Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

f you think suing someone for violation of anti-discrimination laws is "alienating," you aren't a friend.

---

And if you think that's what I'm saying you're not reading/thinking.

---

So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?So when you wrote: You didn't mean it?

quote:

---

You're editing out every nuance and turning everything I say around so that you can be righteously angry.

---

If you think that's what I've done, you're not reading/thinking. You're avoiding every attempt to clarify so you that you can pretend you're innocent.

quote:

---

I'm not saying never sue, I'm saying that sometimes it's a better idea not to.

---

And as you have been directly asked at least half a dozen times:Says who? Who are you to tell someone else what is or is not a "better idea"? Because there is *always* a backlash to standing up for yourself.You have directly stated that there is some sort of "artificial" activity going on (Message 129): And you have been directly asked to provide any evidence of such. Who are these people "artificially targeting bigots"?Can you give a single example? Names, Tangle, or it didn't happen.This is not a particularly difficult concept, or so we thought.

quote:

---

There's no point me reading the rest of your post

---

Running away again, I see.

quote:

---

until you can grasp that.

---

What, that you don't mean what you say? Yeah, I have a hard time with that. I tend to take people at their word that when they write something, they meant to write it.So when you said that there are people "artificially targeting bigots," you didn't mean it?Names, Tangle, or it didn't happen.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

could it be because, amongst other inane rants where you refuse to consider that I might not be saying what you think I'm saying, dismissing my attempt to explain to you that I too have personal experience with LGBT people close to me, you say this?

---

Did you honestly just try to argue, "Some of my best friends are gay"?See, the problem with that argument is that it presumes nefariousness on the part of other people. Sure, the gay people *you* know would never "artificially target bigots." But all those other gays? That's what they do! And you can't be bigoted because you know gay people!And thus, you never see how you just contributed to the problem. You attribute to gay people in general a negative trait all the while thinking you haven't simply because there are specific gay people that you don't attribute that negative trait to. As was recently argued regarding the Muslim ban: Just because you aren't targeting every member of a group doesn't mean you aren't targeting the group.You say you have "personal experience with LGBT people close to you." What would you do if they sued? Call them "petty"? Consider that they were "artificially targeting bigots"?If not, why are you having such a hard time extending that courtesy to all the other gay people suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation?If the logic is that you're tired of hearing about all the lawsuits (and really, exactly how many of these lawsuits do you truly know of?) then perhaps the problem is not that there is any sort of "artificial targeting of bigots" but rather that your claim that the "big battle was won" is not true. If it were won, we wouldn't be having all these lawsuits.After all, Brown v. Board of Education didn't suddenly cause all the schools to become integrated peaceably and quietly with everybody welcoming the new non-white students with open arms and happiness. The winning of a lawsuit does not mean the battle is won. It's why Texas is trying to strip same-sex marriages of all rights to marriage (the logic being that the ruling said they had to give you a marriage license but it doesn't require it to come with any rights). It's why South Dakota just legalized discrimination against gay people in adoption. It's why all of these "religious freedom to discriminate" bills are being pushed not only in individual states but at the national level. It's why Michelangelo Signorile wrote It's Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality after the Obergefell decision.And thus, we're back to the question I had at the very beginning:Exactly what battle was won?

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes, exactly like arguing with a Fundamentalist the same "you can tell the truth about me but I can lie about you!" attitude.

---

So when I quote you and provide the links to the posts so that people can check, that's "lying"? You didn't actually write what you were quoted as saying? Those links aren't to your posts?Exactly how is it "lying" when all I am doing is quoting you?How Trumpian.

quote:

---

So, what's the point ?

---

That eventually you'll get over yourself and respond to the argument?

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So when you wrote:

​

You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.

​

You didn't mean it?

---

Etc

---

Read: Yes, but I know it means I'm arguing for bigotry and I can't have that so I'll avoid it.If you didn't mean it, now's your chance to clarify. Since you seem to be unable to handle taking responsibility for all your statements, let's just focus on one: Message 129Who are these people "artificially targeting bigots on trivial issues that don't help the cause"? Can you name a single instance?

quote:

---

And I have repeatedly said that I have no reason to believe that in the cases we've discussed here that there has been.

---

So why did you bring it up? In that exact same message, you also said: So can you give a single example of a "fake" campaign? How does one determine when such a "campaign" is "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"?It's time to be specific, Tangle. Can you give any example that meets this criteria you have? Why do you even suspect that there is such a "campaign"? If nobody has ever done so and if there is no such campaign to be found, why did you bring it up? If you're tired of hearing about lawsuits against people denying gay people their rights to public accommodation, perhaps the problem is not that they are "artificially targeting bigots" but rather that your claim that the "battle was won" is not true. Have you considered that?You repeatedly claimed that gays who are fighting to have their rights recognized are "activist" and "doing more harm than good."So did Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll "actively look for Barronelle Stutzman to make an example of"? That's the florist in Washington that's in the news.Did Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer "actively look for Melissa and Aaron Klein to make an example of"? That's the baker in Oregon that's in the news.Did Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth "actively look for Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin to make an example of"? That's the photographer in New Mexico that's in the news.Now's your chance, Tangle. Time to be a big boy and put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," so it's time for you to engage.Were these people "activist"? Where they "looking for a fight"? Were their lawsuits "misplaced"? Were they "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"? Were their actions "counterproductive"?Or are you going to run away?

quote:

---

Though I have heard accusations made that in others there have.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did you seriously try to pull a Trump? Trump didn't say the Brits were spying on him...he was just repeating what he heard on Fox. You're not saying that there are "campaigns" to "artificially target bigots"...you're just repeating what you heard other people saying.Names or it didn't happen, Tangle.It's time to be specific.

quote:

---

Stings for bigots would be an effective way of publicising the campaign would it not?

