S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[TranquilMind]

Really?  So what you are saying is that you could just as easily be sexually attracted to a woman right now?

 

Do you recall exactly when as a child you looked at boys and girls and decided that you liked boys better?

 

It sounds to me as if you believe we are all innately bisexual.

Right now?  No.

 

I'm in my mid -fifties.  I'm pretty set in my ways. 

 

At 10 or 13, if some older girl had exposed a young girl to this experience (not anything I even knew existed in my adolescence), and the young girl was lonely and disconnected from family (or abused),  seeking to fit in somewhere with someone.......who knows? 

Stuck in Juvie?  (I met several of these girls in situational relationships). Yes, it makes quite the difference. 

[FaithManor]

Okay, so what you are stating is that homosexuals do not choose their orientation, but they should also not engage in non-heterosexual activities such as sex, marriage, other types of intimacy? Is that it? I still don't understand. Do you admit that they may be born with one orientation or another or do you believe everyone is born without orientation and chooses, or ...? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

If the argument is that people choose their orientation, then the only way that would be true is if all humans were born bisexual. That's why I am confused. I don't understand the point you are making about orientation. I think that is where the communication problem between us is happening.

 

 

[ocelotmom]

Ha ha.  Ok.  Sure, that's it....for all of them.    No one can possibly have an opinion that varies from sexual "orthodoxy" today. 

 

It is "how it's been" because of the circumstances at the time they made decisions to venture into sexual activity.   There is always a choice as history demonstrates, but any given individual may not recognize it at the time, so tends more to the conventional. 

 

So the people on this thread claiming they never made a choice to be attracted strictly to the opposite sex are either lying or delusional?

[zoobie]

Right now? No.

 

I'm in my mid -fifties. I'm pretty set in my ways.

 

At 10 or 13, if some older girl had exposed a young girl to this experience (not anything I even knew existed in my adolescence), and the young girl was lonely and disconnected from family (or abused), seeking to fit in somewhere with someone.......who knows?

Stuck in Juvie? (I met several of these girls in situational relationships). Yes, it makes quite the difference.

So people only become gay because of predatorial relationships? You think no emotionally healthy people are homosexual?

[TranquilMind]

I have to admit I don't remember picking my sexual attraction.  I just remember when I was around 12 that a boy named Shannon looked quite dreamy when his hair was a little sweaty after PE and stuck to his forehead in little rings. *sigh*

None of us consciously decide to be attracted to a certain type of person.  It's a matter of exposure and experiences one has had. 

[TranquilMind]

So people only become gay because of predatorial relationships? You think no emotionally healthy people are homosexual?

I didn't say that they "only" have predatory relationships.  But it does happen. 

 

And every relationship begins because someone makes an overture.  That alone doesn't make that person a predator. 

 

I'm sure there are many other factors, and I've stated a few. 

[TranquilMind]

So the people on this thread claiming they never made a choice to be attracted strictly to the opposite sex are either lying or delusional?

Nope.  You are conflating thoughts with actions. They are not the same, thankfully, because we have all had thoughts about things flit through our heads (not limited to sexual thoughts in any way) that we really don't want to do or won't do (like eat the whole pie!).  Anyone who acted on attractions he/she has felt has made a choice about doing so. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No.  Of course not.  How are you drawing that conclusion that "but-for" my faith, I'd be doing that?    That is an illogical assumption, that ONLY my faith somehow restrains my desire.  ??

 

I'm stating that we all decide who we want to have sex and relationships with, and then we do that. 

 

Married decades, thanks. 

 

Well you said:

"When I determined to act in accordance with my upbringing, religious beliefs, and values."

 

That was in response to me asking when you chose to be heterosexual.  So, did you use values and religious beliefs to suppress your homosexual desires before you went down the path of heterosexuality?  That seems to be what you are saying.

[zoobie]

I didn't say that they "only" have predatory relationships. But it does happen.

 

I'm sure there are many other factors, and I've stated a few.

