Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues

[TitanTiger 20,472]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Please, please, please consider the irony here. The Christian church- whether according to scripture or according to common misinterpretation of scripture, which makes no difference to me because both come from the brains of human beings- says that homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals are sinning simply by being born homosexual.

This isn't what the Christian church teaches.  I'm not saying there aren't individual Christians or certain relatively small sects that might believe something like that.  But no major denomination of Christians - Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. says homosexuals are sinning simply by being born homosexual or having homosexual attractions.  Rather, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals in a basic sense - what one feels or is tempted by or attracted to is not sinful in and of itself.  Only when that attraction is acted upon in a way that is not in concert with Biblical teaching on sexual behavior - in the context of marriage between one man and one woman, is it sinful - whether that's using another person as an object of one's lust or having sex with them outside the aforementioned context.  But being attracted to one's own sex is not considered sinful in and of itself.

 

Quote

And certain businesses claim that they should be denied the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

But you're claiming that they are infringing upon the rights of "church members" simply by choosing not to patronize the businesses that would deny them their civil liberties?

I don't think that's what's being claimed.  They are free not to patronize them.  What is at issue are efforts to prevent anyone in that area from patronizing them as well by denying them the ability to even open a store.

 

Quote

I expect that from several of these knuckle draggers around here, Titan, but not you. Oh, and I have to isolate this part:

1. Homosexuality is not a "view". You really have to acknowledge that. Seriously. You have to. 

I think you quoted AU64 but then addressed me?   But while AU64 can correct me if I'm wrong, I think he was referring to "the view of sexuality - it's proper context, boundaries, etc. - held by many LBGT people vs the view held by orthodox Christians."
 

Quote

2. That is not the issue. There is no issue, or at least there would be no issue if humans didn't invent one. (I won't blame Christians since some other religions and cultures are WAY more screwed up about it.) Seriously. It's all just made up. Maybe some guy in a desert made it up several thousand years ago when he wrote some stories, or maybe folks made it up since then. But it's definitely an invention of man. I don't know why people choose to get upset about things that don't affect them but that's exactly what you're doing. 

Well, you're certainly welcome to the opinion that it's simply made up, but I'll respectfully disagree.  

As far as "not affecting them", that's not necessarily true.  It could be if folks would let it be that way.  But when you try to run a person out of business through government coercion and penalty because they don't wish to materially participate in your wedding ceremony or you try to prevent a business from even opening because they give money to groups that don't align with your way of thinking on sexual mores, that does affect other people. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

28 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But no major denomination of Christians - Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. says homosexuals are sinning simply by being born homosexual or having homosexual attractions.  Rather, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals in a basic sense - what one feels or is tempted by or attracted to is not sinful in and of itself. Only when that attraction is acted upon in a way that is not in concert with Biblical teaching on sexual behavior - in the context of marriage between one man and one woman, is it sinful - whether that's using another person as an object of one's lust or having sex with them outside the aforementioned context.

Yes, I'm well aware that you and others draw this distinction to justify your prejudice. A little embarrassing in 2019 but humans are obviously still a generally primitive lot.

Quote

What is at issue are efforts to prevent anyone in that area from patronizing them as well by denying them the ability to even open a store.

You're right. 2 different things. 64's premise is still wrong. 

Quote

I think you quoted AU64 but then addressed me?   But while AU64 can correct me if I'm wrong, I think he was referring to "the view of sexuality - it's proper context, boundaries, etc. - held by many LBGT people vs the view held by orthodox Christians."

Subsequently corrected- you're fast- but yes, let's let 64 speak for himself on that. As for your thoughts, you're just doing gymnastics to justify your prejudice again. Seems a lot easier to just not care about it, but you do you.

Quote

As far as "not affecting them", that's not necessarily true.  It could be if folks would let it be that way.  But when you try to run a person out of business through government coercion and penalty because they don't wish to materially participate in your wedding ceremony or you try to prevent a business from even opening because they give money to groups that don't align with your way of thinking on sexual mores, that does affect other people. 

"Don't align"? "Way of thinking"? Good lord, man. 

Also, you were pretty specific about the topic earlier, and I acquiesced, so let's keep it on topic. We're not talking about the cake thing. I agree that was stupid.

As for preventing businesses that don't align with community values from opening, do you take issue with local residents blocking strip clubs, liquor stores, head shops, etc?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, I'm well aware that you and others draw this distinction to justify your prejudice. A little embarrassing in 2019 but humans are obviously still a generally primitive lot.