---

No.That may be why you're having such a hard time coming up with any examples.So once again: Names or it didn't happen.

quote:

---

And surely you don't doubt that many more radical actions have been taken than that?

---

Yes, I do.Names or it didn't happen.

quote:

---

I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway, so whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me.

---

The point is the same as it has always been:Your assignation of nefarious purposes to gay people is homophobic bigotry. It requires gay people to justify their fight for equality as legitimate when that is the position we should be starting with. As if you are the arbiter of what is a "real campaign."

quote:

---

Perhaps you should focus on the point I'm trying to make instead of inventing your own for me?

---

Nice try. I have been. It's why I keep coming back to the same question. It's the question I asked you in my very first post to you in this thread and for which you have never even attempted an answer:What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

When you assert that the quotes support your claim when either they do not or only seem to when taken out of context.

---

That's why I provided the links to the original posts to ensure that there would be no question. Here, let me post the entire posts again! It's not like it's hard:Here's the entirety of your post (Message 145): And here's the entirety of my response (Message 151): You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made: I was generalizing out to the world at large. The attempts to point out that the so-called "Christian" message of doing good by your neighbors, respecting the laws of the country you are in, how being courteous and kind even to people whom you think to be the devil incarnate is not a sin, that's all been tried.And sometimes it works.But the government is not the one to give that lecture. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws.And in the case of Faith, who will no doubt see any attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand her claimed religion as an attack (and potentially rightly so), it hasn't worked. Thus, we need the law.

quote:

---

As you ought to know.

---

Yep. Because this is at least the second time I've quoted the entire post you've made.Now, you can engage by providing clarification, or you can continue to flail as you run away and claim that I am somehow lying.

quote:

---

What argument ?

---

The one that I made. You did read my post before you decided I was wrong, didn't you? This will be the third time I've said it: To try and claim that the religious owners of business don't understand their own religion has been considered and been shown to not work as well as being tremendously rude and arrogant. Because, in the end, it really doesn't matter if "their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine" (your words...or am I lying when I say they are your words?) The law specifically states that it doesn't matter why they are denying service to gay people: It is illegal to do so. Gay people have the right to public accommodation.Now, it's possible that there might be individuals out there who might be convinced and hey, how lovely it would be to help them not be conflicted in their desire to engage in a particular job and their desire to be good religious congregants. But the law is not the way to do that. No judge is in a position to tell the defendant, "You don't understand your own religion."So you can run away again, if you like. You can refuse to admit your mistake, but how is that going to help in getting me to respond to whatever point you were trying to make? Whining about how I'm "lying" when I quote you in full is hardly a good way to get a response. Admitting your error and getting back on track would seem an obviously better approach.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

So everyone can see that you were misrepresenting my posts. Fine.

---

This would be where you provide more details of such rather than merely asserting.

quote:

---

The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case.

---

Thus showing that you didn't actually read my post.The specifics of Faith's faith (oy!) are irrelevant because, in the end, she has every right to believe whatever it is that she wants. And it certainly isn't the law's place to try to convince her otherwise regarding her faith. When we were having this exact argument over race, the exact same arguments by Christian bigots were used: God says. And the courts actually tried to use that argument to uphold segregation. The lower courts in the Loving v. Virginia courts said that god had separated the races for a reason and if it weren't for the machination of humans to travel outside those areas, they'd stay separated as god intended and thus, we cannot allow interracial marriage.The Supreme Court didn't wander down that lane. The legal foundation for why we must allow interracial marriage has nothing to do with a "misunderstanding" of what the sin of Ham was. After all, the Mormons were still using that logic to deny black people the priesthood and there was nothing to be done about it as far as the law were concerned. People have the right to believe whatever bigoted nonsense they wish and to justify it any way they choose, including by using religious arguments that others feel to be misguided.The law only cares about rights. As I have pointed out to Faith repeatedly, anybody who wishes to exert more control over their clients need only establish their business as a private contractor. If you want your picture taken, going to Glamour Shots in the mall means they have to take your picture because they are a public accommodation. Anne Geddes, on the other hand, is a private contractor and she has the ability to say no.And thus, Faith isn't being asked to choose. She can keep her religious objections to treating gay people as human beings worthy of dignity and respect as well as cater only to weddings that meet her nebulously defined standards of religious "purity."Oh, it's nice for us to try and engage with her on her religion. After all, it's nice for her to not be a bigot, but that's a completely separate issue. That isn't the way to achieve legal standing for gay people. We cannot wait for all the bigots to suddenly figure out what they were doing because that will never happen. There will always be people who cannot be happy unless other people are miserable. Therefore, we need the law to manage their actions and that means we need justifications that are independent of their religious irrationalizations. Trying to change a specific bigot's opinion about their religion is a good thing and may (mind you, I said, "*may*) solve a local problem, but it doesn't solve the bigger problem because the next bigot doesn't care.Now, if you will simply admit your error and apologize, we can consider moving on. But, thanks to your behaviour, there is very little hope of that.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Ok, I wasn't going to bring this up

