So Indiana has caved to social and economic pressures and is forcing private Religious Right business owners to serve those that they consider "sinners". Worse yet the law will force them to decide if they want to stay in business, or support a lifestyle they see as sinful.
CNN Indiana Religious Freedom Law Fixed?
"The changes prohibit businesses from using the law as a defense in court for refusing "to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service." "
Here is an excellent example of a small family business that did not want to sacrifice their beliefs, and how those who say they support freedom and tolerance responded.
CNN Memories Pizza at Center of Religious Freedom Debate
""Who's going to Walkerton with me to burn down Memories Pizza?" Jessica Dooley of Goshen tweeted, according to the Walkerton Police Department. The account has been deleted since the tweet was posted. Detectives who investigated have recommended charges of harassment, intimidation and threats, according to Charles Kulp, assistant police chief."Now I am fine with LGBT folks making their choices and living their life the way they choose. I do strongly believe in tolerance and freedom. The problem with the current situation is that tolerance and freedom is not a one way street, it only really works if everyone practices it.
In this case we have a bunch of intolerant LGBT Bullies picking on anyone who believes differently than themselves. These bullies are working to pass morality laws that force everyone to accept, support and sanction the LGBT lifestyle, sodomy, cunnilingus, fellatio, etc. Now I know it sounds much prettier when you say the right to love who you choose... But the reality is that a lot of sexual acts that were/are taboo to many Americans come along with not having the normal interconnecting parts.
I keep hoping that some scientist is going to solve the mystery once and for all whether LGBT is like race, sex. age, etc, or if it is a lifestyle choice like clothing, volunteerism, criminality, alcoholism, etc. And I do understand that the LGBT Bullies are already convinced that it is not a lifestyle, but a physiological state of being. But the reality is that I so far have not found one study that can determine who is/will be LGBT and why. If you have data that proves LGBT is physiological and pre-determined, please share it with me.
Without this proof, American people should be free to see LGBT as pre-determined or a lifestyle choice. However the LGBT bullies want to use the rule of law to force their beliefs upon others. They want to force devout Religious people to forsake their religious beliefs and aid in activities that they see as sinful.
This seems very hypocritical for a group of people who preach tolerance and freedom...
86 comments:
"So Indiana has caved to social and economic pressures and is forcing private Religious Right business owners to serve those that they consider "sinners"."
Where discrimination is concerned, you can choose not to do business with someone for any reason, but not the wrong reason. You can't discriminate against a protected class for example. But sinners are not a protected class. It's perfectly legal for any business to refuse to deal with anyone who is sinning now or as committed a sin at some earlier point in his or her life.
--Hiram
In this case, LGBT Bullies have decided for all American citizens that same sex relationships, intercourse and supporting them are acceptable in the eyes of all Gods. (ie not a sin)
Without any significant scientific support, they have decided to enforce their fervent belief that these are LGBT people and not people who choose the LGBT lifestyle. And they are working to create a new protected class for those that many religious people see as sinful.
So apparently you are incorrect that...
"It's perfectly legal for any business to refuse to deal with anyone who is sinning now or as committed a sin at some earlier point in his or her life."
By the way, I am still waiting for some proof that LGBT is a "state of being" and not a "chosen behavior".
I believe that it is a "State of Being" for most LGBT people, however without proof it is just a BELIEF. Just like that of the Religious Right who BELIEVE same sex intercourse is a sin.
Therefore the LGBT and RR are both guilty of trying to mandate morality based on their beliefs. And both are willing to sacrifice tolerance and freedom to do so.
"State of being" is a meaningless phrase. It has no bearing on this discussion. What matters is the law. And, under the law, courts have ruled that discriminating against LGBT persons is a violation of their rights.
You can sit here ans spin your wheels over biological proof all you want -- it doesn't matter!
The reality is that you're right that telling a person that they have to serve LGBT people is a loss of their freedom, just as telling other folks that they have to serve African-Americans or Muslims or women is. But we do it because it's good for society as a whole.
It's funny, though, how LGBT folks are the "intolerant" ones when in more than 20 states you can lose your job just for being LGBT -- not your ability to do the job. In more than 20 states you can be denied the ability to rent an apartment just because you are LGBT. In over 10 states, LGBT couples have lesser rights to adoption than other couples. Only in the last 20 years, have LGBT persons been allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, and only openly for the last four years.
