|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle responds to me:
quote:quote:And if you think that's what I'm saying you're not reading/thinking. 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? So when you wrote:
A cake is trivia and always will be. I understand that it stands for more than the cake, and I understand that you feel that you've suffered for being what you are, and it's fun to mess with bigots - maybe once. But if there are continued national outrages caused by minor issues it may become counterproductive. You didn't mean it? So when you wrote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause You didn't mean it? So when you wrote:
if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector. You didn't mean it? So when you wrote:
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes. You didn't mean it? So when you wrote:
If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded. You didn't mean it?
quote: 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: 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):
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause. 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: Running away again, I see.
quote: 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.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yes, exactly like arguing with a Fundamentalist the same "you can tell the truth about me but I can lie about you!" attitude.
So, what's the point ? Trying to cover up your mistake or are you just trolling ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle writes:
quote: 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?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Rrhain writes: 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 As I read through your latest rant I was thinking that it's exactly like discussing with a religious zealot. The way you pick out words from an argument to make them match what you have in your head as my position whilst ignoring all the rest that tells you it's not is just like a creationist. You have no objectivity in this matter - you're an aggressive drunk in a pub just looking for reason to lash out.
You have directly stated that there is some sort of "artificial" activity going on (Message 129): And I have repeatedly said that I have no reason to believe that in the cases we've discussed here that there has been. Though I have heard accusations made that in others there have. Stings for bigots would be an effective way of publicising the campaign would it not? And surely you don't doubt that many more radical actions have been taken than that? I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway, so whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me. Perhaps you should focus on the point I'm trying to make instead of inventing your own for me?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK responds to me:
quote: 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: That eventually you'll get over yourself and respond to the argument?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: When you assert that the quotes support your claim when either they do not or only seem to when taken out of context. As you ought to know.
quote: What argument ? And how can refusing to admit your mistake possibly help in getting me to respond to it ? Burying an argument behind piles of irrelevance is hardly a good way to get a response. Admitting your error and getting back on track would seem an obviously better approach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle runs away:
quote:quote: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 129 I'm not saying stop fighting for equality, I'm saying pick the battles and make sure they matter. Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause. Who are these people "artificially targeting bigots on trivial issues that don't help the cause"? Can you name a single instance?
quote: So why did you bring it up? In that exact same message, you also said:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive. 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: (*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: 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: Yes, I do. Names or it didn't happen.
quote: 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: 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"?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK responds to me:
quote: 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):
The whole basis for the claim that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity is based on the fact that a few Christian business openers have decided to defy State anti-discrimination laws and refuse to provide services to gay weddings. In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered. Indeed Faith herself puts any real concern for these people behind their use as a weapon against gay marriage - as seen by her refusal to even understand the laws under which they were convicted. And that is far from the worst of her behaviour. But behaving badly does no better in making a case than ignoring the facts. Faced with intelligent, informed and rational opposition Faith was reduced to ranting and raving and finally running away. And here's the entirety of my response (Message 151):
PaulK writes:
quote: Incorrect. Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people. And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot. And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil. Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs. But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position. What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service. In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do. You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine...is not considered. 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: 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: 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.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So everyone can see that you were misrepresenting my posts. Fine.
quote: The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case. You chose to take it out of context and present it as something else. I was willing to accept that as a mistake at first but the persistent refusal to acknowledge the error is hardly an encouraging sign. I was not especially interested in discussing your point at first - since it did not have much bearing on my post. And since your idea of getting me to do so proved that you had no interest in honest discussion I certainly have no interest in discussing it with you now. If you admit your error and apologise I will consider future discussion of other matters. But - thanks to your appalling behaviour here - that is as far as I am willing to go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Rhain writes: 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." Ok, I wasn't going to bring this up 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. And given what you say above I think the argument that you may risk alienating those that support you is proven. Do you recognise anything below?
In their 1989 manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, Harvard-educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the "gay agenda." They devised a three-pronged approach that included the following major strategies: (1) Desensitization: Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet. As the authors put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization. (2) Jamming: Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Wrote Kirk and Madsen: Jam homo-hatred by linking it to Nazi horror. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’" Kirk and Madsen added: In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable. In a related move, the authors and their ideological cohorts began to smear anyone who disagreed with their agendas as homophobes, hatemongers, and bigots. (3) Conversion: Kirk and Madsen called for the conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America," they said, "the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!" Kirk and Madsen actually admitted that their task was to manufactured a "gay civil rights" movement founded on the premise of widespread homosexual victimization. Adapted from "Unmasking the 'Gay' Agenda," by Matt Barber(February 13, 2008). Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Adapted from "Unmasking the 'Gay' Agenda," by Matt Barber By 'adapted' I assume the meaning is, changed so that its obvious homophobic roots wouldn't be quite so evident:
quote: Perhaps you should use a better source? Here's the original material, without the homophobe interjecting editorializing:
quote: I believe that is the original text of the section you quoted although I only found this section put together by a homophobe, it at least looks complete. Apologies for the formatting -pdfs can be annoying. The point of the book is largely in line with your arguments that gays should avoid aggressive combative tactics, appear to the normal every day guys and so on. In short it is a book that is arguing along similar lines as you have in this thread. Although it was from over 25 years ago now, and the camel's nose is in the tent. Hopefully we'll usher the rest of the body in soon enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Look at her words : "Second thought : However, as in the passage about meat sacrificed to idols, if my making food for such a festival was a matter of conscience for somebody else I would have to say no to it" ***************************** *************************************,,******************************************* *************************************************** Nevermind that she is back to ceremonial applications of the food prohibitions she desperately wants to ignore( she selectively parses food to be ceremonial and temporary while the fornication and possible "homosexual " parts of I Corinthians 6 and 10, in addition to Acts 15 and 21 and Revelation 2:14, are moral ). I just find it AMAZING that she has the audacity to place the burdens on OTHERS! She doesn't give a flying sh** about scripture but Galatians 6:2 says that the "law of Christ" (nomos Christou ) is about Christians bearing the burdens of others and Romans 15:1 says that meat eaters should cease for ever if vegetarians show a reaction to Christians consuming meat which indicates a conscious taking offense against the very activities which hurt their very real and powerful conscience itself. I know that Faith cares not one bit about what the scripture actually says and means, but her selectively self serving and judgmental slight of hand techniques should be noted for one thing.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Once the Supreme Court rules on something, then it is reasonable to incorporate that into the calculation. But when you just make up hypotheticals you are on your own. That's weird. Are we just automatons following the SC's protocols, or are we thinking humans talking about this stuff? If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."?
The Supreme Court at some future point could rule for or against any particular action being speech. In some cases the rulings about what is speech and what is not speech, (for example flag burning) are controversial. At this point, there is no ruling that baking a wedding cake is speech. The questions were what you, personally, think it ought to be. I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."? You are certainly free to agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. However, your question was based on extending their ruling to something else. Absent some ruling of that type, baking a cake, absent some message on it, isn't speech. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Okay, I'll consider you an automaton just following the Supreme Court's protocols.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024