Poll Results: Americans Admit More Discomfort With LGBT

[pat34lee]

Condoned in the Bible or condemned by it?

As with many other things in the Bible, it depends greatly on who it's being done to, doesn't it?

I know. You would rather have the bible be a
work of fiction, ignoring the state of the world
at the time it was written. War, child sacrifice,
slavery, famine, plague; these were just facts
of life that had to be dealt with as well as they
could deal with them.

 

[pat34lee]

We live under a new covenant and the laws of the Old Testament are abolished and replaced with a new law.

Only outlaws despise the law, which, by the way,
is still in effect until "heaven and earth pass away
and all is fulfilled."

If you can't look at your friends and neighbors and
see that the law is written on their hearts so they
live it completely, the new covenant is not in effect.

 

[super animator]

Then it's probably a good thing I didn't do it.

You had done that in this very thread.

Did you forgot what you wrote already!?

 

[Liza B.]

courts have rejected this line time after time. Gays are the only people having a same sex wedding so it is a fiction to pretend that its not about the persons

Again, if this is longstanding court-rejected law "time after time", the SC would have tossed it out in seconds. They would have NEVER taken it on. But they did. So it seems there's an actual case here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What percentage of the population is homosexual?
About 1.5%. That means it is not normal sexual behavior.

That's not a good answer...nor does it address the aspect of the definition "accepted standards"
Keyword being accepted. Being that only 32% of the population opposes it, clearly you don't speak for the majority for what is and isn't considered acceptable.

If you look at the data for a wide variety of sexual preferences, you can find a lot of scenarios that come in under the 3-5%.

For example:
Asian Women who have a preference for Latino men is next to nil...would you use the word "deviant" to describe those women?

Men who prefer big women are the very small minority compared to men who prefer thin/average/curvy...would you refer to them as "deviant"?

Women with shaved heads are definitely a niche attraction with only a very small percentage of men having a preference for that. Are those men "deviant"?


Granted, in the pure definition of the word, yes, I suppose you could say that. However, anyone who's spent any amount of time speaking English knows that the term is used, more often than not, as a pejorative. That's why you chose that specific word rather than something like "atypical" or "alternative".

A quick look at a thesaurus will show you that the word deviant has a very specific negative connotation.

That's why if it's simply a matter of something not being "the norm", people choose other words to describe it. For example, I like music that probably <5% of the population likes, some people are that way with food, other's with hobbies, etc... When someone uses the word deviant, they're trying to convey a very specific message...and it's not a good one.

 

[SilverBear]

Are you saying you still haven't learned anything? Let me explain again:
Being gay and being black are 2 different things. One is a sexual preference, and the other is a racial identity. Not the same.

of course they aren't the same. No one is saying that they are identical.

They do however share much in common:Both are minorities. Both have had to struggle for years to gain the rights and legal protection granted to everyone in the constitution. both have been and are targets for hate and discrimination. Those who do engage in hate and discrimination against them use the bible to justify their actions. Both have been called sub-human, perversions, sexual deviants, diseased and that list goes on and on and on. Gays and blacks aren't the same but the discrimination they both face is exactly the same

 

[SilverBear]

Are you claiming to still not understand the difference between race and sexual preference? That is so very

and you still try to pretend it is a preference.

 

[SilverBear]

Only outlaws despise the law, which, by the way,
is still in effect until "heaven and earth pass away
and all is fulfilled."

so why don't you follow it?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

It is the character of the event that the special work signifies that is the factor in determining both its glamour and cost and if it will be created, versus the basic material character as in two different kinds of cakes. Why contract to create approx. $500.00 cakes which in basic material are the same as other cakes, unless their signification warrants their opulence and cost?

IOW, there's no difference whatsoever between a cake for a straight wedding and a cake for a gay wedding? They're made in exactly the same manner, and are, for all intents and purposes, identical?

No, and that fact that you not only see a cake that is distinctive in its glamour/appearance and cost corespondent to its purpose, being a special creation for a special event and signification, as "for all intents and purposes, identical" to any other cake, further examples superficial and unreason-able atheistic thinking. At least as predominates here.

Just how some basic (made with solids and liquids: flour, sugar, fat and leavening, flavoring, etc.) $5.00 cake used for any purpose which can thus be just bought off the shelf can be for all intents and purposes identical as one costing over $500.00?

You might as well contend that all dresses are all intents and purposes, identical, since they all can basically consist of the same material (thread, though as with wedding cakes, the grade of materials and specific types can be higher).

Why if everyone thought like you the meaning of wedding cakes would be nuked, and most bakeries would suffer much financial loss. And note that the demand for equality would be consistent with a demand for the same glamor for homosexual wedding as straights typically example.
The Earliest Wedding Cakes

The wedding cake is the showpiece of any modern wedding. Elaborately decorated and often costing thousands of dollars, the bride's cake is one of the key features of the wedding reception. For as long as people have celebrated special occasions, milestones like weddings were the time at which the best and most costly foods were served. This is a look back at the origins of the wedding cake, cake traditions, and the decidedly modern direction that wedding cakes have taken in recent years...

In the early 20th century in the United States and England, the tiered wedding cake was the standard. Very tall cakes, however, were largely purchased only by families with wealth. One of the biggest challenges in building a large cake was to support the weight of each tier so that it did not collapse into the layer below...

Without a doubt, the wedding cake has always been one of the central parts of the reception....Some modern wedding cakes are now so elaborate that they are more sculpture than pastry. More: A Brief History of Wedding Cakes - Traditional to Contemporary

A wedding cake is the ultimate centerpiece of your reception, and it should be beautiful. But just as important is taste. ..

When designing a cake we bring together elements that make your wedding cake one of a kind. Your wedding cake should be a combination of personal style and the most luscious ingredients imaginable that leaves your guests wanting more!..

There are many decisions that go into making your wedding cake as special as your wedding day. Flavors, shape, design, servings, presentation are just a few of the variables that go into making your cake unique.

- Tasteful Elegance - Wedding Cakes for Greenville and Upstate South Carolina
No for all intents and purposes identical with any old cake.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Prior to 1947, only a minority of a minority (far less than 10% of all African Americans) wanted to play Major League Baseball... And yet, when Jackie Robinson did so, so many people just plain lost their minds over it... why is that?

Bigotry against skin color and interracial community. But while discrimination took place against a minority of a minority, it was against the interracial issue, not against blacks being able to play baseball (which would yet make them guilty of "cultural appropriation" as per liberal faultfinding) just like whitey does. What baseball consisted of as regards what race may play it was not the actual issue, but what race may be part of the same organization, which effectually meant racial discrimination as regards pay and status.

There is thus some discriminatory similarity, yet the issue is not a sport, but a fundamental redefinition of a most basic institution based upon upon unique complementary fundamental differences that are not that of race or ethnicity, but btwn of male and females, without which there would be no races.

To be somewhat analogous in baseball, the objection would be against blacks fundamentally redefining the game of baseball, such as by making home base to be the outfield, which you get to by running backwards, and then demanding it be called base ball.
contrary to the law of the God the baker believed in as well as the highest state law at the time.

And how much influence does Allah have in the US justice system? Or is it only the laws of your God that supersede everything else?

You must know better than to think that Islamic law superseded that of Scripture in the hearts of the writers of the US constitution, and that of Colorado at that time, and for the baker. But maybe in your mind this is not the case

.
Similarly, had our Christian baker been contacted by a Muslim couple looking for a cake to celebrate... well, just about any Islamic holiday, and the baker refusing for the exact same reason.

Close. But not denying them any product, but only one with an express purpose, which the wedding cake clearly had. Likewise I would expect a devout Muslim baker to act likewise, as he should be able to, as should an atheist of known convictions be able to refuse to contract to build a building for a creationist museum, as long as comparable options were close at hand,

 

[PeaceByJesus]

get married

Which is a redefinition of marriage, not recognized by the faith of the baker nor even by the highest law of the state at the time. That is the problem.

the courts have never bought this line and with good reason

No, it is not good reason, and what the courts decide simply does not mean it is. The state punishing a baker who acted in accordance with his faith and what the state constitution stated clearly also does not example so-called "good reason."

racists will be happy to tell you their issues is with blacks defying the will of God and acting like the social equals of whites. It isn't because they are black...its because of what they are doing.

Which would apply to a class based on their skin color - that of whites - making something right. But the argument that race equals morality fails.

why would I agree with something false? Churches are under no obligation to marry anyone.

Why? Why not? I did not know you have a supreme moral standard external to yourself.

same thing is said about interracial marriage.

True. One can hold that all races are basically equal, or should be treated as so, but that they should not be mixed, though I see this as problematic at best (what percentage?) The issue then it whether this is the same as saying there is no difference btwn men and women that would warrant redefining marriage and exclude dissent from recognition as regards creating a special work for celebrating it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

being a minority isn't a question of numbers. there aren't that many tap dancers around but they are not a minority. In South Africa blacks out numbered whites but they were still a minority.
things like collective identity, community and being subordinate to a more dominate group defines minorities.

Well if you want to go by a very broad definition, then i am minority in my city and neighborhood in more ways than i am not a minority! Want me to list them?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Below

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't see anything about asking the customer asking this baker to celebrate anything. All they asked for was a cake.