Since biological proof apparently does not matter, it implies that business owners and individuals need to serve anyone who shows up at their door no matter their beliefs, behaviors, etc?
Thus the PETA people must serve the Mink Farmers if asked. The LGBT folks must serve the LGBT Haters. The Religious Right needs to serve the Porno people. The Black business owners need to serve the KKK folk.
Is this really what the LGBT Bullies want? A country in which people have no free choice regarding who they serve or have stay in their spare bedroom?
"you can lose your job just for being LGBT"
By the way, here is that insidious belief again that requires an act of faith.
1. "Being LGBT" implies there is little or no choice. (ie state of being)
2. "People who engage in LGBT behaviors" implies free choice. (ie belief / behavior)
As long as #1 is not proven, Americans are free to belive in #2. That is what our country is all about.
"or have stay in their spare bedroom?"
Huh?
"to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing" to any customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service." "
Maybe we should add to this...
"customers based on "race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, United States military service", chosen profession, personal appearance, personal habits, personal behavior, personal attitude, etc"
or even simpler... "customers based on anything." If they show up at your door, you must do business with them.
Spare bedroom or lower level apartment.
Some people lease out spare rooms to make extra money. (ie business) Apparently these folks should have no say in who lives with them.
"Apparently these folks should have no say in who lives with them."
Once again, you're missing the point. You can't refuse to rent to a person solely because they are LGBT. You're free to do a background check and say no based on rental history or criminal background, etc.
" If they show up at your door, you must do business with them."
Again, no. A restaurant isn't required (because of cleanliness codes) to serve someone not wearing clothing, for instance.
"As long as #1 is not proven, Americans are free to belive in #2. That is what our country is all about."
No one is saying you can't believe it. You just can't discriminate in matters of business based on it.
So as long as the individual has good credit, no record, and has shoes/shirt, the landlord, business owner, etc has to do business with the individual?
The owner needs to lease to:
- LGBT / heterosexual couples even if they believe people should not co-habitate before marriage.
- Other people with behaviors that the owner disagrees with. Maybe gang members... People with a lot of weapons...
So you agree that the following are required then? I picked these to ensure legality, credit rating and health laws were not being violated. Only the sensibilities and beliefs of the business owner.
Thus the PETA people must serve the Mink Farmers if asked. The LGBT folks must serve the LGBT Haters. The Religious Right needs to serve the Porno people. The Black business owners need to serve the KKK folk.
How many times need I repeat myself?
I keep reading this.
"You can't refuse to rent or do business with a person solely because they are LGBT."
I am not reading.
"You can't refuse to rent or do business with a person solely because they are a KKK member, a mink farmer, involved in pornography, a gang member, a whale hunter, very sexually active, co-habitate before marriage, etc"
All of these are legal behaviors that some see as immoral and/or improper.
As someone who supports "You can't refuse to rent or do business with a person solely because they are LGBT."
Do you support the second statement that land lords and business owners must do business with everyone no matter how disagreeable they find them, their lifestyle, their appearance, etc?
And it even gets better and worse, the LGBT Bullies have the family in hiding. However the supporters of Personal Freedom are being very generous in supporting the couple who honored their religious beliefs rather than giving into the social morality bullies. This is getting exciting !!!
MSN Pizza Folks in Hiding
Here is an interesting discussion with a couple of Lesbians where the choice vs pre-determined issue arises.
CNN Doctor's Decision
A good thing the Conservatives are willing to put their money where their religious beliefs are, these LGBT bullies are tenacious and nasty.
I would refer you back to the first post I made in the other thread regarding this topic.
So the only folk who behave in a certain way that should be added to the protected class list are LGBT folk.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on this since it reflects the changing social norms. But to argue as a constitutional freedom seems to be opening the door for many more behaviors that the LGBT bullies won't like so much.
"...these LGBT bullies are tenacious and nasty."
So, apparently it's okay for Christians to get nasty when they 'feel' that their rights are threatened, but it's not okay for LGBT people and their allies to get nasty when their rights are being taken away?
What a lovely double standard you have, John. Pardon me while I double-check which country it is that I live in.