It's not "drawing a distinction to justify" anything.  It's a major Christian teaching for thousands of years that a person may be tempted by , attracted to, or drawn to any number of things but the feelings in an of themselves are not necessarily sinful.  We believe in a sinless savior who was "tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).  But conversely, the fact that one feels something, wants something, feels natural wanting it or what have you doesn't mean that it is perfectly ok to pursue either.

 

Quote

You're right. 2 different things. 64's premise is still wrong. 

Subsequently corrected- you're fast- but yes, let's let 64 speak for himself on that. As for your thoughts, you're just doing gymnastics to justify your prejudice again. Seems a lot easier to just not care about it, but you do you.

No gymnastics required.  Just an orthodox Christian understanding of what constitutes sin and what doesn't.  The existence of gays didn't cause this to understanding to be concocted.  But neither do they cause it to be discarded.

 

Quote

"Don't align"? "Way of thinking"? Good lord, man. 

I'm struggling to understand what you're upset with her.  Could it have been stated more elegantly?  Sure.  But I find it hard to believe you can't see a difference in how two different groups of people think on matters of sexual mores, sexual behavior, and so on.  

Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

Quote

Also, you were pretty specific about the topic earlier, and I acquiesced, so let's keep it on topic. We're not talking about the cake thing. I agree that was stupid.

As for preventing businesses that don't align with community values from opening, do you take issue with local residents blocking strip clubs, liquor stores, head shops, etc?

Not necessarily depending on how they go about it.  But one could make the argument that strip clubs, liquor stores, head shops and so on have a primary business purpose of selling goods and services that have detrimental effects on the surrounding area - attracting crime, public drunkenness/being high, severely impacting home values in nearby neighborhoods, etc.  Chick-Fil-A's business is selling you chicken and waffle fries.  Hard to see a similarly impactful reason to stop them.  One might argue that a particular location is bad for traffic flow and such, but then you'd have to make the same argument against any eating establishment wishing to be in that particular location.  But the fact that they support some organizations like Fellowship of Christian Athletes that happen hold to traditional, orthodox Christian views on sexual behavior and marriage?  Nah. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church is free to do whatever they want

Nope. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not "drawing a distinction to justify" anything.  It's a major Christian teaching for thousands of years that a person may be tempted by , attracted to, or drawn to any number of things but the feelings in an of themselves are not necessarily sinful.  

Except straight folks are still allowed to have sex. All they have to do is find a willing, adult partner. The only way an intelligent person can fail to understand how that is different is willfully. 

Quote

But I find it hard to believe you can't see a difference in how two different groups of people think on matters of sexual mores, sexual behavior, and so on.  

Because one group actively trying to deny the other their civil liberties based on how they were born- their biology- is not one group "not aligning" with another's "thoughts". It's a shame that you choose not to acknowledge this. 

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But the fact that they support some organizations like Fellowship of Christian Athletes that happen hold to traditional, orthodox Christian views on sexual behavior and marriage?  Nah. 

But what if your and Chick-Fil-A's prejudices against gay people aren't shared by that community? What if that community's "way of thinking" "doesn't align" with Chick-Fil-A's corporate values? What if they believe that anti-gay sentiment would compromise the safety of their community for all of their residents and make the community overall less attractive to the type of neighbors they want to have? 

How do you draw the line? Easy. You draw your line based on your own prejudices. Everybody does. I guess it only becomes a problem when that community's prejudices don't align with yours. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Because one group actively trying to deny the other their civil liberties based on how they were born- their biology- is not one group "not aligning" with another's "thoughts". It's a shame that you choose not to acknowledge this. 

Bestow upon us examples of those civil liberties. Thanks. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No gymnastics required.

McDoofus is triggered. I like it. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

22 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Except straight folks are still allowed to have sex. All they have to do is find a willing, adult partner. The only way an intelligent person can fail to understand how that is different is willfully. 

Well, yes and no.

Straight people are allowed to have sex.  But only if they are married, and only to the person is they are married to.  If they aren't married, they are not allowed to have sex anyone.  And if a straight person divorced for reasons not permitted in Scripture, they cannot remarry or have sex with someone either.  

The bottom line is, the "distinction" isn't about gay people.  The distinction is a basic understanding of the theology of sin.  Feelings, desires, drawings, temptations are not sin in and of themselves.  Acting upon them in some way is when sin comes into the picture and that goes for anyone gay or straight, and it goes for a whole lot of things besides sex.

 

Quote

Because one group actively trying to deny the other their civil liberties based on how they were born- their biology- is not one group "not aligning" with another's "thoughts". It's a shame that you choose not to acknowledge this. 

