waitasec
Veteran Member
everyone has a right to be a tool.
but why would one choosing to be gay set anything back?
there is a huge difference between choosing to be a tool and choosing to be gay, wouldn't you say?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bigotry with a side of fries.
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
but why would one choosing to be gay set anything back?
there is a huge difference between choosing to be a tool and choosing to be gay, wouldn't you say?
Not and stay employed or stay in any establishment I would run. :no:
If you are born a certain way, you have no control and could be a protected class. People who oppose gay rights don't want to admit people are born that way
:yes: Big difference.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Dear Bo:
Let's get this wrung out, shall we?
First of all, you said:
All of this, you claim, is caused by:
Moving on:
You're treating homosexuality as if it were a disease rather than an identity. The DSM IV identifies homosexuality as a normal sexual identity. When you seek to change that identity because it's "wrong for people to be that way," it does relegate them to a lower class. You seriously can't see that?
The Jews were relegated to a lower class, because they weren't Arian. The blacks were relegated to a lower class because they weren't white. Now you want to say the same thing about homosexuals. The problem with your argument is that you're trying to say "it's not a choice." That sounds real good on the surface, but what you fail to recognize is that by your "proof," it is a "choice." Human beings could choose to stop dumping chemicals into the water supply and making fetuses homosexual. This completely undermines the possibility that God made homosexuals the way they are and it's completely OK to be gay.
Next:
For example, there's no possible way to reconcile the fact that the ancients viewed the sky as a rigid dome, the heavenly bodies fixed upon it, the whole mess rotating around a disc-shaped earth, with what we now know of the cosmos. Can't be done. We have to conclude that Genesis 1 is scientifically WRONG.
Another example closer to home: Did you know that the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation? What the biblical injunctions are talking about much of the time are acts of aggression perpetrated upon victims by attackers, or cases of pedophilia. Battlefield rape and diddling little boys. Of course those acts are wrong. What the authors fail to take under consideration is the fact that not all homoerotic acts are morally wrong. Sometimes, men are attracted to men, just as other men are attracted to women. That sort of thinking doesn't happen with the authors. Not even on their radar. But now we know that it does happen and that it is normal. Therefore, in this case, the bible is incomplete in its information. Rape is not the same thing as homosexual love.
Add to that the fact that, for ancient Middle Easterners, shame and honor were sexually imbedded. Men embodied honor, women embodied shame. For a man to bend over and "take it like a woman" meant to break a cultural taboo of men acting shamefully. For most of the world, that thinking just isn't so anymore.
Sometimes, the bible just can't be reconciled with what we now know about the world and about ourselves.
It's been a long, uphill battle for them, too, but it's been worth it.
What would happen if Christian colonialism were implemented everywhere? Oh! Wait! That's happened already -- with some devastatingly bad social effects, if I read my history correctly.
**edit**
What's going on here is merely an attempt to shift blame -- not an attempt to eradicate blame. "Blame" assumes transgression. There is no transgression with regard to homosexuality.
Tell you what: You promise not to play theologian, and I'll promise not to do surgery without a license. Deal?
Let's get this wrung out, shall we?
First of all, you said:
"Knowing what the bible says" and "believing what the bible says" entails far, far more than reading words on a page. It involves study, research, criticism and exegesis. I've spent years studying the bible with some of the best biblical scholars on the planet. In that time, I've discovered several things that lead me to the conclusions I've drawn. I can back them up with tons of data, which I choose not to share here, because it entails more work than I have time for.
I can talk at any level of biblical criticism or theology. But I see signs that you're unprepared to do so.
Oh? Let me refresh your memory:
To say that "God didn't make this happen...MAN did" is to claim that homosexuals weren't intended to be the way they are. In other words, they're "broken." to support this idea, you then go on to say:
In other words, "God's will" is that homosexuals become heterosexual. In other words, homosexuality represents brokenness in some way that needs to be "fixed."
All of this, you claim, is caused by:
In other words, homosexuals are victims of chemical waste dumped into our water.
Moving on:
You have said something of the sort. When you claim that homosexuality is caused by a toxic environment, and suggest that it's not "God's will" for them to be that way, and further suggest that they can be made "ungay" through prayer, you are claiming that they are unacceptable as they are -- hence, second class citizens.
You're treating homosexuality as if it were a disease rather than an identity. The DSM IV identifies homosexuality as a normal sexual identity. When you seek to change that identity because it's "wrong for people to be that way," it does relegate them to a lower class. You seriously can't see that?
The Jews were relegated to a lower class, because they weren't Arian. The blacks were relegated to a lower class because they weren't white. Now you want to say the same thing about homosexuals. The problem with your argument is that you're trying to say "it's not a choice." That sounds real good on the surface, but what you fail to recognize is that by your "proof," it is a "choice." Human beings could choose to stop dumping chemicals into the water supply and making fetuses homosexual. This completely undermines the possibility that God made homosexuals the way they are and it's completely OK to be gay.
Next:
Yeah. You've "increased their tolerance" from one of abject revulsion to one of unfounded pity. Not much of an improvement, IMO. If you're a xtian, why don't you spend some time searching for deeper truths than translated and interpreted words on a page? So far, all you've succeeded in doing is wrapping homosexuality in a different blanket of sin. You state that it used to be viewed as a chosen "lifestyle." Sin, according to the bible. Then you state that now it's to be viewed as a sin perpetrated upon innocent individuals in utero. Still a sin in need of fixing. Do you see?