---

Considering that Modulous and I have both been bringing it up, that's a very telling remark, wouldn't you say? You didn't want to respond to the point that we've been bringing up with you for days on end.

quote:

---

because even though you're being a total idiot and being as big a bigot as those that you oppose, we're on the same side of the discrimination argument.

---

Except we're not.Hint: You need to stop and consider if you're about to engage in black-or-white thinking, that because we're not on the same side of the discrimination argument, that means you're in favor of laws like what happened in South Dakota or the various "bathroom bills."Just because your actions didn't send someone to the hospital doesn't mean you're their friend.When you accuse people of "artificially targeting bigots," when you claim that people suing for their right to public accommodation are distractions from the "real campaigns to be fought," that their attempts to to do so "just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive," then you're not on their side.You are assigning a nefarious purpose to gay people and that, by definition, is homophobic bigotry. It requires gay people to justify their fight for equality as legitimate with you as the arbiter of what is a "real campaign."

quote:

---

And given what you say above I think the argument that you may risk alienating those that support you is proven.

---

If you cannot support gay people in their fight for equality without immediately whining about "artificial targeting," you are not a supporter.See, Tangle, this is what you've been avoiding: You aren't a supporter. You think you are. You think that because you did right in one area, that someone means you've done all the work. That there's nothing left for you to do and if everyone were to just do what you've done, then there wouldn't be any problems.But then we see that no, you still have work to do: You still have an automatic response that gay people fighting for their rights is somehow "alienating."

quote:

---

Do you recognise anything below?

---

Yep. And it's part of the solution......and part of the problem.Because it's got people like you thinking that anybody who actually makes life difficult by demanding their rights be respected here and now is somehow "alienating" instead of a rallying point.Have you read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"? Modulous rewrote it to apply to gay people, but I should certainly hope you're sophisticated enough to see how it applies to gay people without having to literally substitute the words for sexual orientation for the ones for race. That last point is the salient one, Tangle: There is *never* a "good" lawsuit. It will always result in people being "alienated." Even people who you might have once thought were your "allies."But if they are "alienated" because you had the temerity not to shrug it off, then they weren't your allies. Surely you've heard of the cliche about learning who your friends are, haven't you? This is how you do it: When you have been harmed and fight back, when you demand to be treated with dignity and respect and find that the only way to do so is to make a scene or file a lawsuit, your friends will stand with you because they understand precisely what is at stake. They won't hem and haw and talk about "artificially targeting bigots" or whine about feeling "alienated" or act like what you are doing isn't a "real campaign" and call you "petty and unnecessarily aggressive."They'll stand by you. You don't expect them to necessarily take up arms with you. Nobody can fight all the battles. But you do expect them to not undermine you. Because if they do, they aren't your friends.Can you name a single example of this "artificially targeting bigots" claim? Your attempt to Trump your way out of it by saying that you didn't say that...somebody else did and you were just repeating it...won't fly. You wouldn't have said it unless you thought there was some merit to it. So it's time for you to put up or shut up.If none of the specific cases that have been mentioned here are examples of this "artificial targeting of bigots," if all of them are "real campaigns," if none of them "make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive," then who does? When did it happen? Who were these people?Why were you so quick to jump to a claim of alienation regarding the mere idea of gay people suing public accommodations?

New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:

---

I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.

---

As someone who used to decorate cakes, let me help you:As someone who sells and decorates cakes, I have certain designs and styles that I will do and, conceivably, certain designs and styles that I will not do.My reasonings for those must be in compliance with various statutes regarding both my rights and the rights of other people.For example, if I make a simple two-layer cake with white frosting, then that is clearly demonstrated as something that I am willing to do and, as a public accommodation, I am not in the position of telling someone that I won't do it for them out of some sense of First Amendment rights. It is the identical cake. Nothing about the purchaser of the cake changes it to some other kind of cake.Now, suppose I offer that I will write a message on the cake. I could sell one that says, "Happy Birthday." But by doing so, I have demonstrated that I am willing to do that and, as a public accommodation, I am not in the position of telling someone that I won't do it for them out of some sense of First Amendment rights. It's the identical cake. Nothing about the purchaser of the cake changes it to some other kind of cake. If I'm willing to write, "Happy Birthday John," on the cake, I can't balk at writing, "Happy Birthday Jane."But suppose, upon learning that I will write upon the cake, you ask me to write, "Fuck You!" on it. I can say no to that and claim my rights to deny you service. The fact that I am willing to write, "Happy Birthday," on it doesn't carry over to the claim that I must therefore be willing to write anything and everything demanded on the cake.But here's the thing: If I can be shown to have written such things for other people, I can't then deny it to you. At my place, we didn't allow for profanity on cakes. Not for you, not for anybody.So when it comes to a wedding cake, the question is: Is it the former or the latter? Is it "Happy Birthday" or is it "Fuck You"? In places that have anti-discrimination laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation, it's the former: A cake is a cake is a cake. That the people purchasing it are a gay couple doesn't change the cake. There is no difference between a cake bought for a straight couple to serve at their wedding reception and a cake bought for a gay couple to serve at their wedding reception.Now, said baker may not have any wedding toppers of a same-sex couple to place upon it, but that's not an actionable issue nor has anybody even dreamed of suing over that purpose. You can't sue a kosher deli for not having pork, after all.And to that end, the florist in Washington learned her lesson: Since the couple getting married doesn't change the floral arrangement, she has decided that she will no longer do weddings: Not for you, not for anyone. If for whatever reason she feels that she is incapable of living up to the requirements of a public accommodation when it comes to weddings, all she has to do is not do weddings. You can't sue a kosher deli for not having pork.

PaulK continues to run away:

quote:

---

And Rhain continues to lie. Where is this "running away" ?

---

That. That right there. That's you running away. By claiming you are being "lied" about rather than engaging, you are running away. By doing everything except focus on the topic at hand (Faith's faith, the claim of others that she is misguided in her interpretation of her book that describes her faith, the position of the law in managing that, and how that affects interactions of people like her with gay people), you run away.

quote:

---

You've made it quite obvious enough.

---

Indeed. I keep providing your full posts, thus providing complete context, as well as links back to the original so that people can be certain that I am not lying that you wrote what you actually wrote whereas you have failed to actually defend your own argument with any support but instead have done nothing but cried, "Liar!"People have tried to convince Faith that she is misinterpreting the Bible, have they not? Your original post directly stated so, or am I lying when I say that? Should I quote you?She has rejected their attempts, has she not? Your own post directly stated so, or am I lying when I say that? Should I quote you?With regard to the law, that's irrelevant, is it not? Do we really need to go over why? You haven't actually bothered to respond to that aspect of the argument.Thus, the running away. I have, with your help, made it quite obvious.

quote:

---

The fact that I understand my point (where you do not) shows that I did not read your post ?

---

No, the fact that you have failed to defend your argument in the face of factual contradiction shows that you did not read my post.Here is what you said in Message 699 (notice once again which one of us is quoting the other and which is merely asserting "LIES!"): And yet, I responded directly to that in my original response to you (Message 151): See the highlighted parts? They go directly to that point: Faith doesn't think she has a poor grounding in Christian doctrine. First, you're assuming that you do. And given that pretty much everything in the Bible is contradicted at some point or another by another part of the Bible, the idea that there is such a thing as a "good grounding in Christian doctrine" is pretty difficult to justify in and of itself. I mean, the very basic premise of Christianity, salvation, is unresolved: Is it through faith, like Paul says, or works, like Jesus says? Is it OK to kill (Ecclesiastes says yes but Mark and Luke say no. Heck Exodus and Deuteronomy both have a prohibition against killing as one of the direct commandments of god...and then give you specific reasons to kill people.) If there were such a thing as a "good grounding in Christian doctrine," there wouldn't be so many sects. All Christians are "cafeteria Christians," emphasizing the parts they like and ignoring the parts they don't.Which leads to the second point: It is irrelevant if she has a "good grounding in Christian doctrine" or not: Her faith is hers and she gets to have it no matter what. Are you saying that anything would change if she came out as a "Faithian" rather than a "Christian"? Is the label by which she identifies herself really that important? She has a vision that gay people are the work of the devil. So be it. While it's a wonderful thing for us to try and convince her that she's wrong in this regard, in the meantime that doesn't actually help the people who are being discriminated against by her and people like her. They don't have time for her to renounce her convictions. They're being discriminated against now.

quote:

---

The rest is simply irrelevant to my point

---

That. That right there. That's you running away. Rather than engaging, you simply ignore everything you don't like and run away.Rather like Faith.That you might be better off seeing that your objections have poor grounding in rhetoric and debate - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.

quote:

---

thus showing that the failure is on your part.

---

If I responded with merely: "PaulK continues to lie. Where is this 'failure on my part'?" would you consider that a reasoned, rational, and sufficient response?I'm realizing that I failed to make any bets regarding the flip side. I knew I wouldn't continue to talk about this if you didn't, but I didn't put any bets down on you being able to simply let it go. If you are really that certain that everything I say is a lie about this, why do you continue to respond? What is it that you're getting out of this? From whence this obsession with me?This ends with you, Paul. I'm still willing to stand by that bet: You stop responding and let's see how long I can go without bringing it up.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Why not read what I say instead of inventing what I say?

---

You *do* realize that I am directly quoting you, yes? Are you saying you didn't write the following: Message 41: Message 73: Message 121: Message 129: Message 136: Message 143: Message 152: Is it your claim that I "invented" all of that?

quote:

---

I'm not going to keep repeating it just so you can keep misinterpreting it.