That's totally warped and contradictory of accepted social science and biological research. The thought process represents a level of bigotry on par with people thinking blacks (or Jews) are somehow less advanced or optimal creatures than whites or Gentiles.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

None of us consciously decide to be attracted to a certain type of person.  It's a matter of exposure and experiences one has had. 

 

Wait...so how does a boy who has had no sexual experiences or been exposed to homosexuality become homosexual? 

[FaithManor]

So, could the baker (in your opinion) have refused to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple, if the baker believes (and PLENTY of people do) that interracial marriage is unBiblical?

 

Excellent question that has not been answered!

[TranquilMind]

 

Really, the problem is that marriage is something that has been defined by and managed by government for a long time. Marriage exists in cultures outside of the US. It exists outside of the Christian religion. Christians don't own the term marriage. Christians (as a whole, as the church or as individuals) don't get to decide for everyone else what marriage means. Christians don't even get to decide whether someone else's marriage is based in religion. But, that is clearly what some people want to do. They want to pretend that they own the term, despite facts, despite history. It's wrong. It's judgmental. It's unkind. It gives non-Christians the wrong idea about Christianity and its purpose.

 

 

Which is why a percentage of people (including Christians) do not believe that all homosexuality is proscribed. People have posted articles and links for you that talk about this. Are you actually interested in learning what the other side really thinks and why they think that or not? Not to mention, not everyone is religious. If the person you are talking to fits in either of the previous two categories, then you are not going to have a meeting of the minds. Have you considered using a phrase like, "I believe" instead of insisting that you know the mind of God exclusive of everyone else discussing?

 

Even if you were 100% correct, we don't decide laws by religion.

 

I haven't seen your answer to the questions posed to you by Frances about what it is you *want*.

 

(to paraphrase)

Do you believe that civil rights protections should be eliminated?

 

If so, aren't you worried that doing so will eventually mean that you are not protected under the law?

 

Do you understand public accommodation laws and why they exist?

 

Do you think public accommodation laws should not exist? If you DO think they should exist, then do you believe exceptions should *only* be made for conservative Christians or for other groups as well? What would be your dividing line?

 

And a question that I asked-do you not care that groups like Stormfront would claim a deeply, sincerely held belief that black people carry the Curse of Ham? They would immediately insist on not serving black people and/or interracial couples. Does this matter to you?

 

Do you simply *not care* that eliminating civil rights laws/public accommodation laws would result in rampant discrimination in some parts of the country?

 

Do you *not care* that some people (including some people posting in this thread) would not be able to stop for gas or get a hotel? How are they supposed to know? Do you not care that it dehumanizes and humiliates *people* for them to have to guess where they may or may not be served?

 

It is a proven fact that market forces are not enough to stop it. The bakery owner in the Colorado case is enjoying booming business as a result of his bigotry. Because laws exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This phrase appears to have been coined by John Adams, but was referred to by multiple early patriots. Do you disagree with this notion?

 

Would you like to do away with the constitution so that we can have majority rule so that minority groups are not protected?

I did answer a number of these upthread, but I'm not going to go hunt for them.

 

I am well- versed on public accommodation laws. 

You are attempting to conflate civil rights protections that exist with this current issue of a behavior. 

 

No one is talking about black people getting a hotel room or gas, who were discriminated against because of their immutable, indisputable characteristics of birth.   I'm not going to re-invent the wheel on that one.  It is not at issue.  This is solely about one group forcing a curtailment of a wedding servicer's religious freedom to decline an event.    Religious freedom is protected in the First Amendment;while you are advocating the right of a small group to suspend the religious expression of another group.  Not ok.  Small group can get their cakes anywhere and the other small group of Christian bakers should be free to decline events that conflict with direct proscriptions in their faith. 

[TranquilMind]

Excellent question that has not been answered!

It has been answered, and answered early on in the thread.  Moses married a black woman.  Nothing in the New Testament calls marriage between a man and a woman of different melanin levels an abomination.   

 

Asked and answered. 

[Scrub Jay]

When I determined to act in accordance with my upbringing, religious beliefs, and values. 

 

We all made choices.  Not just me.   