That's the rub you're providing here. You want so badly to reconcile what the bible "says" with science. you're doing so at the expense, I believe, of biblical truth. Have you ever once stopped to consider that the bible doesn't, in fact, say what you think it does? No. You're too busy taking it at face value in your rush to make things "go hand in glove." Sometimes they just don't.
For example, there's no possible way to reconcile the fact that the ancients viewed the sky as a rigid dome, the heavenly bodies fixed upon it, the whole mess rotating around a disc-shaped earth, with what we now know of the cosmos. Can't be done. We have to conclude that Genesis 1 is scientifically WRONG.
Another example closer to home: Did you know that the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation? What the biblical injunctions are talking about much of the time are acts of aggression perpetrated upon victims by attackers, or cases of pedophilia. Battlefield rape and diddling little boys. Of course those acts are wrong. What the authors fail to take under consideration is the fact that not all homoerotic acts are morally wrong. Sometimes, men are attracted to men, just as other men are attracted to women. That sort of thinking doesn't happen with the authors. Not even on their radar. But now we know that it does happen and that it is normal. Therefore, in this case, the bible is incomplete in its information. Rape is not the same thing as homosexual love.
Add to that the fact that, for ancient Middle Easterners, shame and honor were sexually imbedded. Men embodied honor, women embodied shame. For a man to bend over and "take it like a woman" meant to break a cultural taboo of men acting shamefully. For most of the world, that thinking just isn't so anymore.
Sometimes, the bible just can't be reconciled with what we now know about the world and about ourselves.
What's wrong with your premise is that homosexuality has existed long before toxic waste water. You're fishing for excuses that probably don't exist to the extent you think they do in cases of homosexuality.
Should we be happy with less? Should the blacks have been happy with "separate but equal?"
It's been a long, uphill battle for them, too, but it's been worth it.
What would happen if Christian colonialism were implemented everywhere? Oh! Wait! That's happened already -- with some devastatingly bad social effects, if I read my history correctly.
What you "meant" it to be and what it actually "is" are two different things, though. The world is full of well-meaning people...
**edit**
What's going on here is merely an attempt to shift blame -- not an attempt to eradicate blame. "Blame" assumes transgression. There is no transgression with regard to homosexuality.
Tell you what: You promise not to play theologian, and I'll promise not to do surgery without a license. Deal?
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You said, "Tool!"
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
wa:do
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
LoL... true, not quite as catchy.
However, they did sue the "eat more kale" guy recently. Apparently his tiny business was a serious threat to them.
wa:do
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
To a degree it may be a non issue. They've always been a company that centered around christian values. It may seem a little unorthodox for them to outwardly express this but it shouldn't come to anyone as a surprise...and if you are surprised then eat at Popyeyes....or fry your own chicken. To be honest I don't eat there...I find their food to be kind of dry and flavorless.....kind of tantamount to eating a piece of Swanson chicken from a hungry man meal...
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Officially, they are just roommates... to teach children about getting along with someone who is essentially your opposite.
Like a children's version of the TV show "the odd couple".
wa:do
Muffled
Jesus in me
Sorry my opinions get censored.
However I enjoyed the chicken but don't remember if I had fries with it. Everyone to their own taste said the farmer as he kissed the cow but I prefer Popeyes.
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
As a Libertarian I would vote to allow same sex marriage. What I find disgusting is the hate and intolerance aimed at Chick-fil-A by a group that preaches tolerance.
These hypocrites only practice tolerance towards those agree with them.
Chick-fil-A's customer service is among the best, and I've known many folks who work there, and without fail they say it's a great company that treats its employees very well.
One thing I find a little funny is that the Cathy's never hid their beliefs or the causes they support. I wonder why the CFA haters suddenly became so hostile. Was it that one interview on the Ken Coleman show? Maybe it's an evil Republican infiltration plot to keep the conservatives riled up. So far, it has worked well.
These hypocrites only practice tolerance towards those agree with them.Chick-fil-A's customer service is among the best, and I've known many folks who work there, and without fail they say it's a great company that treats its employees very well.
One thing I find a little funny is that the Cathy's never hid their beliefs or the causes they support. I wonder why the CFA haters suddenly became so hostile. Was it that one interview on the Ken Coleman show? Maybe it's an evil Republican infiltration plot to keep the conservatives riled up.
So far, it has worked well.
Brands must be defended, even against feckless foes.
Otherwise, one weakens the legal right to defend against real threats.
BTW, I ate at Chick-fil-A once....back in Feb or Mar.
I still prefer Subway.
And I'm sure there's something offensive about them too.
Hmmm.....they have an anti-obesity theme in their ads.
They discriminate against fat people!
I still prefer Subway.
And I'm sure there's something offensive about them too.
Hmmm.....they have an anti-obesity theme in their ads.
They discriminate against fat people!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Fair use needs to be defended against feckless foes.
Otherwise, one weakens the legal right to speak against real threats.
Plus, it's not like Chick A whatever ... is common in New England. I'd never heard of it until they sued the Kale guy. I knew about him long before I heard of them.
wa:do
*edit... apparently there is one of the Chick A stores in NH over in a mall in Nashua.
Last edited: