Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

lokiare writes: If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

As I recall, the Constitution goes to some lengths to protect my right to make my own choices.

I'd say that if meat folks began persecuting veggie folks (denying them equal access to marriage, housing, employment, etc.), then vegetarianism would need to be "protected under the law."

Could you explain why only those aspecst of human life that are seen as biologically determined should be protected against persecution and bigotry? Under your rubric, religious liberty would suffer considerable harm.

lokiare writes: The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry.

You're half right: bigotry is indeed an inner state, not a behavior; persecution and other discriminatory acts are behavior.

I am astonished that you will not defend your premise that only biologically determined characteristics should be protected by law, preferring to claim the question is an attempt to "box you in".

But you have boxed yourself. Without that premise, your argument is nonsense.

I find some religious tenets abhorrent: may I refuse service to anyone I suspect of embracing them?

lokiare writes: So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians.

No, the equivalent would be refusing to serve salads to vegetarians because they won't eat the meat.

It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.

One frequently hears that a chorus of condemnation is an affront to free speech rights. That's as ridiculous as your attempt to allocate equal treatment under the law on biologic grounds.

It is also typically the complaint of bigots.

lokiare writes: It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show).

You seem appalled to find that this forum spurns bare links and cut-and-pasted blocks of text as evidence in scientific debate.

A bare link is exactly what it sounds like: a link to awebsitethatagreeswithme.com, without any summary of specific data, studies or methodologies. In effect, you tell your readers to refute a mass of material at which you have vaguely gestured, making no effort of your own.

Similarly, your cut-and-paste laundry list of quotes and claims offers none of your own analysis or any reason for a reader to think they are true.

Neither of these are valid means of conducting scientific debate.

Cite your study: a link to the actual text is useful. Summarize the data and the analytical methodologies; tell us why you think it is sound.

Did you truly believe that linking to that list of material, or simply pasting it here, amounted to scientific debate? That the expression of an opinion elsewhere can be validly characterized as a fact?

lokiare writes: Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.

Oh the irony.

lokiare writes: Refusing service isn't bigotry. Its refusing service.

They'd have loved you at the Woolworth's Lunch Counter in Greensboro.

lokiare writes: Again, can anyone provide some proof in the form of studies, facts, or articles?

You made an assertion that you refuse to support with evidence.

No one has any obligation to refute what you cannot support.

lokiare writes: lokiare writes: Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward. Oh the irony. Yes I know. Its like people don't understand what is a theory (evolution of specific animals from specific ancestors with very little proof to back it up) and what is fact (a long list of studies that point to a specific outcome).

So present your summary of the one scientific study that best supports your contention.

I doubt you've ever read the full text of a peer-reviewed study in your entire life.

But I could be wrong. Show me.

lokiare writes: Experience or not doesn't matter, logic dictates that you refute the evidence and facts not the source. Which no one in this thread has decided to do up to this post.

Bring some.

lokiare writes: Equating homosexuality to the civil rights movement is a false dichotomy. You are comparing a purely genetic set of traits to a non-genetic(according to all evidence shown in this thread) choice based mental affiliation (thousands have chosen to change back to being heterosexual). Have fun with that.

I know, I know--and you with gay friends, too!

Equating homosexuality with the civil rights movement? Lokiare, dear heart--that's not what I was doing at all: I'm equating you with every garden variety bigot I've ever encountered.

You have shown no evidence in this thread. Anecdotes are not evidence; links to press material are not evidence. You have established no facts.

I know this probably puts me on your ignore list, an honor I will try to bear with dignity.

Given your homophobia (the only psychological disorder you have actually demonstrated), the future of our increasingly tolerant society will be painful for you.

Have fun with that.

lokiare writes: Actually I did, however I'll go through tomorrow or in a few days and do the whole 3 page wall of text thing with a long list of studies that have been done, excerpts from them, and links to the sites where they can be found. Its getting late here though so I'm going to try to finish up posting what's in the thread.

Actually, you didn't.

Don't go for bulk, lokiare, it betrays thinness on the ground.

Just one sound, peer-reviewed study. Easy peasy.

That's wonderful news!

"Candy Dale" is perfect. I'm waiting for the conspiracy theories.

Faith writes: It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. A wedding cake is a specially ordered service that is specific to the celebration of a wedding. That's what makes it a problem for a Christian baker who has been asked to make such a cake for a gay wedding. As I've also said over and over there would be no problem for the baker with any other kind of bakery goods a gay person wanted for any other kind of celebration or any other reason.

Here's the problem I have with your reasoning, Faith:

As I understand it, your position is that the Christian baker should not have to sell the wedding cake for a gay wedding, because it makes him or her complicit in the celebration of an explicit and unrepentant act of sin. In fact, as Christians, they have a religious duty to not knowingly do so.

It's seems fair to expect the Christian baker to know some basic facts about the human condition--to know that some kids' birthday cakes are sold to pedophile parents, anniversary cakes sold to adulterers, and tray of pastries sold to rapists and thieves who curry favor with or lure their victims using those sweet temptations. Whenever one decides to provide services and/or goods to the public, one must know those goods and services serve the actions and intentions of both angels and devils.

So when you object to a particular sale and tell me that the baker cannot knowingly cater to unrepentant sinners, I think, well, the baker decided to do that when they opened the business. I guarantee that baker sells something to unrepentant sinners every day, and on at least some occasions, that sale becomes part of the enabling context of that sin, if not a direct furtherance of it.

It seems to me that Christians are comfortable selling their goods to unrepentant sinners unless they cannot pretend to be ignorant of the fact--even though they cannot possibly be ignorant of that fact. But that fact is a predictable, widely known part of the human condition. Like a government seeking plausible deniability, the baker wants to profit from a moral blind eye 99.9% of the time, but to open that eye when the rest of the world can see.

I don't think the "Christian bakers" are concerned about doing business with sinners of any stripe: I think they are concerned about their own self-righteousness and their social status (and continued prosperity) within their church community. That stance seems hypocritical in the extreme.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Edited by Omnivorous, : keep those typos rollin', rawhide

ringo writes: Jesus wuld have turned the water into cake.

Chocolate cake.

I'm sure we mutually feel our respective points are being missed; I don't feel that mine is even being addressed.

To answer your question, I'd say I would refuse to decorate a cake with a white supremacist slogan, but I wouldn't refuse to sell a cake to a white supremacist, who could take the "25 Wonderful Years!" cake to the party celebrating an anniversary of his particular pocket of nasty--just as I supported the ACLU when they defended the rights of American Nazis to march.

For me, it boils down to the Christian baker claiming the right to refuse anyone service on the grounds of the baker's religious beliefs about the buyer's personal beliefs or practices.

As I've demonstrated, the baker is perfectly content to sell cakes to persons whose practices are repellent to his religious beliefs, even if they further or celebrate those repellent practices, as long as the baker can claim the cloak of ignorance in that specific case.

That still seems like hypocritical nonsense to me, a distinction made to avoid financial loss (drawing a line where it isn't too dear, for that very reason), and I'm glad we have laws for businesses who serve the public which prevent it. This supposedly principled stand is honored more often in the breach than the observance; the genuinely principled stand would be to avoid the open marketplace, where compromise and tolerance are mandated by secular law. But that stand isn't profitable.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.