Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Modulous writes:And I'm saying 'no'.

Faith writes:I'm surprised to be in agreement with Tangle at all about anything at all, but he's doing a very good job of making the case that good and decent people who are not discriminating against anybody are being persecuted for obeying their religion about the meaning of marriage and nothing else.

Faith writes:But only a Christian actually feels the sting of conscience about gay marriage, you don't so you're left ibtellectually supposing things about it without any real idea of what it's about.

Could happen. But conscience isn't a mere "principle," it's a sense of God's mind and heart, not something "established" or subject to alteration by mere thought.

Modulous writes:The law was passed before she opened her shop as far as I can tell. The law was passed in March 2007. She opened shop in the summer of 2007.

Modulous writes:The argument was that the law came out of nowhere. The counter-argument that it did not seems perfectly valid to me.

Further to this, the Klein's discussed the Masterpiece Bakeries cake a year earlier (the bakery that made a cake for a dog wedding, but refused the cake for a gay wedding in 2012) and had already decided they would act in contravention to the laws should the issue come to them, so even the argument that a business owner being ignorant of business laws applicable in their area at the time they were setting up their business ultimately falls over anyway.

Modulous writes:They not only had a reason to know, they had a legal and ethical duty to know.

Their response to learning a complaint was being raised, and the appropriate legislation under which they were running afoul to post the names and address of the couple on Facebook and talk about their 'brave stand' to Conservative media, proudly proclaim they would continue to refuse to serve same-sex couples and put up a sign in their window asserting this.

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?

You have directly stated that there is some sort of "artificial" activity going on (Message 129):

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."

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.

Rrhain writes:You still have an automatic response that gay people fighting for their rights is somehow "alienating."

Rrhain writes: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"

Rrhain writes: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!

Tangle writes:Just for the record, I obviously disagree that the people that refuse these services are right to do so. They are wrong both according to the law, according to an objective view of how people should treat and think of other people and also, rather sadly, contrary to Christian teachings of loving your neighbour and do as you would be done by. Jesus would not discriminate in this way. Your views are not Christian Faith.I defend the rights of LGBT people to fight for their right to be treated fairly and to take all legitimate actions to do.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.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. From memory, the UK case finished with a 500 fine - equivalent to a minor traffic offence.My personal view is that the cause would benefit from displaying tolerance to minor infractions rather than pursuing them through the courts.But I've said this many times now so I'll give it a rest for a while.

Rrhain writes: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.

Rrhain writes:That's just it, Tangle:You're not on my side.