Joel
Hi Joel,
I was wondering that you had not weighed in. Now you realize that I believe it is the LGBT crowd that has the double standard.
"We want the freedom to live as we choose and we want our free will partnerships legally recognized."
"We demand that the Religious Right citizens be forced to ignore their beliefs and live as the LGBT wants them to."
Personally I think both sides should honor tolerances and freedom.
If the Pizza guy, Florist or Doctor, go find one that is more accepting of your lifestyle.
If you are a RR person, stop fighting against the LGBT folks. They are here to stay.
"If the Pizza guy, Florist or Doctor, go find one that is more accepting of your lifestyle."
That might work if you're in a metropolitan area, but it's not so easy in a rural area. If your pharmacist plays the religious objection card, you might have a significant drive to the next pharmacy.
Living as one believes is right is not always easy, ask the Pizza Family who was forced to close their business because of threats from intolerant LGBT supporters.
"We demand that the Religious Right citizens be forced to ignore their beliefs and live as the LGBT wants them to."
No. Not really.
Believe what you want. Live the way you want to live.
When these "Christian" bakers start kvetching about making cakes for people who are divorced or who can't prove their virginity, I'll take them seriously. Otherwise, it's just a whole lot of bigotry.
There likely are cases where RR folks have turned down second weddings, however it never made the news. And no one threatened to burn the business down.
Speculation.
How about we deal in facts?
Joel
I'm not going to defend the people who threatened the pizzeria, because it's incredibly wrong.
But let's not pretend here that it's the LGBT folks that have been the bullies on this issue over the years.
Tolerance is a two-way street, but one lane of it didn't open up in many places until just the last year or two (and in some places, it's still under construction).
" If your pharmacist plays the religious objection card, you might have a significant drive to the next pharmacy."
Sorry, but you don't get to override someone's religious belief just because it is inconvenient for you.
How convenient for people of "deeply held religious beliefs", that they can be free to discriminate against whoever they want without repercussion, but they are protected from the same being done to them.
Pardon me if I don't give a rat's behind about someone who will hide behind their 'faith' to deny the humanity of others.
There is a word to describe such people: cowards
Joel
Joel,
Since Sean worked around answering it, what do you think? Should people be legally forced to do business with those who they believe behave in a totally unacceptable manner?
"You can't refuse to rent or do business with a person solely because they are a KKK member, a mink farmer, involved in pornography, a gang member, a whale hunter, very sexually active, co-habitat before marriage, etc."
What type of human behavior makes you cringe? Would you be okay with being legally forced to serve that type of person? While they are doing what you very strongly disagree with?
Maybe catering that KKK meeting while they praise their pro-White Straight Christian views?
A lot of red herrings being thrown about here, none of which are relevant to the Indiana RFRA law. Quite simply, all the boogeymen being tossed out by the left simply do not happen. There are strict tests for when service can be refused.
I just keep imagining how I might react, were I the baker in question. Somebody comes in and wants a wedding cake. No problem, I do them all the time. Now he wants two guys on the top, and it becomes obvious it's a gay wedding. I'm sorry, sir, but we don't carry that topper. I'll make the cake and you find your own top, OK? No? You prefer death threats and getting government to force me to do something I don't do, and have a sincere religious objection to doing?
"Since Sean worked around answering it"
What do you not understand about my previous responses?
"Should people be legally forced to do business with those who they believe behave in a totally unacceptable manner?"
It is my deeply held religious belief that Christians behave in a totally unacceptable manner. They are self-proclaimed sinners, after all.
Should I be allowed to refuse service to Christians?
Being a Christian is a behavior I do not approve of. It is my right to not condone such behavior by refusing to do business with Christians.
Goodness, you people supporting this law sound ridiculous.
Joel
Sean,
Here is how I perceive your position.
Some courts have deemed that people who behave in LGBT ways should be a protected class, therefore everyone across the whole USA should acknowledge this and behave as such even though they see the behaviors as wrong or sinful.
Courts have NOT ruled that people who behave in other ways that some people find wrong or sinful should be a protected class, therefore they can be discriminated against.
I simply disagree with the logic. The idea that the "Constitution" protects one group who behaves in one way and does not protect another group who behaves in a different way seems flawed.
Now I understand that LGBT behavior is becoming more acceptable to many in our society. And they are willing to accept that people are LGBT even though no one understands the physiological reasons.
