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

[PeaceByJesus]

That's not a valid equivalency, as evangelicals have a support community they can lean on in most cases (their church, and their friends and family) when they have a rough day. Not all LGBT folks have that luxury.

It's when bullying is accompanied by lack of a support system that the issue of self-harm really raises it's ugly head.

As I demonstrated with the map I posted earlier. Locales with more accepting attitudes and more tolerance have significantly lower rates of self harm than areas like the deep south where they're still treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways.

In fact, if you look at very progressive countries where tolerance is promoted on that subject, the suicide rate among that community doesn't really differ from that of the general population. And there's a definite trend in the promotion of equality and the lowering of the suicide rate. For instance, the passage of laws promoting equality, and specific efforts to promote tolerance and anti-bullying awareness campaigns were directly linked to a 14% reduction in suicide rates among LGBT teens, and a 7% reduction in the overall high school suicide rate as well.

Treat people well, and have support systems available for people when they're not treated well, and suicide rates will drop. FACT

Intolerance is a learned behavior...it can be unlearned as well.

Elevated rates of recourse to suicide are absent even where their is little community, or where they are treated as 2nd class citizens in many ways, as in my state, while in the West, even in the mysterious "deep South," homosexuals know they have strong advocacy beyond the immediate supposedly marginalizing community.

But certainly community support is a deterrent to suicide, which it would be for any class, but the proclivity to such testifies to a problem no matter where it occurs, and to such I do really have compassion. But the answer is never in telling a person how good they are, but of God's love despite that, of their worth as people and sinners for whom the very Son of God died for, and who knows what you do and why you do it, and offers forgiveness and the grace of overcome the practice of sin, not excuse it, which includes not excusing my own. Thanks be to God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So are Muslims -- and yet Muslim theocracies aren't all that pleasant.

Indeed, and thus the issue is not the absence of such, but what defines good. For the atheist lacking a sure substantive definitive moral standard, that can be anything from Hallmark movies to porn, while for Muslims and Christians at least there is a definitive standard that you can appeal to, even if subject to some interpretation, versus being like a country without a constitution.

Right -- everything will be perfect if we give you absolute authority... you'll forgive us if we decide not to put that to the test...

There is no "we give you absolute authority" since it is one community of common assent, but which can face challenges to its belief, without taking up the sword of men against them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's nice, but it doesn't answer my questions.

Then make yourself clear.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is no "we give you absolute authority" since it is one community of common assent, but which can face challenges to its belief, without taking up the sword of men against them.

No nation is just "one community," however... what might work on a small scale fall apart as more and more people are added

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No nation is just "one community," however... what might work on a small scale fall apart as more and more people are added

True. The premise though was of what would be the reality if all were of the same mind. Otherwise the issue is how much should groups of those who disagree with the majority have to
suffer, or how much tolerance should groups have to show toward those whom they disagree with.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only definition of mistreatment you can lay at my feet is opposing homosexuality as being good and its expressions sanctioned as moral, and being pressured to affirm the same, thus suffering because of my traditional beliefs due to the hateful intolerance of so-called tolerant liberals, many of whom would exclude all such from employment and child rearing, as they seek to convert children to their own ethos and sinful lifestyle.

Quite frankly, you don't have to think it's good, it's 100% fine if you think something is bad...there's a lot of life preferences that I don't think are good.

I'm not crazy about the high school football being played and giving kids concussions, I'm not a fan of the consumption of factory farmed beef, I don't like people letting themselves get horribly out of shape, and thus, creating a financial burden on the rest of us.

However, you'll never catch me suggesting that high school football coaches shouldn't be allowed to have the same basic human rights as others, I'll never suggest that people who eat burgers have a "mental condition" and should be subjected to conversion therapy, and I'd never advocate the denial of service to overweight people in various realms of business.

There's a difference between personally thinking something someone else does is bad, and going that extra step and pushing for the codification of measures that directly try to prevent people from doing those things.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is absurd. Evangelicals are quite active in music, movies, art, literature, etc., while a world in which the faith and love of the NT church was fully followed would be missing murder, rape, malevolence, racism, rape, porn, unwanted children, indolence, etc. but would be a society of love and productivity. Of course, the secular government would likely impose its ideology on it while demanding believers not to influence state policy.