As usual, your blindness is the problem, your inability (or unwillingness) to see that for a man of manifest convictions and conscience to consent to create a special work for a special event, which thus warrants exceptional cost, is conveying sanction of that event, in this case the definition of a marriage which is contrary to both the Bible that baker seeks to live by as well as well as the state constitution.

When I see things like this I immediately think it is an attempt to distract from being unable to answer a simple question.

As usual, what you see is contrary to reality. Rather than my statement on your thinking being due being unable to answer a simple question, instead i have answered question after question reasonably and with substantiation, only to be faced with intransigent denial of what ought to be obvious and reasonable. In such a context ad hominem can be warranted.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I thought it was agreed that the baker didn't sell gay wedding cakes..

Then why did you say "He should have just sold them a straight wedding cake - you know, one of those "any other items" we're hearing they could buy..."? Do you forgot your own arguments like you do their refutations?

Where does the CO state constitution make same sex wedding cakes illegal? Given that wedding cakes are supposedly works of speech, wouldn't that violate the 1st amendment?

Try real hard to comprehend this if your atheism will allow it: The issue is the basis for refusal to create a cake due to its purpose, based on not recognizing what making the cake would sanction.

If a man known conscience and convictions consents to create a special cake celebrating marriage, then he is implicitly sanctioning it.

And if CO banned same-sex marriage, and its state constitution prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage and defined marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman, then the baker would thus be recognizing and sanctioning what the state forbade recognizing, and its definition.

The only marriages recognized under the state constitution would be between a man and a woman whether licensed and celebrated as provided by law or established by common law by a couple who live together and hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife.

While persons would not be prosecuted for recognizing same-sex marriage in celebrating it, yet it turns out one can be prosecuted for denying a service that would recognize what the state did not. Which is because lower courts effectively disagreed with the highest state law.

It is the character of the event that the special work signifies that is the factor in determining both its glamour and cost and if it will be created, versus the basic material character as in two different kinds of cakes.

So the baker would sell a wedding cake to a gay couple if it were less expensive? Funny he didn't mention that.

Once again your conclusion lacks comprehension. If there was a cheaper cake then it would not be for a wedding, as such would not be consistent with the significance of the event. Thus it means there was no wedding cake for a gay couple at any price. Comprehend?

Yep, the identity of the customer was central in his decision to discriminate. It wasn't the product, it was the fact it was going to be used by a gay customer. He would have sold an identical cake to a straight customer in the exact same circumstances.

Wong again, as usual. It was that the product was going to be used by a gay customer for a perversion of what the cake was to signify. He would NOT have sold an identical cake to a straight customer in the exact same circumstances, that of wanting to contract for a cake for a homosexual wedding.

The rest of your responses are more examples of perverse and refuted reasoning, and are an argument against being a atheist, and warrant being ignored. Maybe if you have an actual rational and objectively thinking atheist who will affirm your arguments then he can take over for you.

Bye. May God have mercy on you.

 

[SilverBear]

Again, if this is longstanding court-rejected law "time after time", the SC would have tossed it out in seconds. They would have NEVER taken it on. But they did. So it seems there's an actual case here.

The Supreme court hears cases based on a number of reasons.


that said the Supreme court has rejected you position that it is discrimination about conduct and not status.
The Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez and Lawrence v. Texas, for example

 

[pat34lee]

You had done that in this very thread.

Did you forgot what you wrote already!?

You asked, "Could you appeal to tradition harder?"

And I answered, "Of course, but why?"

 

[pat34lee]

Granted, in the pure definition of the word, yes, I suppose you could say that. However, anyone who's spent any amount of time speaking English knows that the term is used, more often than not, as a pejorative. That's why you chose that specific word rather than something like "atypical" or "alternative".

A quick look at a thesaurus will show you that the word deviant has a very specific negative connotation.

That's why if it's simply a matter of something not being "the norm", people choose other words to describe it. For example, I like music that probably <5% of the population likes, some people are that way with food, other's with hobbies, etc... When someone uses the word deviant, they're trying to convey a very specific message...and it's not a good one.

Remember that we're talking about behavior that used
to be a criminal act in the USA, and it's still illegal in some
countries. It is harmful to the individuals involved and
detrimental to the country. It is one of the signs that a
country's morals have decayed and it will soon fall.

There is no redeeming factor to homosexuality.

 

[pat34lee]

so why don't you follow it?

Which part do I not follow?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Like anything else, they are great when they work.
When they're broke and running outside the law,
they are more dangerous to us than to criminals.

Whose law? Yours?