystem, or agenda....
Let's have a look at which agendas are being pushed then.
Mainly anti Christian white male agendas.

 

[Hieronymus]

By "show it off",

i mean showing off.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So which God / god do you think was with them?
Or did you just want to take another cheap shot?

You can check the censuses for Germany. More than 90% of the German population was Christian before, during, and after WWII.

 

[Hieronymus]

You can check the censuses for Germany. More than 90% of the German population was Christian before, during, and after WWII.

I asked you what god would have been behind Hitler.
And that's assuming that everything we get taught about WWII is true.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I asked you what god would have been behind Hitler.

Don't we often hear around here that it is God who ultimately chooses our rulers?

 

[Hieronymus]

Don't we often hear around here that it is God who ultimately chooses our rulers?

True, but that doesn't mean the rulers stand behind God.
So maybe i should have asked "What god was Hitler standing behind?"
But it was clear what i meant, i'm sure.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

True, but that doesn't mean the rulers stand behind God.

But that's not what the buckle says. It reads "God is with us." It says nothing about the rulers. Whether Hitler personally believed in God or not or followed his teachings is besides the point.

It's a bit like "In God We Trust." Obviously, not everyone covered by the slogan believes or trusts in God.

 

[Hieronymus]

But that's not what the buckle says. It reads "God is with us." It says nothing about the rulers.

But the context does.
The swastika for example.

Whether Hitler personally believed in God or not or followed his teachings is besides the point.

Only besides YOUR point, which is not an answer to MY question you replied to.

It's a bit like "In God We Trust." Obviously, not everyone covered by the slogan believes or trusts in God.

Who doesn't is not covered by the slogan in that case.
And an organisation (or person) can say or print such things even while it's not true too, of course.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, they don't seem to have forced their convictions on you, or me or anyone else that I know.

Then you seem to be ill-informed on the required submission to convictions, and penalties for not doing so. As of now, required sanction of homosexual "marriage" has been imposed upon all 50 states, while those who in conscience toward God politely refuse to become complicit in the celebration of it, even if yet illegal in the state, have been severely penalized, and others have loss employment for merely contributing toward traditional values, others fined for otherwise not submitting to prohomosexual demands (including addressing persons according to their biological identity versus how they feel).

The increasingly manifest fact is that esp. in the corporate world, not affirming homosexual relations and them in general (thus not being a "team player") can easily place your job in jeopardy.

Here is one very incomplete but extensive list.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

Which is simply an absurd denial. See above.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You can have whatever social vision you like. You just can't force it on your students.

Which is simply absurd. Every school necessarily has extensive rules on social/moral behavior in line with their vision, which students are required to abide by, and by disallowing them then you open the door for chaos. And requiring conformity to them is as valid as CF is in requiring conformity to its rules.

The issue is here is that of the morality of the State being contrary to Biblical morality, and thus the right of dissent by the school, but if you disagree in principal that authority can make on rules on social/moral behavior, then you must disallow the State from doing so, or argue that an entity under its authority is necessarily wrong if it conflicts with the State.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let's have a look at which agendas are being pushed then.
Mainly anti Christian white male agendas.

Examples?

And by examples, I'm talking about examples of the force of law being used to prevent you from participating in something that's not violating someone else.

So, that would include things like:
- A business denying a service that they would normally provide to someone in a different demographic
- The request for the government to deny licensing, that they wouldn't deny to other groups
- The request for government to restrict access to certain things, without a compelling secular purpose

Was there a new rule saying that Christians aren't allowed to get marriage licenses, but other religions are?

Was there some sort of push for business owners to be allowed to say "Sorry, No Whites allowed!"?

Was there anything along the lines of pushing for legislation attempting to dictate that non-secularists can't adopt, have legal rights or gain medical power of attorney for their significant others?


This is where the real disconnect in these conversations lies. Many conservative evangelicals have two totally different sets of criteria for defining "persecution" and "discrimination" and the pejorative usage of "agenda" with regards to themselves and to other groups.

When a store changes "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" on a sign, coffee cup, etc... or a group/entity attempts to raise awareness about disproportionate prosecution directed at certain minorities, or attempts to correct income inequity between genders...it's labelled as "War On Christmas/Anti-White/Manbashing"

Yet, when right-wing, conservative, evangelical men are granted anything less than full authority to define what everyone else in society can and can't do, and mold the legal system to suit their religious philosophies and establish them as "Top Dog", they thing "we're the victims here, it's an attack on us".


Do you really not see the double standard here?