It's not that I'm not acknowledging it.  I just don't think that's what was trying to be communicated.  But also, I think it's a deeper discussion than just one that pertains to civil liberties.

 

Quote

But what if your and Chick-Fil-A's prejudices against gay people aren't shared by that community? What if that community's "way of thinking" "doesn't align" with Chick-Fil-A's corporate values? What if they believe that anti-gay sentiment would compromise the safety of their community for all of their residents and make the community overall less attractive to the type of neighbors they want to have? 

Personally, I think the degrees of separation required to get from A to B in that situation are too far apart to warrant government intrusion into where a business locates or if it will be allowed to locate at all.  They sell chicken sandwiches.  FCA is a club for Christian athletes to get together and encourage each other in their faith.  They have some requirements for leadership roles in the group that reflect traditional, orthodox teaching on sexual behavior.  Barring them from selling chicken to you for donating to such a group out of the above reasoning is just too flimsy to be ok.

 

Quote

How do you draw the line? Easy. You draw your line based on your own prejudices. Everybody does. I guess it only becomes a problem when that community's prejudices don't align with yours. 

And you don't?  Not that I concede that the line is simply being drawn out of one's prejudices, but just going with your logic for a second, I detect a large hole in it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Straight people are allowed to have sex.  But only if they are married, and only to the person is they are married to.  If they aren't married, they are not allowed to have sex anyone.  And if a straight person divorced for reasons not permitted in Scripture, they cannot remarry or have sex with someone either.  

The bottom line is, the "distinction" isn't about gay people. 

Oh, so gay people are also allowed to have sex, as long as they get married first. Huh. Wonder what all the hubbub is about then. 

Quote

It's not that I'm not acknowledging it.  I just don't think that's what was trying to be communicated.  But also, I think it's a deeper discussion than just one that pertains to civil liberties.

Yeah, you'd really do well to just let 64 clarify himself.

Quote

Personally, I think the degrees of separation required to get from A to B in that situation are too far apart to warrant government intrusion into where a business locates or if it will be allowed to locate at all.  They sell chicken sandwiches.  FCA is a club for Christian athletes to get together and encourage each other in their faith.  They have some requirements for leadership roles in the group that reflect traditional, orthodox teaching on sexual behavior.  Barring them from selling chicken to you for donating to such a group out of the above reasoning is just too flimsy to be ok.

You don't have to keep telling me about your personal preferences. I know what they are. And you don't have to keep saying "traditional" and "orthodox". Those descriptors have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not something is right. That's flat earth thinking.

Quote

And you don't?  Not that I concede that the line is simply being drawn out of one's prejudices, but just going with your logic for a second, I detect a large hole in it.

Do you know not what the word "everybody" means? What I'm saying is that I acknowledge mine while you hide behind ancient texts to justify yours. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

21 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh, so gay people are also allowed to have sex, as long as they get married first. Huh. Wonder what all the hubbub is about then. 

Um, because marriage is one man and one woman?  Not two men, not two women.  Not one guy and more than one woman.  Not one woman and more than one man.  Not three guys and three women all together.

 

Quote

Yeah, you'd really do well to just let 64 clarify himself.

Sure thing.

 

Quote

You don't have to keep telling me about your personal preferences. I know what they are. And you don't have to keep saying "traditional" and "orthodox". Those descriptors have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not something is right. That's flat earth thinking.

You keep telling me why I say or believe something, so I feel compelled to re-explain it to you to correct your understanding.

And I use "traditional" and "orthodox" to highlight that these are teachings that have been around for millennia and to distinguish them from some modern theological views that essentially jettison any belief or teaching that doesn't line up with whatever the culture wishes to pursue or celebrate right now.

 

Quote

Do you know not what the word "everybody" means? What I'm saying is that I acknowledge mine while you hide behind ancient texts to justify yours. 

I think that's a silly way to simplify the matter, but to each his own.

[homersapien 11,363]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nope. 

Who exactly is preventing them?

And can you please provide an example?

Apparently I am missing your point or vice versa.

[homersapien 11,363]

The problem with the "being attracted" to the opposite sex vs. "acting" on that attraction is that is refuses to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is not a potential choice made by individuals who are otherwise heterosexual like the majority of people.

Its who they are, not a decision they can make. 

And to put into relatable terms, God made them who they are. (I would say nature made them who they are, but it's essentially same thing.)

Proclaiming them "sinners" for simply living according to who they are has nothing to do with God.  It's about man.  Just as religions are more about man instead of God. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Um, because marriage is one man and one woman?  Not two men, not two women.  Not one guy and more than one woman.  Not one woman and more than one man.  Not three guys and three women all together.