I just believe that Americans who still believe it is a choice/behavior should be free to not associate with LGBT folks until someone proves that it is a physical state. Just like I think the PETA folks should be free to not associate with mink farmers.
My belief is that you see things differently. I think you are okay with protecting people who behave in LGBT ways, while letting PETA discriminate against those who kill small furry rodents. This seems inconsistent to me.
Hi Joel,
No more ridiculous than the group who says.
"I want to be free to live my life as I choose, however I want to force others to behave as I wish."
"...until someone proves that it is a physical state."
Did you know that the brightest and best scientists don't understand the mechanics of gravity or exactly what causes it?
Yet the effects of gravity are easily observable and no one doubts that it is a force that actually exists.
Do you feel the same way about gravity as you do about the existence of gay people?
Joel
" The idea that the "Constitution" protects one group who behaves in one way and does not protect another group who behaves in a different way seems flawed."
I've never explicitly suggested the Constitution protects it. It's protected by civil rights law, which has been found to be within the parameters of the Constitution on many occasions.
"I just believe that Americans who still believe it is a choice/behavior should be free to not associate with LGBT folks until someone proves that it is a physical state."
Good for you. Again, under law, we protect many factors which are not "states of being". Federal employment discrimination law, for instance, covers religion, pregnancy, military service, among others. That doesn't mean, though, that we're required to accept anything that isn't a state of being. We discern as a culture where there is harm being done by discrimination and adjust the law as we see fit. If mink farmers are suffering discrimination, bring forth the evidence, and I'll consider it.
"It is my right to not condone such behavior by refusing to do business with Christians." --Joel
First thing you've said correctly. If you want a cake celebrating a gay marriage, I highly encourage you to find a bakery not run by someone with religious objections. It is your right. But do you recognize their right not to do business with you?
"Do you feel the same way about gravity as you do about the existence of gay people?"
PMFBI, Absolutely not. If gravity behaved "normally" for 20 years and then suddenly decided to do the opposite, I would consider your comparison valid, but it would prove the point that gravity had "chosen" to do what it did, and that gravity had not been "born that way."
Even if I concede to you that a gay orientation can be physiologically determined or manifested, I refuse to accept that gay BEHAVIOR is anything but chosen. If what you posit is true, we are only a short step from eliminating natural-born criminal [behavior] through selective infanticide. [Invoke Godwin's law here.]
"religion, pregnancy, military service"
As we discussed before. Religion is a special case because of how our country was founded.
I think the pregnant and military service are pretty black and white "states of being". One was in the military or not. One is pregnant or not.
"We discern as a culture where there is harm being done by discrimination..."-- Sean
That statement is correct as far as it goes, but there are two significant problems with it. First, the RFRA laws on the books do not excuse discrimination, or at least never have. What they do is to balance the "harm" of refusal of service or association with the harm of violating someone's religious rights.
The second problem is that in most of these trumped-up or wholly imaginary scenarios, the harm to the victim is actually minimal. For example, Baker A has some specific religious objection to the cake you want. That Baker may or may not have an objection to ANY cake for your occasion. Why can you not ask the baker what cake he/she might make, or find another Baker, or bake your own, or buy one off the shelf at the supermarket, or have a wedding reception without cake? Really, does the Baker's principled and polite refusal warrant death threats?
"I think the pregnant and military service are pretty black and white "states of being". One was in the military or not. One is pregnant or not."
One has a choice to join the military or not or to get pregnant or not, it's not a "from birth" scenario.
"First, the RFRA laws on the books do not excuse discrimination, or at least never have. What they do is to balance the "harm" of refusal of service or association with the harm of violating someone's religious rights. "
Well, that's true. But what made the Indiana law different was the fact that its wording allowed for discrimination -- that was the specific intent of it. It's also why the controversy has largely died down now that changes have been made to bring it back in line with other similar laws that have been passed in other states or at the federal level.
"But what made the Indiana law different was the fact that its wording allowed for discrimination."