Some are, some are not.

One can point to several instances of conservative, far-right evangelicals trying to get certain books banned or removed from schools, boycotting stores/movies, etc... Trying to get art museums to cover up depictions of the human form in renaissance art.

You speak as if theocratic rule would be administered by moderates. That's never the case. Theocracies, historically, have been administered by strict fundamentalists and extremists as they are the ones who are most compelled to pursue controlling everyone else's actions based on their own religious convictions, as where moderates are more likely to be content with the idea of "live and let live"

 

[TLK Valentine]

True. The premise though was of what would be the reality if all were of the same mind.

Hence my comment about "absolute authority." There's no other way to get any nation sized group of people "of the same mind."

Otherwise the issue is how much should groups of those who disagree with the majority have to
suffer, or how much tolerance should groups have to show toward those whom they disagree with.

Unfortunately, any organization that draws its power and influence from (supposedly) divine authority is not going to suffer dissent lightly. Why should they cater to the minority, when God Himself has made them the majority?

We've had a couple of dominionists around here in the past who pretty regularly shared their perspectives on what America (and occasionally, the rest of the world) should be... when pressed with questions about what to do with those who wouldn't play along, the answers inevitably were along the lines of incarceration, exile... and execution.

Whoa, mama, did those dominionists have a thing for executions... I hope that's not a trend among that sort, but honestly, I have no interest in meeting enough to find out.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Quite frankly, you don't have to think it's good, it's 100% fine if you think something is bad...there's a lot of life preferences that I don't think are good.

I'm not crazy about the high school football being played and giving kids concussions, I'm not a fan of the consumption of factory farmed beef, I don't like people letting themselves get horribly out of shape, and thus, creating a financial burden on the rest of us.

However, you'll never catch me suggesting that high school football coaches shouldn't be allowed to have the same basic human rights as others,

Except by introducing a alternative practice by 4% of the population that results in 80% of concussions via 4% after decades of attempting to tame it, and thus creating a financial burden on the rest, while censoring all who oppose it. Again, if the consensual practice of the Lord's supper has such results what would the reaction of liberals and atheists be?
I'll never suggest that people who eat burgers have a "mental condition" and should be subjected to conversion therapy,[/QUOTE]
Which is hardly analogous to reality. How about absolutely outlawing conversion therapy, which actually is a strong movement and is law in some places?

and I'd never advocate the denial of service to overweight people in various realms of business.

Which is not analogous to refusing to be complicit in the agreeing to create a special (and even costly) work for the express purpose of celebrating something immoral. The homosexuals in the case implicitly referred to where not denied any service, as they could have bought anything off the shelf, but were denied a contract to create a special work for an expressed purpose (which was for a union the state itself did not recognize as valid).

One does not know why an overweight person is so, nor if pastry is the problem, or perhaps if the person is buying it for himself, or if this may be a last fling before gastric bypass or going to a fat farm. But if it is certain that a diet or pastry is the cause of obesity, and esp. if diabetic, a moral case can be made for denying providing them more, as a bartender should for those getting too drunk. Likewise for supplying a gun when you know it will be used for murder. Whether the courts justify this is irrelevant as to the morality of it, if not the validity of their decision.

However, to be truly analogous to the case at issue, if the obese person was asking for the creation of a cake expressly for the celebration of obesity, then your would have an argument that the baker would be inconsistent if not denying him. However, Jack Phillips has stated he denied providing special works to others for immoral purposes, such as celebrating divorce.

There's a difference between personally thinking something someone else does is bad, and going that extra step and pushing for the codification of measures that directly try to prevent people from doing those things.

There's a difference between personally thinking what something someone does is good, and going that extra step and pushing for the codification of measures that directly try to prevent people from opposing it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Some are, some are not.

One can point to several instances of conservative, far-right evangelicals trying to get certain books banned or removed from schools, boycotting stores/movies, etc... Trying to get art museums to cover up depictions of the human form in renaissance art.