 

When did you determine this, though?  Like did you sit down and journal it out and have a long walk to think it over?

 

Honestly, if you had to "decide" you were straight it makes me wonder if you actually are not straight and are just denying who you are as a person.

 

[TranquilMind]

Wait...so how does a boy who has had no sexual experiences or been exposed to homosexuality become homosexual? 

Oh come on....you are being ridiculous.   Was he raised in a cell in solitary confinement without media exposure or contact of any kind?  I didn't think so. 

 

We are all overwhelmed with a number of sexual images from infancy today, unless our parents do a terribly excellent job of screening them all out (almost impossible, and even if they do, someone else is happy to come along and expose your kids - even friends of your kids' friends!  You can know your friends, but you can never know everyone and everything to which  anyone has been exposed ). 

 

Everyone has been exposed.  It isn't even just the exposure itself; it is the root that takes hold after exposure that will shape us, the imaginations that we do not cast down. 

And now we have gone from this one cake baker who cannot decline wedding business that conflicts with his faith to  - why and how does homosexuality occur.

We all have theories, but not proof. 

[Scrub Jay]

Oh come on....you are being ridiculous.   Was he raised in a cell in solitary confinement without media exposure or contact of any kind?  I didn't think so. 

 

We are all overwhelmed with a number of sexual images from infancy today, unless our parents do a terribly excellent job of screening them all out (almost impossible, and even if they do, someone else is happy to come along and expose your kids - even friends of your kids' friends!  You can know your friends, but you can never know everyone and everything to which  anyone has been exposed ). 

 

Everyone has been exposed.  It isn't even just the exposure itself; it is the root that takes hold after exposure that will shape us, the imaginations that we do not cast down. 

And now we have gone from this one cake baker who cannot decline wedding business that conflicts with his faith to  - why and how does homosexuality occur.

We all have theories, but not proof. 

 

OK, but gay people have existed since way before the media.  How did those people "decide" to be gay?

 

And if it is only through exposure to other gays ("catching the gay" I guess), how did the very first gay person come about?

 

[Mrs Mungo]

edited because the quote boxes are not working correctly, all quotes are from Tranquil Mind-

 

I did answer a number of these upthread, but I'm not going to go hunt for them.

 

I am well- versed on public accommodation laws.

 

You are attempting to conflate civil rights protections that exist with this current issue of a behavior.

I'm not conflating *anything*. I'm talking about the *actual law*.

 

No one is talking about black people getting a hotel room or gas, who were discriminated against because of their immutable, indisputable characteristics of birth. I'm not going to re-invent the wheel on that one. It is not at issue.

You. Are. Wrong. There are groups who *absolutely* claim that their racism has religious roots. It doesn't matter if YOUR personal religion doesn't. If you want to provdie religious exceptions, then wouldn't that have to apply to *everyone*? Can't you see that? Or do you think religious exceptions should be made for people who think exactly like you, only? How do we make a law like that?

 

This is solely about one group forcing a curtailment of a wedding servicer's religious freedom to decline an event.

That isn't how the law works.

 

Religious freedom is protected in the First Amendment;while you are advocating the right of a small group to suspend the religious expression of another group. Not ok. Small group can get their cakes anywhere and the other small group of Christian bakers should be free to decline events that conflict with direct proscriptions in their faith.

So, a Stormfront member who believes that interracial marriage is unBiblical (in spite of your own interpretation of The Bible), then they should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, yes or no? Again, are we making exceptions for religious beliefs at large or only for people who think exactly like you? How would you write the law to prevent such acts? You aren't actually answer the question, you are deflecting.

 

It has been answered, and answered early on in the thread. Moses married a black woman. Nothing in the New Testament calls marriage between a man and a woman of different melanin levels an abomination.

 

According to YOUR interpretation. Are you saying that only your personal religion deserves exceptions?

[TranquilMind]

When did you determine this, though?  Like did you sit down and journal it out and have a long walk to think it over?

 

Honestly, if you had to "decide" you were straight it makes me wonder if you actually are not straight and are just denying who you are as a person.