---

Repeating what? That you think there are gay people there who "artificially target bigots"? Oh, and lest you try to claim that I am "inventing" this and that you never really said it, let's recall that you doubled down on that claim: Message 694: Are you saying you didn't write that, either? That I'm "inventing" it?Exactly what was the point of accusing gay people of creating a "sting"?Oh, and before you say I'm somehow not including the complete context, I'll continue your quote. You finished it up with: But that directly contradicts your other statements: So which is it, Tangle? Would a "sting for bigots" be something that "does more harm than good," that "alienates" people, is just an example of people "looking for a fight," that "doesn't hep the cause," and "doesn't look good" or are you "not even sure it's a bad idea"?For the umpteenth time: Can you name a single example of a gay person suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation that is an example of "artificially targeting bigots"? Can you give us any example of a lawsuit where you would tell the plaintiffs that your desire to ensure that it "doesn't look good" trumps their need for redress from discrimination? Is that your argument? There are times when discrimination is OK because to fight against it would not "look good" and that's more important? It's more important to look good than to feel good?Time to actually pay attention to what you're saying. Turn your bias off. You are not as supportive as you think. Recognize your bigotry or you will be taken to task for it.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

And again that is false.

---

That. That right there. That's you running away. You failing to engage but simply whining about "misinterpretation" without providing any sort of additional argument to justify it is running away. You have yet to address the actual response made. You just keep running away, crying, 'Lies!"Merely asserting that you have been misinterpreted doesn't magically mean you have been. That just lets you run away faster.

quote:

---

How can gay marriage be seen as an attack on Christianity when its significance to Christian doctrine is deeply in question ?

---

FINALLY!See, this is an actual response. Of course, I already answered it, but let's see if I can rephrase my argument:Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine? Especially to someone else? You may understand what *you* mean by "Christianity," but you are not the arbiter of what it means for anybody else. Judaism has a huge tradition of interpretation of what the sacred texts say and mean with various scholars making different statements over the centuries. I'm reminded of the seders I used to have with my friends: They went on for hours because we decided to follow *all* the traditions of carrying out the haggadah that we could find (wouldn't want to do it wrong.) If Jews can have hundreds of different ways to eat some lamb chops and boiled eggs, why should we deny that breadth of interpretation to Christianity? The Bible clearly talks about marriage and not a single example exists within the Bible of a same-sex couple getting married (though David and Jonathan do seem to have a thing for each other, they don't actually get married.) So for you to say that it is somehow beyond the pale for a Christian to come to the conclusion that marriage is only for opposite-sex couples is the height of arrogance.And from a legal standpoint of anti-discrimination, that question is irrelevant. Suppose there were an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not marry any two people of the same sex for any reason nor suffer any couple that has identical genitalia to be treated as such." Would that somehow make a difference in how anti-discrimination policy should be carried out?Don't people have a right to their beliefs?Isn't the law supposed to concern itself with actions rather than beliefs?It all might be well and good to work on people's beliefs such that they are motivated to engage in certain actions out of a sense of righteousness rather than merely seeking to avoid penalties, but is that a job for the law? Yeah, I get it that we'd really like it if Faith could see that the Bible doesn't say that their immortal soul is in danger simply because they sold a tied gathering of roses and star jasmine to a "sinner" for the purposes of celebrating said "sin."But even if we could, that doesn't mean Faith would then say, "Oh, you're right! I shouldn't treat gay people like that!" It is just as likely that she would then say, "Then I don't believe in the Bible but in my own personal religion." And then we're back to square one. Realizing that the Bible doesn't say what you think it says doesn't mean you necessarily change your mind regarding your principles. It may mean that you find new justifications for them.To bring it back to marriage, you and I may start off thinking that interstate recognition of same-sex marriage is required under Full Faith and Credit. And yet, jurisprudence regarding the issue can lead one to suspect that it doesn't actually require it. Suppose for the sake of argument that we buy that interpretation. But our response isn't to say, "Oh, then I guess states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages carried out in other states." It's to then go to the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of due process and equal treatment under the law. In essence we're doubling down: Not only do they have to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states the way they recognize the mixed-sex marriages of other states, they have to perform them for same-sex couples themselves just as they perform them for mixed-sex couples.Faith gets to have the same response if she so chooses. Even if we convince her that the Bible doesn't say that, that doesn't mean she's going to change her mind about gay people. She can just as easily come up with another justification for her position. Thus, we need to work for public policy that is independent of a person's religious justification for discriminating against gay people.

quote:

---

Suggesting that Faith has a blind spot to the question maybe excuses her failure but it hardly protects her argument.

---

But you don't get to say that she has a "blind spot" because even if she didn't, it doesn't change anything regarding how anti-discrimination policy is to be carried out.You are assuming that she has a blind spot. That assumption is predicated on the idea that you are better at interpreting the Bible than she is.And you're not.But even assuming you are, all she has to do is claim that she's following her own internal religion and we're right back where we started.

quote:

---

No, that's me pointing out that you are introducing a topic outside of my argument which I have no interest in discussing with you.