The majority of evangelical conservatives: "We don't want you to be able to get married, adopt, have legal rights in matters of medical situations...and we'd like to be able to deny service to them because we don't like it -- oh, and we'd like federal and state law to reflect those views so that other people have to live by our moral code because we know what's best for everyone else"
-- They see no issues with that and don't view it as forcing their views on anyone else

Yet, a few institutions promote equality and the idea that "hey, LGBT people are nothing to be afraid of, they're just different, but they're people and deserve to be treated with respect and have equal rights"
-- They label that as "They're promoting an agenda to force their ways on everyone else...they're trying to get rid of Christianity!!!!"


Do some LGBT groups and advocates take a bit of an "in your face" approach? Sure...you can find that with certain advocates for literally anything. I think we can all agree that there are difference between the ASPCA, and groups like ALF (that firebomb medical research labs). That doesn't mean that anyone who promotes animal welfare "is trying to destroy all meat eaters".


In term of where people fall on the "ForceMyViewsOnOthers-O-Meter", a person who wants to teach kids that "Gay people are just people, and deserve to be treated with respect" may be like a 2 or 3. A person who wants to pass federal laws restricting marriage & adoption rights, and requesting the ability to have legally protected discriminatory business practices would be a full-blown 10.

No matter which way of thinking is being "forced", dislike & hatred are always more extreme than respect and tolerance in my book....

 

[Hieronymus]

Examples?

How about opening your eyes to what is and has been popularized and praised and what has been demonized and ridiculed throughout the years.

 

[JackRT]

Examples?

And by examples, I'm talking about examples of the force of law being used to prevent you from participating in something that's not violating someone else.

So, that would include things like:
- A business denying a service that they would normally provide to someone in a different demographic
- The request for the government to deny licensing, that they wouldn't deny to other groups
- The request for government to restrict access to certain things, without a compelling secular purpose

Was there a new rule saying that Christians aren't allowed to get marriage licenses, but other religions are?

Was there some sort of push for business owners to be allowed to say "Sorry, No Whites allowed!"?

Was there anything along the lines of pushing for legislation attempting to dictate that non-secularists can't adopt, have legal rights or gain medical power of attorney for their significant others?


This is where the real disconnect in these conversations lies. Many conservative evangelicals have two totally different sets of criteria for defining "persecution" and "discrimination" and the pejorative usage of "agenda" with regards to themselves and to other groups.

When a store changes "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" on a sign, coffee cup, etc... or a group/entity attempts to raise awareness about disproportionate prosecution directed at certain minorities, or attempts to correct income inequity between genders...it's labelled as "War On Christmas/Anti-White/Manbashing"

Yet, when right-wing, conservative, evangelical men are granted anything less than full authority to define what everyone else in society can and can't do, and mold the legal system to suit their religious philosophies and establish them as "Top Dog", they thing "we're the victims here, it's an attack on us".


Do you really not see the double standard here?

The majority of evangelical conservatives: "We don't want you to be able to get married, adopt, have legal rights in matters of medical situations...and we'd like to be able to deny service to them because we don't like it -- oh, and we'd like federal and state law to reflect those views so that other people have to live by our moral code because we know what's best for everyone else"
-- They see no issues with that and don't view it as forcing their views on anyone else

Yet, a few institutions promote equality and the idea that "hey, LGBT people are nothing to be afraid of, they're just different, but they're people and deserve to be treated with respect and have equal rights"
-- They label that as "They're promoting an agenda to force their ways on everyone else...they're trying to get rid of Christianity!!!!"


Do some LGBT groups and advocates take a bit of an "in your face" approach? Sure...you can find that with certain advocates for literally anything. I think we can all agree that there are difference between the ASPCA, and groups like ALF (that firebomb medical research labs). That doesn't mean that anyone who promotes animal welfare "is trying to destroy all meat eaters".


In term of where people fall on the "ForceMyViewsOnOthers-O-Meter", a person who wants to teach kids that "Gay people are just people, and deserve to be treated with respect" may be like a 2 or 3. A person who wants to pass federal laws restricting marriage & adoption rights, and requesting the ability to have legally protected discriminatory business practices would be a full-blown 10.

No matter which way of thinking is being "forced", dislike & hatred are always more extreme than respect and tolerance in my book....

Outstanding analysis! Thank you.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

One thing that is still deeply embedded on our modern culture is raging homophobia. Maybe you just haven't noticed it, or it's different in your environment.

And just how is conscientiously being opposed to homosexual relations and lifestyle and the pressure to affirm such necessarily driven by a fear of homosexuals?

Erik Holland, author of The Nature of Homosexuality, perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."[71]

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated: "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

Rather than being an intellectually honest appraisal, the use of homophobia as ascribed to any and all who dare not affirm but oppose it is manifestly a primary part of the deceptive psychological tactics used by the homosexual movement designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way and coerce assent.