If true, I agree with the fix. I haven't seen the text that might lead one to that assessment, nor am I aware of what, exactly, was changed to quell the uproar. My inclination, based only on what I assume to be rational, is that Indiana was no different than most other such laws, because it wouldn't make sense to break a lot of new ground on something this controversial. I also assume the change was cosmetic-- a symbolic victory for the critics. I'm also assuming that the over-the-top reaction was totally unwarranted and a sideshow for raw political purposes. Does anyone imagine that, had Gov. Pence been a Democrat, the outrage would have been the same?
Here's a link to an analysis of the bill's wording. In particular, point #3 is the one frequently discussed (although #1 is also important).
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/
'PMFBI, Absolutely not. If gravity behaved "normally" for 20 years and then suddenly decided to do the opposite, I would consider your comparison valid, but it would prove the point that gravity had "chosen" to do what it did, and that gravity had not been "born that way."'
You always manage to miss the point. It must be those pre-conceived delusions you hold on to so rabidly.
The point is, of course, that there are many things that we don't know the source or cause of, or the mechanics behind, that we accept at face value because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of their existence.
It would be amusing, if it wasn't so damaging to our society, that people like you cling to your stubborn notions despite the mountains of evidence staring you in the face.
Joel
Laws Wording
Joel,
What mountains of evidence are you referring to? One of my links points to a Medical Doctor who still thinks lesbianism is a choice.
I am always asking for facts and data that prove otherwise.
Literally millions upon millions of people, right before your eyes, dismissed simply as 'behaviors'. That's your evidence.
Joel,
No one is dismissing people.
They are questioning choice/behavior or physiology/state of being?
On the upside, a slight majority of Americans including myself are in the physiology/state of being camp even though there is no clinical proof.
Does gravity cease to be real because we can't pinpoint what causes it?
Does inborn homosexuality cease to be real because we can't pinpoint its source?
We have ample evidence for both phenomena. But if you refuse to see it you will be blind to it.
Joel
Hi Joel,
I understand your frustration, though I am still unsure of the LGBT ample evidence.
Gravity has a huge benefit, everyone experiences it daily.
Gravity Mystery
Joel, you are failing to make the obvious distinction between orientation and behavior. Do you believe people are born to be criminals, or do they choose criminal behavior? I am still of the school that says all behavior is chosen, period. It has to be or no one is responsible for their actions anymore.
Now, if you happen to have a homosexual /orientation/, I might believe there is a physiological or psychological driver that would be difficult to change, but I am not going to be inclined to discriminate against you because I have no idea about it until you engage in some telling behavior. It's not like you walk into my bakery shop and you are black. Those things one can notice, and the vast majority of people would agree that discrimination based on race is not good. But discrimination based on behavior? We do it all the time, and it is right we do so. It's the basis of law.
Thanks for the citation, Sean. I don't think it really helped me by presenting both sides. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really see what the argument is. It all looks pretty clear to me, and I'm not seeing the problem the opponents see in it. It seems to be splitting hairs based on hypotheticals and we would be a lot better off, IMHO, if these kinds of interpersonal problems could be resolved by people of good will acting cooperatively, rather than getting the law involved in everything.
"Joel, you are failing to make the obvious distinction between orientation and behavior. Do you believe people are born to be criminals, or do they choose criminal behavior? I am still of the school that says all behavior is chosen, period. It has to be or no one is responsible for their actions anymore."
Always comparing homosexuals to criminals. Why am I not surprised?
Left-handed people used to be forced to become right-handed until we realized how stupid it is to do such a thing.
Do you believe sexuality in general to be an inborn trait?
Joel
"Do you believe sexuality in general to be an inborn trait?"
I think people are born, with very rare exception, as either male or female. Almost everyone can function as their biological gender would dictate, so if some choose NOT to do so, it simply must be a choice.
And I compare homosexuals to criminals only to argue that human beings do not have genetically-driven behaviors.
None of that is to argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose. But they should not demand that the rest of us approve of their choices. Tolerance has to go both ways or it's not tolerance.
"...human beings do not have genetically-driven behaviors."
This statement is demonstrably false.
"But they should not demand that the rest of us approve of their choices."
Nobody gives a rat's behind if you approve or not. Equal and fair treatment in public accommodations is quite a simple request and is all that is being asked for.
Joel
Maybe instead of criminals, we could use people who choose be charitable / volunteers.
I think all of us are capable and intrinsically driven to help others to some degree, however people choose to honor that feeling to different degrees.