---

That. That right there. That's you running away.Now, if you truly believed that, you'd simply stop responding. Certainly after all this time you have figured out that I'm going to keep returning back to this. If you truly have no interest in discussing this, why do you keep responding?

quote:

---

I will not be bullied into discussing a topic of your choosing and the attempt to do so disqualifies as a person I am interested in discussing pretty much anything with.

---

(*chuckle*)"Bullied"? Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, you really don't know what that word means, do you? The only reason this continues is because you keep responding. Nobody is forcing you to respond. Twice now I have directly told you that if you drop this, I will, too. This makes three. Are you saying that this is some sort of reverse psychology on my part to force you to respond? That you can't help but respond when told that you can drop the conversation and walk away at any time? And that I somehow know this and am using this vulnerability against you? Do I really have that much power over you?

quote:

---

So, I will just go on defending my words

---

And where did you do that other than in this post?

quote:

---

and you can take your topics to someone who thinks you are worth talking to.

---

So far, that appears to be you. After all, you keep responding.Fourth time, Paul: This ends with you. Let's have a contest! You drop it and we'll see how long I can go without bringing it up! Of course, it'll be interesting to see how long you can go before responding to a post that you have gone on and on and on about how little you are interested in responding to (13 times in this thread, by my count, and 2 more over in the other.)

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

It's all their to read Rrhain.

---

Yes. You contradicted yourself.So which is it? Are we supposed to believe you when you made these statements: Message 41: Message 73: Message 121: Message 129: Message 136: Message 143: Message 152: Or are we supposed to believe you when you made this statement: Message 694: Is a "sting for bigots" something that "does more harm than good" or is it something that might not be such "a bad idea anyway"?For the umpteenth time: Can you name a single example of a gay person suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation that is an example of "artificially targeting bigots"? Can you give us any example of a lawsuit where you would tell the plaintiffs that your desire to ensure that it "doesn't look good" trumps their need for redress from discrimination? Is that your argument? There are times when discrimination is OK because to fight against it would not "look good" and that's more important? It's more important to look good than to feel good?Be specific.Of course, at this point you're simply convinced by your own bias so you're just going to run away.You've got the same deal as PaulK: This ends with you. If you are truly as baffled as you claim you are regarding the response you're getting, if you truly think this isn't worth continuing, why do you keep doing so? Is somebody forcing you to respond? Do we need to call the cops so that you can be rescued from your tormentors? Give us a sign!

PaulK runs away again:

quote:

---

We'll take the usual lying as read.

---

That. That right there. That's you running away.Are you saying you didn't write what you were quoted as having written?

quote:

---

First, it is simply pointing out the significance of the item Faith failed to address.

---

But we know she's never going to address it because...wait for it...SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU. See, you don't get to tell her what she believes. She does. You can say that she's misinterpreting her own faith all you wish, but you aren't the one with her faith. She is.Do you honestly not see the irony in you claiming I'm misinterpreting your claims about Faith's misinterpretation of her own faith? That thing you want to apply to Faith...I'm applying it to you. Notice how pissy you've become regarding it? What makes you think it's going to work on Faith? Notice how defensive and righteous you have become? What makes you think Faith is going to react any differently?

quote:

---

Second your "answer" fails to deal with the actual point.

---

Except it does: It is irrelevant whether or not Faith's interpretation of the Bible is based in a "good grounding of Christian doctrine." It's *her* faith, she's entitled to it, and the law still doesn't care what it is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine?

---

Since it is Faith's argument you are defending it would be better for you to explain why Faith IS the person to say what is or is not Christian doctrine.

---

Because it's *HER* faith. Who the hell are you or I to tell her what she does or does not believe? Remember, even if we could convince her that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says (and clearly, we can't...just like I can't convince you that you did say what you actually said), the result is not necessarily her suddenly realizing that she's been treating people gay people poorly all along, her changing her ways, and her feeling guilt and contrition over her actions.There is also the distinct possibility that she simply retreats further into her own opinion of how things are supposed to be. You know......running away.Just like you.

quote:

---

Aside from the fact that I was raised as a Christian and continued to learn about it through discussions on various forums at least I - unlike Faith - am aware of and accepts that there is a diversity of Christian thought.

---

Great. What's that got to do with Faith? She isn't you and her faith is hers to use as she sees fit. One of the challenges of accepting diversity is that there are people out there with completely whacko ideas and they are as entitled to their crazy opinions as you are. Yeah, go ahead and try to engage with them regarding it, but don't expect to ever get through with them and don't base your public policy on things that only work if you manage to convince them they were wrong.

quote:

---

And of course, it is known that there are Christian churches which have held gay marriages

---

Yep.And she literally believes they are works of the devil. That is, after all, one of the claims of many Christians: That the devil can quote scripture. So your attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand what the Bible says and means is nothing more than the devil trying to tempt her away from the Way, the Truth, and the Light.So now what? If I recall her statements over the years correctly, she thinks she's actually had contact with god himself. Who are you and I to tell her that she should contradict what god has told her? If god came down and told her that her understanding of the Bible is correct, what chance do you and I have of convincing her otherwise?And more importantly, when it comes to the legal standing of anti-discrimination policy, why should we even try?

quote:

---

so the idea that all Christianity is against them is something that needs defending rather than simply being assumed.