 

Ha ha...well, yes, that is the current spin today.  Who journals it out and has a long walk to think it over? 

 

 If one ever made any conscious decisions in the sexual realm about appropriate or inappropriate partners - as we all did, by the way -then one must be struggling with sexuality.  Maybe those inappropriate partners were married, or had a girlfriend, or were too old, instead of this issue, but we still all made decisions. 

 

No. It is the default position of humans to be attracted to the opposite gender, because that is how God created us.   

 

 

 

[Joker]

TranquilMind, I never chose to like boys. I had my first crush when I was five. I have always liked boys that way. I had a girl kiss me when I was a teen and it did nothing for me. I told her that I liked boys. It didn't make me suddenly question and have to choose. There was never any choice. If all males suddenly disappeared today, I still would not have that kind of relationship with women.

 

I'm actually beginning to wonder with others if many who feel it is a choice maybe had a choice in their own relationships to which sex they would prefer. It's interesting.

[TranquilMind]

edited because the quote boxes are not working correctly, all quotes are from Tranquil Mind-

 

 

I'm not conflating *anything*. I'm talking about the *actual law*.

 

 

You. Are. Wrong. There are groups who *absolutely* claim that their racism has religious roots. It doesn't matter if YOUR personal religion doesn't. If you want to provdie religious exceptions, then wouldn't that have to apply to *everyone*? Can't you see that? Or do you think religious exceptions should be made for people who think exactly like you, only? How do we make a law like that?

 

 

That isn't how the law works.

 

 

So, a Stormfront member who believes that interracial marriage is unBiblical (in spite of your own interpretation of The Bible), then they should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, yes or no? Again, are we making exceptions for religious beliefs at large or only for people who think exactly like you? How would you write the law to prevent such acts? You aren't actually answer the question, you are deflecting.

 

 

According to YOUR interpretation. Are you saying that only your personal religion deserves exceptions?

Nope.  That is according to scriptural truth.  

 

You can say I am wrong all day long....or "You.are.wrong." (special internet emphasis with the periods). 

 

I don't care what they claim; it is not scripturally defensible, nor a scripturally-plain proscription, as is same sex behavior.   

[ocelotmom]

Nope.  You are conflating thoughts with actions. They are not the same, thankfully.  Anyone who acted on attractions he/she has felt has made a choice about doing so. 

 

I don't like talking about my sexuality or sexual experience. Being pregnant is honestly more self-disclosure than I'm comfortable with in that respect. But since it seems I can't say "Your theory does not fit my experience" without providing a little more detail to back that up...

 

To repeat, I was attracted to females before I knew such a thing was possible, in the puppy love sort of way of early puberty crushes. They made me all twitterpated, but I wasn't having any real fantasies about them. In fact, I only recognized well after the fact that they were crushes, because "crush on a female" didn't fit into my paradigm. I did not act on these feelings (mentally or physically), until I was older. In fact, I still have not acted physically on them, as I became involved with my husband before I became comfortable with myself. Through most of my teen years, I really just tried to ignore it. I'd read some things saying that crushes on females were a developmental stage that I'd grow out of, so I waited for that to happen. It didn't. At least not yet. I suppose there's still time, but a 25 year stage is rather long.

 

If I was exposed to female/female sexuality in any form before that, I have absolutely no recollection of it. Therefore, if it existed at all, it was something either exceedingly subtle or something that occurred before I could remember.  And frankly, if it was the result of forgotten sexual abuse that occurred as a toddler or something like that, I really don't see how you can call that a choice, especially if you're saying, as you did in an earlier post, that religion is less of a choice.

 

(Also, my parents were very protective, media-wise. I was exposed to media much less than many friends who grew up to be straight.)

[Mrs Mungo]

Nope.  That is according to scriptural truth.  

 

You can say I am wrong all day long....or "You.are.wrong." (special internet emphasis with the periods). 

 

I don't care what they claim; it is not scripturally defensible, nor a scripturally-plain proscription, as is same sex behavior.

So, what I am hearing is: the law should make exceptions for MY personal religion and interpretation of the scripture, but no other interpretation of the scripture or religion is valid, therefore no exceptions should be made for them.

 

Is that what you are saying? You genuinely think that is how we should make and interpret laws in the US?

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, I never chose to like boys. I had my first crush when I was five. I have always liked boys that way. I had a girl kiss me when I was a teen and it did nothing for me. I told her that I liked boys. It didn't make me suddenly question and have to choose. There was never any choice. If all males suddenly disappeared today, I still would not have that kind of relationship with women.

 

I'm actually beginning to wonder with others if many who feel it is a choice maybe had a choice in their own relationships to which sex they would prefer. It's interesting.

Regarding the bolded, neither would I!  Not interested.  Not in prison, not at home, not at work, not in Rome ....

 

(My inner Dr. Suess is apparently taking over). 

 

But MANY would today because of the wide influence at an early age of this political activism.  Have you spent much time with Millenials lately and heard them talk about what is going on in school?  It's a huge trend to be "bisexual";  it's cool and trendy, now.  Every other teen girl (it seems, especially to the guys!) thinks she is.  It's almost a badge of honor.   

 

Unless that is a drug reaction to something we are poisoning the air, water and food with, and we (those in power) are chemically changing everything, it is merely influence, not biology.

[Slartibartfast]

The bolded argument is simply speculative.  Simply because it is authoritatively stated repeatedly does not make it true.  Nothing has been - or will be - proven.  It will always be the "chicken and the egg" argument.  Did brain changes occur because of what people choose to do, or did they do what they chose to do because of their brains?

 

Your blatant and unsupported assumption is that those who engage in same sex behavior are created that way by God. There is simply no substantive evidence for this.  In addition, it is highly illogical for God to create someone specifically to engage in behavior which is proscribed.  That makes no sense. 

 

I agree with your final statement, of course.  That doesn't change the unproven validity of the arguments in your post, however. 

 

But it has been proven. They have found genetic differences in homosexuals. 

 

Do you not believe in genetics?

 

It is *not* "chicken and egg" they can prove it. 

 

 

[Pam in CT]

I did answer a number of these upthread, but I'm not going to go hunt for them.

 

I am well- versed on public accommodation laws. 

You are attempting to conflate civil rights protections that exist with this current issue of a behavior. 

 

No one is talking about black people getting a hotel room or gas, who were discriminated against because of their immutable, indisputable characteristics of birth.   I'm not going to re-invent the wheel on that one.  It is not at issue.  This is solely about one group forcing a curtailment of a wedding servicer's religious freedom to decline an event.    Religious freedom is protected in the First Amendment;while you are advocating the right of a small group to suspend the religious expression of another group.  Not ok.  Small group can get their cakes anywhere and the other small group of Christian bakers should be free to decline events that conflict with direct proscriptions in their faith. 

 

I'm confused about conflating "immutability" with "protected class."

 

"Protected classes" are defined by legislation.  Marital status is a protected class (because once upon a time, then-called-"stewardesses" and teachers were fired once they got married).  Relgion is a protected class (because once upon a time, stores put up signs saying No Jews Allowed).  In certain domains disability is protected class (because once upon a time, actually rather recently, public courthouses had no access ramps; and public schools simply turned disabled students away).  People organized; legislation was passed, and now these groups are protected... even though the same individual can be single, then married, then (say) widowed over the course of a lifetime; even though the same individual can be born (say) Christian and then convert to another tradition; even though a single individual can become disabled, or have a disability rectified by medical intervention, or be temporarily disabled.

 

It makes no difference, at all, whether sexual orientation is immutable.  What is relevant is that it is defined in legislation as protected.

[TranquilMind]

So, what I am hearing is: the law should make exceptions for MY personal religion and interpretation of the scripture, but no other interpretation of the scripture or religion is valid, therefore no exceptions should be made for them.

 

Is that what you are saying? You genuinely think that is how we should make and interpret laws in the US?

It isn't "MY" interpretation of scripture.  It's plainly in there that this behavior is proscribed.    Would you like me to cite the passages (but I think that is unnecessary...everyone knows). 

 

Now if you want to talk about vegetarianism and its relative merits, for example, something about which God does not proscribe certain behaviors, fine.   

 

[justasque]

The bolded argument is simply speculative.  Simply because it is authoritatively stated repeatedly does not make it true.  Nothing has been - or will be - proven.  It will always be the "chicken and the egg" argument.  Did brain changes occur because of what people choose to do, or did they do what they chose to do because of their brains?

 

Your blatant and unsupported assumption is that those who engage in same sex behavior are created that way by God. There is simply no substantive evidence for this.  In addition, it is highly illogical for God to create someone specifically to engage in behavior which is proscribed.  That makes no sense. 

 

I agree with your final statement, of course.  That doesn't change the unproven validity of the arguments in your post, however. 

 

The evidence for this is the testimony of LGBT people.  Many of us posting here have had long, thoughtful conversations with friends and family members as they worked through these issues.  If you have not looked into the terrified eyes of a young teen who  has never had a romantic or sexual relationship of any kind, and yet is worried that their entire nurturing, loving family will reject them because of the teachings of their church on homosexuality, then you may not understand how those of us who have listened to the testimony of these young people (and of their LGBT elders) are quite sure that homosexuality is a natural variation in the wonderful variety that is the human race.

 

I don't think it is illogical at all.  I think, for example, of the public service of many homosexual men and women over the years, who did not have biological children and thus were free to contribute the bulk of their time to serving the community.  How blessed we are to have had these folks to care for the sick, help their brothers and sisters with children, take care of their aging parents, and contribute to public life.  If you value life, in all its richness and diversity, it's easy to see how this particular variation can fit nicely into our world, so long as we respect these folks and embrace them as full members of our communities.

[TranquilMind]

I'm confused about conflating "immutability" with "protected class."

 

"Protected classes" are defined by legislation.  Marital status is a protected class (because once upon a time, then-called-"stewardesses" and teachers were fired once they got married).  Relgion is a protected class (because once upon a time, stores put up signs saying No Jews Allowed).  In certain domains disability is protected class (because once upon a time, actually rather recently, public courthouses had no access ramps; and public schools simply turned disabled students away).  People organized; legislation was passed, and now these groups are protected... even though the same individual can be single, then married, then (say) widowed over the course of a lifetime; even though the same individual can be born (say) Christian and then convert to another tradition; even though a single individual can become disabled, or have a disability rectified by medical intervention, or be temporarily disabled.

 

It makes no difference, at all, whether sexual orientation is immutable.  What is relevant is that it is defined in legislation as protected.

In some jurisdictions, yes.  But whether it trumps another right is the question.  Everyone here mostly feels it does.  A couple are arguing (or maybe just me now)  that relgious freedom is equally if not more important, as it is covered in the First Amendment, as is religion.   

[Joker]

Regarding the bolded, neither would I!  Not interested.  Not in prison, not at home, not at work, not in Rome ....

 

(My inner Dr. Suess is apparently taking over). 

 

But MANY would today because of the wide influence at an early age of this political activism.  Have you spent much time with Millenials lately and heard them talk about what is going on in school?  It's a huge trend to be "bisexual";  it's cool and trendy, now.  Every other teen girl (it seems, especially to the guys!) thinks she is.  It's almost a badge of honor.   

 

Unless that is a drug reaction to something we are poisoning the air, water and food with, and we (those in power) are chemically changing everything, it is merely influence, not biology.

 

Actually my teen dd goes to a magnet arts school that has many openly gay and bi students and teachers. They have congregated to this school (if they have the skills needed to be accepted) because it is welcoming. The trouble makers who spew nasty stuff to them at school get booted rather quickly. My dd has seen it up close and personal as she is friends with several students who are not straight. Some of them have been through hell with bullies in other places so I'm not seeing the cool and trendy thing you speak of. Even in this environment there are still more straight students. Being gay isn't contagious.

[TranquilMind]

The evidence for this is the testimony of LGBT people.  Many of us posting here have had long, thoughtful conversations with friends and family members as they worked through these issues.  If you have not looked into the terrified eyes of a young teen who  has never had a romantic or sexual relationship of any kind, and yet is worried that their entire nurturing, loving family will reject them because of the teachings of their church on homosexuality, then you may not understand how those of us who have listened to the testimony of these young people (and of their LGBT elders) are quite sure that homosexuality is a natural variation in the wonderful variety that is the human race.

 

I don't think it is illogical at all.  I think, for example, of the public service of many homosexual men and women over the years, who did not have biological children and thus were free to contribute the bulk of their time to serving the community.  How blessed we are to have had these folks to care for the sick, help their brothers and sisters with children, take care of their aging parents, and contribute to public life.  If you value life, in all its richness and diversity, it's easy to see how this particular variation can fit nicely into our world, so long as we respect these folks and embrace them as full members of our communities.

Ok, but it isn't as if no one has ever done that work....convents and monasteries, for example.  Once upon a time, families....

 

[ocelotmom]

Regarding the bolded, neither would I!  Not interested.  Not in prison, not at home, not at work, not in Rome ....

 

(My inner Dr. Suess is apparently taking over). 

 

But MANY would today because of the wide influence at an early age of this political activism.  Have you spent much time with Millenials lately and heard them talk about what is going on in school?  It's a huge trend to be "bisexual";  it's cool and trendy, now.  Every other teen girl (it seems, especially to the guys!) thinks she is.  It's almost a badge of honor.   

 

Unless that is a drug reaction to something we are poisoning the air, water and food with, and we (those in power) are chemically changing everything, it is merely influence, not biology.

 

Given the increasing amount of hormones and hormone-like substances in the environment, I think environmental influence is a very plausible factor, though genetic influence is pretty clear, too.

 

I do agree that social environment and visibility make a difference in how people understand and choose to express themselves. I doubt it makes a difference in the underlying orientation.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

So do you think businesses should have the legal right to discriminate based on religion, if the reason for the discrimination is based on the owner's "sincerely held religious belief"?

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so. 

[justasque]

I don't think it is illogical at all.  I think, for example, of the public service of many homosexual men and women over the years, who did not have biological children and thus were free to contribute the bulk of their time to serving the community.  How blessed we are to have had these folks to care for the sick, help their brothers and sisters with children, take care of their aging parents, and contribute to public life.  If you value life, in all its richness and diversity, it's easy to see how this particular variation can fit nicely into our world, so long as we respect these folks and embrace them as full members of our communities.

 

Ok, but it isn't as if no one has ever done that work....convents and monasteries, for example.  Once upon a time, families....

 

<speaking gently>  

Yes.  The celibate religious life, like a celibate life of service to one's family or community, has long been an honorable path for those who do not feel called to heterosexual married life.

[CaffeineDiary]

Would you like me to cite the passages (but I think that is unnecessary...everyone knows). 

 

Only if you're willing to have the discussion in the original Aramaic.

[CaffeineDiary]

This is probably a good place to mention that American slave practices were largely justified on Biblical grounds.  I'm sure that in the 1850s there was someone arguing in public that "It's plainly in there that slavery is God's will".

[Scrub Jay]

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so. 

 

But who decides what is a "legitimate religious basis"? 

 

Not one thing that has been shared by a religious person on this thread who is pro-discrimation has sounded legitimate to me in the slightest.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But it has been proven. They have found genetic differences in homosexuals. 

 

Do you not believe in genetics?

 

It is *not* "chicken and egg" they can prove it. 

 

 

I am quoting myself but I am curious, do people not believe in genetics? 

 

Does one just chose not to believe in science when it is inconvenient?

[elegantlion]

Then would every religion that has a sacred book be allowed to discriminate? I pretty sure I could start a cat religion, surely there is a lot of wisdom in cats. Just because it has not existed yet doesn't mean it couldn't. I mean cats have been part of worship since Egyptian times, there is historical precedent. 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so. 

 

 

This sort of thing is how Oklahoma ended up with the threat of a Satan statue at the State Capital.

 

The Ten Commandment statue was hit by a car before they went to court so I am not sure what is going to happen now...unless they put the Ten Commandment statue back.

[hornblower]

Then would every religion that has a sacred book be allowed to discriminate?

 

This is how the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion started, complete with colanders being worn for swearing in ceremonies & drivier's licence photos.

 

eta: technically the religion is called Pastafarianism. The FSM is the object of worship.  Sorry to any practitioners. I'm having pasta for lunch so participating in ritual to make amends...

 

 

[CaffeineDiary]

A lot of modern Christians seem to completely forget that Christians largely fled to the colonies because they were seeking religious freedom from Christians.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is probably a good place to mention that American slave practices were largely justified on Biblical grounds.  I'm sure that in the 1850s there was someone arguing in public that "It's plainly in there that slavery is God's will".

 

Even better, it was considered by many to be beneficial to the slaves as it saved them from their heathen beliefs.

[kiana]

Even better, it was considered by many to be beneficial to the slaves as it saved them from their heathen beliefs.

 

And also provided care to those who were clearly like little children and incapable of caring for themselves. Uh huh. 

[GailV]

It has been answered, and answered early on in the thread.  Moses married a black woman.  Nothing in the New Testament calls marriage between a man and a woman of different melanin levels an abomination.   

 

Asked and answered. 

 

No, what was asked and answered was YOUR interpretation of scripture.  What if the baker has a different interpretation that he ardently believes? 

 

Saying, "well, his interpretation is wrong," implies that you know the mind of God and he does not.  Let's assume he has come to his belief after years of study of scripture, just as you have.  And, by the way, he is fallible in his interpretation, just as you are.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, what was asked and answered was YOUR interpretation of scripture. What if the baker has a different interpretation that he ardently believes?

 

Saying, "well, his interpretation is wrong," implies that you know the mind of God and he does not. Let's assume he has come to his belief after years of study of scripture, just as you have. And, by the way, he is fallible in his interpretation, just as you are.

My interpretation of the series of answers is that the poster in question believes that her personal religion is the only valid one, so it is the only one that exceptions should be made for. No other religions or interpretations are valid. Therefore no exceptions should be made for them.

[Slartibartfast]

My interpretation of the series of answers is that the poster in question believes that her personal religion is the only valid one, so it is the only one that exceptions should be made for. No other religions or interpretations are valid. Therefore no exceptions should be made for them.

 

 

This sort of thing is why I am glad the Federal Government enforces the Constitution because too many citizens feel this way. Too many would be willing to ignore the rights of others.

[*Lulu*]

At day's end it doesn't matter if your interpretation of scripture is correct, or mine for that matter.

 

It doesn't matter if homosexuals are an offense to The Lord God or if God is shaking his head wondering when his church is going to pay attention and quit mucking things up.

 

It doesn't matter if the Bible says x, y, or z.

 

We do not live in a theocracy.

 

And for those who think they have a right to vote their religious beliefs into law, you are right.

 

You have the right to do that.

 

I personally think you are being short sighted and foolish if you do though.

 

If we become a country of mob rule where might makes right and the minority can just suck it up, be warned. A day may come when you are no longer the majority and the power has shifted from your grasp.

 

Practicing a little "do unto others" now may one day be the reason YOU have protection by the laws.

[Caroline]

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty. I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads." It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think.

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so.

Who would be the arbiter of real spiritual beliefs fake ones?

[Wheres Toto]

I am quoting myself but I am curious, do people not believe in genetics? 

 

Does one just chose not to believe in science when it is inconvenient?

 

Have you discussed evolution with a group of people lately? 

[Vera]

Then would every religion that has a sacred book be allowed to discriminate? I pretty sure I could start a cat religion, surely there is a lot of wisdom in cats. Just because it has not existed yet doesn't mean it couldn't. I mean cats have been part of worship since Egyptian times, there is historical precedent.

Please leave my cats out of it. There is no wisdom in those two.