"Equal and fair treatment in public accommodations is quite a simple request and is all that is being asked for."
Actually you are asking for:
"Equal and fair treatment in public and private accommodations is quite a simple request and is all that is being asked for."
Remembering that businesses are "Privately Owned" institutions.
Unfortunately ensuring your freedom to live as you choose impinges on the freedoms of another group of people to live as they choose. That is why we have this conflict.
This is how "public accommodation" is defined in federal law:
7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
"I think all of us are capable and intrinsically driven to help others to some degree..."
So you're saying it's innate. Thank you.
Joel
"This statement is demonstrably false."
OK, please demonstrate.
"Nobody gives a rat's behind if you approve or not."
So why must my approval be forced, by forcing me to do business with you? If my disapproval means nothing to you, why are you so insistent that I cannot have it, say it, or act on it?
I mean:
It's fascinating that you and jerry separate the brain from the body in order to give different traits different classifications.
Physical trait (skin color, eye color, etc.): Innate
Behavioral trait - part of brain function (sexuality, handed-ness, charity, eye-dominance): Not innate
Truly fascinating. And completely ridiculous.
Joel
"So why must my approval be forced, by forcing me to do business with you? If my disapproval means nothing to you, why are you so insistent that I cannot have it, say it, or act on it?"
You're not listening. A person need not approve of something in order to conduct business. Public accommodations cannot discriminate. It is the law and should be the law.
Joel
Joel,
Personally I don't care about the whole topic, however their are RR and LGBT folks who do.
No one cares about left/right, eye dominance, etc, however some people do believe that man/man and woman/woman sexual actions are unnatural and obscene.
Would you really be happy serving appetizers or taking pictures of an event that you thought was unnatural or obscene? That may be perceived by your God as aiding in the sin.
Would you really want to be forced to do so?
By the way, public accommodations can discriminate and often do based on behavior, dress, smell,financial status, etc. That is why LGBT is such a gray area.
Which is why LGBT folks should be a protected class everywhere.
It's the same argument that has come up every time a new group of people demands human rights.
The establishment always fights against it.
Joel
There lies the problem...
"Group of People" typically means a people with the same religion, physical characteristics or history, not people with the same behavior.
By the way, what is your answer?
"Would you really be happy serving appetizers or taking pictures of an event that you thought was unnatural or obscene? That may be perceived by your God as aiding in the sin. Would you really want to be forced to do so?"
'"Group of People" typically means a people with the same religion, physical characteristics or history, not people with the same behavior.'
You say behavior, I say characteristic. A person is homosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not, just as a heterosexual person is heterosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not.
Also,
'My god' and 'sin' are irrelevant to a business transaction.
Joel
Please prove this.
"A person is homosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not, just as a heterosexual person is heterosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not."
And I will be right with you telling the RR to stuff it.
John, the alternative makes no sense, that a person doesn't have a sexuality unless they are currently engaging in sexual activity.
I'm just sitting here at my desk, having no idea if I'm heterosexual or homosexual or neither or something no one's ever thought of before.
Given those circumstances, it's a wonder the human species propagates at all, since we're all wandering around in a fog, clueless about our own sexual desires.
Joel
Joel,
I think the fuzzy part comes in how we choose to act or not act on those sexual desires. My 23rd wedding anniversary is on Saturday and I love my wife.
On the other hand, I am a terrible husband in that I am easily distracted by other attractive women. Now this means I have a choice regarding what I do with that sexual urge. Thankfully I have always just let it pass.
So we are back to the question, which is easy for you to answer since you are "living it". And not so easy for people who are not "living it".
Are we Homosexual people, Bi-sexual people, Heterosexual people, Transexual People?
or
Are we all just people who engage in different sexual behaviors and relationships?
How would one prove which is TRUE?
Other than saying "believe me because I know"...
"A person is homosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not, just as a heterosexual person is heterosexual whether they engage in sexual activity or not."
Absolutely true! However, there is a great distinction between celibate gays and practicing (i.e. behaving) gays. Some churches will ordain celibate gay clergy, but not practicing gays. Likewise, a gay person wants a birthday cake, who cares? A wedding cake, we may have a problem, because that is a behavioral trait.