Which, knowingly or not, corresponded to the manipulative tactics advocated in "After the Ball," in which,

two homosexual Harvard-trained graduates, [54] Marshall Kirk (1957–2005), a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill), who was schooled in social marketing, advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they used jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."[55][56]

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[57] " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."[58]

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"[60] “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”[61][62]

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."[63]

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”[64]

David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,


Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.[65]


Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.[66] The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Meanwhile,

The charge of homophobia has been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in pushing the Homosexual Agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.[69]

More recently, after 25 years of claiming she was not indoctrinating anyone with pro homosexual beliefs, one activist honestly admitted to this being a lie. Canadian gay activist S. Bear Bergman, a female who identifies as a transgender male, stated, "All that time I said I wasn't indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie.” Bergman recounted that she was instructed as a young gay activist to tell concerned parents that she was “just providing an alternate viewpoint” when accused of engaging in “indoctrination and recruiting,” and to use “soft” language when speaking about homosexuality. In her article on the notoriously liberal web site, the Huffington Post, he went on to candidly confess that this indoctrination, "is absolutely my goal. I want to make your children like people like me and my family, even if that goes against the way you have interpreted the teachings of your religion." Bergman fantasized that in an ideal world he would have been "ushered into the world of queerness with care and tenderness by experienced homos" (akin to "camp counselors"), "and issued my leather jacket and my protest pins, my safer sex supplies..."

Bergman expressed that his goal was that of portraying to "impressionable young minds" the idea that "queers and transfolk are just as fine and lovely a kind of human as any other kind," and stated that he did not like the idea of sending her kid to schools where any kid could share with him their ideas about homosexuals. Thus Bergman, who believes that "books a kid hears at bedtime affect their sleep and also their dreams," is finalizing a series of children's books that all feature lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer kids or families, with the goal that the young readers come to believe that people like him and his family are "absolutely great," that "lesbian, gay, bi, queer, and trans people -- that we exist, that we're perfectly fine and often really excellent." Bergman then concludes, "If that makes me an indoctrinator, I accept it. Let me be honest -- I am not even a little bit sorry."[72] - https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda#Strategies_and_psychological_tactics

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Don't forget the lying tongue abomination and the fact that the bible states God hates liars.

You know, if we're going to throw around Old Testament scriptures, then I have one to throw out there too. If we're going to go by what the Old Testament teaches (which I thought the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant), then perhaps we should start stoning women and men who commit adultery. If that's the case, then that's too bad for Donald and Melania AND all the Christians who are guilty of committing that sin themselves. Just think about all those Christians who divorced and remarried and adultery wasn't the reason for their divorce. Shame on them. Tsk... Tsk...

Start casting those stones at those Christians because Jesus said: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9)

That all the capital and restitutional penalties prescribed under a theocracy (which thus had no real manifest prison system) are not fit or adopted by civil powers in no way negates the moral status of what is proscribed.

Nor does the described abrogation of dietary and mere ceremonial laws under the promised New Covenant equate to abrogation o basic universal moral laws. Both should issues should be theology 101.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Thank you for your kind response, Jack. No, I don't personally think things would improve that much if the Doctrine of Discovery was renounced by the RCC and the governments involved. The United States government is one of those governments and much of the Christian church earlier in American history was responsible too. Many of the American Indian Boarding Schools were owned and operated by Christians. The sole purpose of these boarding schools was to "Save the Man, Kill the Indian" and completely strip Native American children of their culture and heritage. The fact is, both the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny are fundamentally part of the racism against Native Americans and other minorities that has plagued America since before its inception. The oppression and subjugation of Native Americans and African-Americans was often hidden behind the banner of Christianity.

Your post reminded me of this event that occurred at Standing Rock two years ago: Clergy repudiate ‘doctrine of discovery’ as hundreds support indigenous rights at Standing Rock. The gesture seemed symbolic and it did nothing to change the ongoing violence and police brutality that was afflicted upon the Native American water protectors and their allies. The violence and police brutality was so horrific that it gained the attention of both Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Counsel. Here are a couple of other articles about the Doctrine of Discovery copies being burnt at Standing Rock.

Standing Rock Protestors Burn Document That Justified Indigenous Oppression

At Standing Rock. Over 500 Clergy Answer the Call to Reconcile and Stand Witness

If I may jump in here, certainly some terrible and extensive atrocities and betrayals were experienced by the American Indians by Europeans (if not a monolithic group), but did not American Indians themselves war against each other, and obtain territory by conquests for even for hundreds of years?
Encyclopedia of the Great Plains | INTERTRIBAL WARFARE
https://www.quora.com/Did-native-American-tribes-fight-against-each-other-or-have-wars

All of which shows that man is a sinner by nature and in practice, in need of redemption by obedient faith in the risen Lord Jesus, and in which there is no ethnicity, nor use of the sword of men to compel theological conformity, or the unjust use of it by the State.