And one can point to several instances of secular and aesthetic states banning certain books from schools, stores/movies, etc. and penalizing politically incorrect expression.
You speak as if theocratic rule would be administered by moderates. That's never the case.

Theocracies, historically, have been administered by strict fundamentalists and extremists as they are the ones who are most compelled to pursue controlling everyone else's actions based on their own religious convictions, as where moderates are more likely to be content with the idea of "live and let live"

And Scripturally Christian theocracies are not New Testament, while historically atheistic and antitheist states are very oppressive, while the more removed from Judaeo-Christian influence they become so-called moderate secular states decline into disorder and or political oppression.

The founders of the US overall recognized and affirmed the viability of the general Christian faith, and which was the atmosphere in which the Constitution and Bill of rights was produced.

Not as a theocracy, nor antagonistic to faith, and which affirmed the general Christian faith and morality. For those who are ruled from within accordingly in basic morality must be ruled from without, but when the rulers themselves are not, then they become persecutors of those who do traditional good. As we increasingly see today. It is a far cry from the day French historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859) testified to in his visit to America.

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated..

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hence my comment about "absolute authority." There's no other way to get any nation sized group of people "of the same mind."
Unfortunately, any organization that draws its power and influence from (supposedly) divine authority is not going to suffer dissent lightly. Why should they cater to the minority, when God Himself has made them the majority?
We've had a couple of dominionists around here in the past who pretty regularly shared their perspectives on what America (and occasionally, the rest of the world) should be... when pressed with questions about what to do with those who wouldn't play along, the answers inevitably were along the lines of incarceration, exile... and execution.

Whoa, mama, did those dominionists have a thing for executions... I hope that's not a trend among that sort, but honestly, I have no interest in meeting enough to find out.

Unfortunately, any organization that draws its power and influence from premise that they are the ultimate sure judges on morality is not going to suffer dissent lightly, while their rules can be whatever the presently subscribe to.

Liberals daily example intolerance of dissent to ever-morphing political correctness, including bullying any who is known to even mildly support traditional marriage and will not affirm homosexual unions. Today you can lose your job by not calling a person according to how they self-ID at the time, or get in trouble for objecting to a biological male going into the ladies room where your daughter is.

But both dominionists theocracies and secular ruler punish dissent, both in that of breaking basic laws and also ideological ones. The difference is in the degrees, and how dissent is punished.

In the NT church, it did not seek to rule over those without, which Paul said by God's job (though in a democracy, then like others, they would vote for their values being reflected), and the response to impenitent disobedience was by appeal and disfellowship if continued, and discipline by supernatural means.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Unfortunately, any organization that draws its power and influence from premise that they are the ultimate sure judges on morality is not going to suffer dissent lightly, while their rules can be whatever the presently subscribe to.

I'm glad you see the problem.

Liberals daily example intolerance of dissent to ever-morphing political correctness, including bullying any who is known to even mildly support traditional marriage and will not affirm homosexual unions. Today you can lose your job by not calling a person according to how they self-ID at the time, or get in trouble for objecting to a biological male going into the ladies room where your daughter is.

The times, they are a-changin.

But both dominionists theocracies and secular ruler punish dissent, both in that of breaking basic laws and also ideological ones. The difference is in the degrees, and how dissent is punished.

Explain to me again what makes the dominionists any better?

In the NT church, it did not seek to rule over those without, which Paul said by God's job (though in a democracy, then like others, they would vote for their values being reflected),

And when they vote the NT church out, that's the end of that.

and the response to impenitent disobedience was by appeal and disfellowship if continued, and discipline by supernatural means.

disfellowship = exile, then, on a national scale?

As for supernatural discipline, what do you mean by that?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm glad you see the problem.

Glad you acknowledge that.

The times, they are a-changin.

Which one can say when they change contrary to what you want.

Explain to me again what makes the dominionists any better?

That was not an argument, but an explanation.

And when they vote the NT church out, that's the end of that.

The "they" was the church ruling itself.

disfellowship = exile, then, on a national scale?

The equivalent occurs in the secular state, but by actually physical force and or strong economic sanctions.

As for supernatural discipline, what do you mean by that?

As meaning spiritually delivering them over the judgment of God as in Acts 5, or even the letting the devil have at them in order to bring one back to obedient saving faith, as with the case of the man in a prolonged incestuous relationship with his mother, which even the pagans found deplorable. (1Co. 5) But which soon can become sanctioned here as the devil has his way.

 

[Kenny'sID]

...because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy many evangelicals engage in when it comes to which "sins" they want to fixate on. They want to make the sins that they, personally, object to more (and have an easier time abstaining from) be viewed as "the really bad ones", while the other ones only get a tepid objection (if any objection at all).

No hypocrisy at all, you're just jumping the gun there and and making even more things up. As I've said several times, maybe even on this thread, the problem between with this and other sins it that people don't come to a forum or whatever and try to tell us murder, theft, (choose whatever sin) is ok. While they do that consistently here/elsewhere. Stop trying to twist scripture/the truth into something that makes Homosexuality seem ok, and the problem dwindles considerably if not all but goes away.

You do that and of course Christians are going to do all they can to show you up as wrong and not truthful. See? if enough people are lied to by whomever, some of them might actually start to believe it's ok with God after all, in spite of what the bible says, and we don't want that, any more than we want them to think theft/lying or whatever is ok...simple concept really.

Thieves, liars, adulterers don't generally go public and try to deceptively make what they should be ashamed of alright to do. Number one, because they know people know better and they can't win, number two, they are often ashamed to admit they are doing those things, or they keep their theft in the closet, in the darkness where it belongs.

Just like this very point where you try to blame hypocrisy without giving it a second thought, or IOW, twisting the truth to make your point and try to convince others it's not you, it's us..

Which claim:
Indoctrinated to oppose? Nope, not at all, I assure you, my dislike for something that is absolutely gross to me, all came naturally. You're just making things up again because you'd like to think that's all there is too it.

...and then there was this from earlier on (which started it all off)
We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality
By your words, you're claiming that the defense of homosexuality would be on par with someone defending murder. I pointed out that's nonsense since one directly violates the rights of others (murder), while one's sexuality does not.

...that is, unless you're doing the old "imply then deny" routine?

You accused me of drawing a conclusion, as in the following:

...ah, so you're suggesting that with no outside influences at all, if you had not been part of a particular religious system, you'd have just naturally come to the conclusion that two guys kissing is just as bad as someone shooting someone else with a gun?

Again you are making that up, and no, you didn't come close to proving I said that as I asked you to do. More untrue twists, the only way you can defend this....always the way

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thieves, liars, adulterers don't generally go public and try to deceptively make what they should be ashamed of alright to do.

No, it's much easier to use the cloak of religion to wash away their theft and adultery as though they had never happened.

A weeping Jim Bakker sought and received forgiveness from a group of charismatic Christians during an unexpected appearance at the Southeastern Congress on the Holy Spirit.

Bakker, who lost the PTL ministry in a sex and money scandal last year.

"Has Jim Bakker sinned against you?" Coke continued.

"Yes," replied the audience.

"Do you forgive him?" asked the minister.

Applause nearly drowned out the cries of "Yes."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I, accurately pointed out, that the most commend defense of gay rights entails the idea that it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, and that the same could not be said of murder and theft.

To clarify, you must mean that "gay rights" doesn't legitimately negatively impact anyone else, since to be legitimate they cannot violate the equal rights of homosexuals.

For as pointed out before, everything we do or do not do effects others to varying degrees, and if it is is excluded that homosexuals rights have any negative impact, then the claim would be that gay rights only positively effects others, both which claims are untenable. Therefore your position must be that any negatively impact gay rights has on others is justified (including extensive financial costs as well as to free speech), as would be granting equal rights to those who practice bestiality and marriage to the same (presumably if consent can be determined), and for those with species dysphoria or otherkin to dress and be employed accordingly, and the extreme lowering of consent laws (if a children's view of what gender they are is protected so that treatments can begin at young age, so also sexual consent), or the practice of consensual cannibalism (with some code enforcement), as well as group suicide, and the list goes on.

And this is no "slippery slope" fallacy for we have seen the incremental expansion of what equal rights can entail as not having any legitimate negative effects, unbounded by any historical definitive moral code. And what was politically incorrect yesterday often tends to become legally enforced in time.

All of which presumes that what the founders meant and would sanction (including what constitutes marriage) flowed from a anchored elastic moral worldview that would sanction such (if unexpressed, unlike opposition or slavery by some), or that original intent is to be discarded as interpretive of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights entailed.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Indeed -- too many Christians don't realize that in the OT (where Satan originated), he was never God's "adversary," but a loyal employee. The name "Satan" means "accuser,"and his duty was to report human delinquencies to God. You can see where that led to his bad reputation -- nobody likes a snitch.

Job is a perfect example, because the wager between Satan and God is presented in the context of a friendly bet because that's exactly what it is -- a bet between friends.

Yes, and played a deadly game with an innocent man's life. Killed his children, killed his animals, killed his servants, made him sick and his body was covered with sores. Did I leave anything out?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's much easier to use the cloak of religion to wash away their theft and adultery as though they had never happened.

A weeping Jim Bakker sought and received forgiveness from a group of charismatic Christians during an unexpected appearance at the Southeastern Congress on the Holy Spirit.

Bakker, who lost the PTL ministry in a sex and money scandal last year.

"Has Jim Bakker sinned against you?" Coke continued.

"Yes," replied the audience.

"Do you forgive him?" asked the minister.

Applause nearly drowned out the cries of "Yes."

what are you trying to twist into reality now??

Did those people come in here truing to tell us those things were ok? Of courses they didn't. You are talking about something that has nothing to do with what I said, yet you seem to think it refutes what i said.

Out there, dude. Desperation, it's a terrible thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To clarify, you must mean that "gay rights" doesn't legitimately negatively impact anyone else, since to be legitimate they cannot violate the equal rights of homosexuals.

For as pointed out before, everything we do or do not do effects others to varying degrees, and if it is is excluded that homosexuals rights have any negative impact, then the claim would be that gay rights only positively effects others, both which claims are untenable. Therefore your position must be that any negatively impact gay rights has on others is justified

I think you're delving in and over-complicating the basic idea I'm trying to convey with regard to impact on others.

Sure everything has a slight impact in the regard of just cause & effect if you get granular enough. For instance, if I go into the store and buy a hot dog, and as the result of eating that hot dog, I got heartburn and said heartburn was the catalyst behind buying the last packages of Tums on the shelf, meaning...my purchase of the hot dog negatively impacted that other guy who was going to buy the Tums.

Obviously if we want to do "Nth degree of Kevin Bacon" logic, sure...

I'm simply talking about practical rights when I refer to negative impact.

When someone kills you, it directly negatively impacts you because you lost your life.
When someone steals from you, it directly negatively impacts you because you no longer have your stuff.

At best two guys holding hands might "weird you out", or the thought of two men together might make you think it's gross...but that's hardly on the same level as the other two things I mentioned above... If you want to consider "other people doing things that I find gross has a negative impact on me"...to the point where you want codification of the prohibition of those things, then you're opening up a serious can of worms.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes, and played a deadly game with an innocent man's life. Killed his children, killed his animals, killed his servants, made him sick and his body was covered with sores. Did I leave anything out?

It was no game, for faith must be tested, and no one of assured of tomorrow and should be ready to die, and to die as a believer is a blessing, while you simply cannot sit in judgment upon god unless you are the giver of life, and omniscient, and know not only all the thoughts and deeds of everyone who gave life to, but also what effect their death or life will have, both for time and eternity. And also be omnipotent, so that without any injustice, you can and will make all things work out to the eternal good of those who love the Good, and thus God.

All Job's children and servants are in Heaven with him now if they died in obedient faith, and in the light of eternity could reprove your censure of God as the arrogant product of a finite mind. And if they were not of obedient faith, then their punishment will be according to the light they had insofar as they rejected it for sin.