I have a problem with including gays as a protected class, not because of their "innate" gayness, but because of their behavior choices. OK in private, don't want to know about it, certainly don't want to be a party to it. If you're gay and I don't know, you get treated like everybody else and I don't have a problem with a law mandating such human decency. Unfortunately, it seems to have come to the point where we want a law for every human interaction, and it is destroying our common humanity. We used to just "all get along." Now we have to have a lawyer present.
"We used to just "all get along."
That's just absurd. When was this?
I did not mean that we all loved, tolerated or appreciated each other. I meant that You thought what you wanted of me, and I thought what I wanted of you, and maybe we found a way to do business together because of, or in spite of, our differences. Human relationships used to be voluntary. Now they seem to be a matter of law.
"Human relationships used to be voluntary. "
I just don't think history supports that view. Maybe as a white, straight, male it was that way for you, but I suspect that folks in different categories would have a very different perspective.
"I just don't think history supports that view."
To the extent we have had dictatorships, serfdom, slavery, that sort of thing, you are correct. But outside those regimes and in recent US history, most people have been free to associate with anybody that agreed to associate with them. Interactions were voluntary but had to be voluntary in both directions. "Free association," that sort of thing. OK, a more specific example. A white man was free to attend a black church, and was accepted. Vice versa was generally true. That most chose not to do so didn't mean they weren't allowed to do so. Nor legally required to do so.
Jerry,
I think you are digging yourself a hole.
And did you really admit that sexuality homo/hetero may be innate? If so, we are making some real progress here.
"And did you really admit that sexuality homo/hetero may be innate? If so, we are making some real progress here."
That's what I read, as well...in between the lines of "you can be homosexual, but you can't BE homosexual."
Joel
Or more so:
"you are homosexual, but you can't behave openly per your innate nature because some people will be offended"
I think that's what I just said.
:-)
Joel
John,
I'm trying to understand your previous comments about your finding women other than your wife attractive and that being a distraction sometimes.
My question to you: If your sexuality is not innate, how do you know to find those other women attractive? What thought process do you go through to make such a determination? Or is it immediate and visceral?
I'm trying my best to understand what seems to be a huge disconnect between the way you experience sexuality and the way you seem to perceive other people, particularly homosexuals, experience their own sexuality.
Joel
I'm digging a hole only because you don't want to distinguish between inclinations (inborn or otherwise) and actual behavior.
I don't know why you are gay. I don't know if you ARE gay, and I don't care, one way or the other; you're a stranger to me. And I don't care what you do in private; it doesn't affect me (so long as it's consensual). But when you come into the public space and DEMAND that I accept your public /behavior/, you are discriminating against me for having "heteronormative" thoughts, and we oppose discrimination, don't we?
"...that I accept your public /behavior/, you are discriminating against me for having "heteronormative" thoughts, and we oppose discrimination, don't we?"
"Heteronormative"? That literally made me laugh out loud. Goodness, you just have no idea.
You can have any 'heteronormative' thoughts you want, but why do you think you can come into the public space and DEMAND that people who are made differently than you need to accept it?
Joel
I don't demand anything of the sort. We have a standoff and should leave each other alone, or we can tolerate each other at our option. But that's a two-way street, remember?
Let's try smoking as an analogy. I won't claim nicotine addiction is inborn, but it can certainly be chosen. Now, so long as you do it at home, I don't much care, and shouldn't. If you try it at my house, I'm going to politely ask you to take it outside. If you come into my place of business I'm going to point to the no smoking sign. I was once in a campfire circle with a bunch of church youth, and one of the kids lit up. I apparently had that "look" on my face, noticed by the youth leader, who said, "That's just Annie, she smokes, and we accept that about her." "Fine," says I, "I will accept that, but she has to accept that I don't approve of it." I wasn't told "we don't care what you think," as you did a bit ago, because apparently they DID care.
Why do you think Annie should care that you don't approve of her smoking? And what exactly would her acceptance of your disapproval look like?
I don't care whether Annie cares what I think or not. I only care that she doesn't tell me I'm not allowed to disapprove, nor to say something accordingly. If she accepted my disapproval (as something I truly believed, say), she could still continue smoking just like always. Or she could quit because she thought there was a reason for my (and no doubt others') disapproval, her choice. Or she could just not smoke around ME, a reasonable tolerance from both sides.
Post a Comment