---

And how's that going? Have you made any progress with her? Are we going to base our public policy on whether or not Faith finally comes around to the idea that gay people are not Satan's turds?

quote:

---

My post was not about how anti-discrimination policy is carried out.

---

But mine was about Faith's right to her faith, which you seem to be of the opinion she doesn't have a right to. As you may recall in my original post to you regarding this: That's me pointing out the ludicrousness of trying to tell another person what they believe. It'd be lovely if we could change her mind, but she has a right to believe what she believes. No matter how much you tell her that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says, she's never going to listen. You are the devil, the devil can quote scripture, and you trying to tell her that she doesn't understand the Bible is just the work of the devil.

quote:

---

It is about how there is "No case at all" that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity.

---

And yet, she still doesn't believe you. The Bible doesn't say anything about same-sex marriage and all references to marriage are to mixed-sex couples so for you to come along and suggest that she doesn't understand the implications of that is naught but arrogance.You know...kinda like how I keep quoting you and pointing out what you actually said and you keep calling me a liar. Funny how you want to make that argument with regard to yourself but won't let Faith make that argument for herself.

quote:

---

If you wish to defend Faith's argument to the contrary then please do so instead of talking about "how anti-discrimination policy is carried out" which is clearly a different subject and not one I was addressing at all in the sentence you choose to focus on.

---

That you don't understand how Faith's beliefs aren't tied to how we manage anti-discrimination policy in a thread devoted to anti-discrimination policy shows just how disconnected you are.Question: What is the end goal of convincing Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says?Or are you going to run away and not answer that question, either?

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Who said I was baffled?

---

Well, for the specific word, "baffled," that would be me. It was based off you saying, and I quote (Message 714): See, that's you indicating that you don't actually understand why I keep making the argument that I'm making. You know: "Baffled." Perplexed, befuddled, puzzled, bemused, confounded, etc.Or are you saying you do understand precisely why I'm making the argument that I'm making...you're just running away from it?

quote:

---

It's quite clear what's happening, we get it from Faith all the time.

---

Yep. Upon being shown directly what was said, she denies it and runs away.Just like you.Or are you going to again deny that you said the following: Message 41: Message 73: Message 121: Message 129: Message 136: Message 143: Message 152: Is it your claim that I "invented" all of that?I mean, watching delusional bias at work is never entertaining. Instead, it's pitiful and sad. But, I'll keep repeating your own words back at you until you decide to accept responsibility for your own words.

quote:

---

Just for the record, I obviously disagree that the people that refuse these services are right to do so.

---

Nobody said you weren't. This wasn't about the people who were discriminating.This was about the people who were discriminated against. You said that they were "petty" for standing up for their rights.You directly stated that they were doing so "artificially," even though you couldn't come up with a single example of it ever happening. And you directly stated that for them to stand up for their rights (again, notice that nobody is saying that you're intimating that they were NOT discriminated against or that the people who did discriminate against them were NOT wrong...this is about the reaction of those that were discriminated against) would be wise not to stand up for their rights lest it "alienate" others as it wouldn't "look good."

quote:

---

I defend the rights of LGBT people to fight for their right to be treated fairly and to take all legitimate actions to do.

---

Ah...there's the word: "Legitimate."Why the assumption that the people who are suing for their right to public accommodation might be something other than "legitimate"? What makes you think you get to say what is "legitimate" or not?There's that assigning of nefarious purposes to gay people again....

quote:

---

But I'm saddened that having won those hard earned rights very little consideration seems to being given to those that now find themselves wth beliefs that are at odds with the new reality.

---

And thus, you show you aren't actually an ally but rather a bigot.What makes you think that no such consideration has been given? Anti-discrimination law isn't new. And for at least one of the instances involved, the business was created *after* the inclusion of sexual orientation into the anti-discrimination law and accompanied by a statement by the owners that they would directly defy such after they saw another business run afoul of the law.Bigots don't get to be coddled. It's not asking too much for a public accommodation to service the public like they said they would. "Do your job" is not an unreasonable request.

quote:

---

The cases so far raised that have been found wrong in law are very finely balanced, the harm - if any - is slight, and the discrimination indirect to the point of insignificant.

---

And with that, you show that you aren't an ally but a bigot, pure and simple.You think you get to tell someone else that the discrimination they experienced was "indirect to the point of insignificant"?You know what's coming, Tangle:Fuck you.You don't get to tell someone else that their lives are insignificant.

quote:

---

From memory, the UK case finished with a 500 fine - equivalent to a minor traffic offence.

---

And thus, you show you're a bigot.It's only worth it if it costs millions of dollars? It isn't homophobia unless someone dies or at least is sent to the hospital?You know what's coming, Tangle:Fuck you.A person's life is not measured in money.

quote:

---

My personal view is that the cause would benefit from displaying tolerance to minor infractions rather than pursuing them through the courts.

---

And thus, you show you're a bigot.You don't get to decide what is "minor" to another person. You don't get to tell others to "shrug it off."You know what's coming, Tangle:Fuck you.You don't have the luxury of living their lives for them.

quote:

---

But I've said this many times now so I'll give it a rest for a while.

---

And you still haven't learned from the last time you got slapped down trying to say this claptrap.Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.All that's expected of you is to not undermine people you claim to be "friends" and "allies" with. See, that's the lie of the "Some of my best friends!" argument: Friends don't treat each other like that.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

You just can't stop lying.

---

That. That right there. That's you running away.You just can't stop running away, can you?

quote:

---

If I was doing that I wouldn't be defending it from your misrepresention.

---

That's just it: You haven't been defending anything until now. And even now, all you're doing is whining, "Nuh-uh!" as if that were an argument.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But we know she's never going to address it because...wait for it...SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU

---

And how does that make her argument any better ?

---

Because she is the arbiter of what she believes and you are trying to say that she is unjustified in what she believes. As I've pointed out a couple times and as you've avoided each time (see...running away), the Bible makes no mention of same-sex marriage and all examples of marriage given are of mixed-sex groupings. So for you to claim that she doesn't understand the implications of what that means is arrogance.Again, if I recall correctly, Faith has claimed she's talked directly to god. So how is it you think you can provide any sort of argument that can contradict the word of god?

quote:

---

I am not claimimg that Faith misrepresents her own beliefs, I do claim that Christianity is much wider than Faith's personal beliefs.

---

Indeed.What's that got to do with anything, Franklin? This is about Faith and her beliefs and her actions that are made in light of those beliefs. What other people do is irrelevant to her. That there are people who claim to be Christian and perform the devil's work doesn't mean she should consider joining them.

quote:

---

Which doesn't deal with the point. Faith's personal beliefs are not the issue. Christianity is.

---

Which avoids the point: There is no such thing as "Christianity" outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. Again, the Bible is a self-contradictory mess. There isn't any position listed that isn't countered somewhere else. For crying out loud, it can't even get the story of creation straight. Even marriage isn't safe. So to try and claim that "Christianity says" is a fool's errand in the end. You have to be specific about which sect you are talking about.Otherwise, you're arguing "No True Christian."

quote:

---

Christianity is not just Faith's version of it

---

For her, it is. And as described above for the third time, that's true for all of them. Christianity doesn't exist outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. That's why there are so many sects. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant...which of those is the real version we should be looking at to determine what the Bible has to say about marriage? Catholics, after all, say you aren't allowed to get divorced but Protestants don't seem to mind so much. Both have religious justifications for their position.Do you truly think you get to argue a Protestant doctrine with a Catholic and expect to be taken seriously?

quote:

---

so why does she get to define Christian doctrine ? What makes her better equipped to do so than the Archbishop of Canterbury or an Orthodox Patriarch ?

---

Because it's her faith. For crying out loud, that's precisely why there is such a thing as an Archbishop of Canterbury to begin with: Martin Luther decided that he knew better than the Pope and Henry VIII latched onto it (sorta) which was then solidified by Elizabeth I. My god, the Catholics split from the Orthodox over literally a single word and its interpretation. And here you are saying that Faith doesn't get to have a similar insistence? Why do you respect those differences of opinion but not hers? Is it the flashy robes and funny hats? She is the ultimate arbiter of what she believes. For you to try and tell her otherwise is to argue "No True Christian."

quote:

---

She doesn't have the right to insist that Christianity is limited to her faith, and that is all that matters for my argument.

---

She most certainly does, and thus your own argument falls by your own admission. There is no such thing as Christianity outside of the personal beliefs of those who claim to be Christian. So when someone tells you what they believe, believe them.

quote:

---

So ? It would hardly be the first demolition of her arguments she refused to accept.

---

So where does that leave us? Suppose she were to respond to you and say, "You know, you're right. The Bible does say that. But god spoke to me directly and I follow his word." Now what?

quote:

---

I wonder how you can possibly evaluate my understanding of an issue that I am not even attempting to discuss.

---

And that's why you fail. Your position has implications. You may not like those implications, but we're back to the question I asked of you which you didn't answer. See, there's that running away again:What's the point of trying to tell Faith that the Bible doesn't say what she thinks it says with regard to marriage?

quote:

---

That isn't something I was even attempting to do in the post we are discussing.

---

And that's why you keep failing. I know you weren't attempting to address that issue, but just because you didn't mean to throw the ball through the window while playing catch doesn't mean it didn't happen. So it's time for you to consider the ramifications of what you're doing. Suppose Faith were to say, "You know, you're right. The Bible doesn't say that." What then? What do you expect out of her at that point?

quote:

---

When will you cease this misrepresentation ?

---

As soon as you stop running away and provide any sort of argument to justify your claim that you've been misinterpreted. 'Nuh-uh!" is not an argument.You really don't see the irony in you complaining about being misinterpreted in a thread where you're claiming Faith is misinterpreting the Bible, do you?