But you said the distinction isn't about gay people? 

Quote

You keep telling me why I say or believe something, so I feel compelled to re-explain it to you to correct your understanding.

Fair enough, but do you not keep telling me that you believe these things because they were written in a book ~1500 years ago? 

Quote

And I use "traditional" and "orthodox" to highlight that these are teachings that have been around for millennia and to distinguish them from some modern theological views that essentially jettison any belief or teaching that doesn't line up with whatever the culture wishes to pursue or celebrate right now.

So flat earth thinking. Do you really not think that we are better prepared to understand and approach these matters now than people were ~1500 years ago? 

"Whatever the culture wishes to pursue or celebrate right now". Yeesh. I have to imagine that's exactly what segregationists sounded like in the 50s and 60s. 

Quote

I think that's a silly way to simplify the matter, but to each his own.

So you it's not because of an ancient text that you would deny gay folks full expression of their love for each other? 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The problem with the "being attracted" to the opposite sex vs. "acting" on that attraction is that is refuses to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is not a potential choice made by individuals who are otherwise heterosexual like the majority of people.

Its who they are, not a decision they can make. 

And to put into relatable terms, God made them who they are. (I would say nature made them who they are, but it's essentially same thing.)

Proclaiming them "sinners" for simply living according to who they are has nothing to do with God.  It's about man.  Just as religions are more about man instead of God. 

Bingo. It's all about finding a convenient excuse to justify one's ignorance and fear instead of making an effort to actually understand the object of derision. 

Crazy that we really haven't evolved all that much from Greeks playing connect the dots with the stars to explain how the world works. Meanwhile, people who seek actual answers are busy taking pictures of black holes and curing diseases and at least trying to save the planet and whatnot. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The problem with the "being attracted" to the opposite sex vs. "acting" on that attraction is that is refuses to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is not a potential choice made by individuals who are otherwise heterosexual like the majority of people.

Straight people who are physically attracted to people they aren’t married to aren’t choosing to feel attracted to those other people either. But in Christian theology, that wouldn’t give them license to act on those attractions sexually either.  If you’re married you’re expected to remain faithful to your spouse. If you’re unmarried you’re expected to remain celibate. Having certain feelings isnt automatic permission to act on them regardless of whether the feelings are chosen or not.

Quote

Its who they are, not a decision they can make. 

Who they are – who we all are is a separate thing from what we decide to do with it.  There are many attractions, desires, feelings, drawings that we are all more or less born with. Or at least never made a conscious decision to want those things. But wanting those things, even if it feels completely natural, doesn’t mean we are somehow not fulfilling who we “are” if we don’t get to pursue them. Who we are and what we do are different things.

Quote

Having certain feelings is it automatic permission to act on them regardless of whether the feelings are chosen or not.And to put into relatable terms, God made them who they are. (I would say nature made them who they are, but it's essentially same thing.)

Proclaiming them "sinners" for simply living according to who they are has nothing to do with God.  It's about man.  Just as religions are more about man instead of God. 

I think there were some grammatical mistakes in the beginning of the section, so let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that just because you have feelings about something that you automatically have permission to act on them?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Hoo boy, you're really just going to keep equivocating people who are allowed to have sex as long as they jump through some hoops and people who aren't allowed to have it at all.

Sad.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Bingo. It's all about finding a convenient excuse to justify one's ignorance and fear instead of making an effort to actually understand the object of derision. 

Crazy that we really haven't evolved all that much from Greeks playing connect the dots with the stars to explain how the world works. Meanwhile, people who seek actual answers are busy taking pictures of black holes and curing diseases and at least trying to save the planet and whatnot. 

Bingo nothing. I don’t have any particular prejudice against gay people. Frankly it would make my life a whole lot easier just go along to get along. I have no particular desire to take positions that the culture hates me for. I don’t get some kind of weird pleasure from being contrarian. I believe what I believe because I believe him to be actually true about the world, about who we are, and about how we are to live.

I actually take the time to sit down with people whose views are very different from mine, specifically multiple gay friends of mine. Two in particular that I talk and/or go to lunch or grab a drink with regularly are on opposite sides from each other. One is gay and living with his partner. The other is gay, Christian, and chooses celibacy because he studied the issue and came to the conclusion that he agreed with historic biblical teaching on the matter. He disagrees that to not act on attraction means he isn’t “who he is” and would actually be insulted that someone would say that being gay boils down in the end to being able to have sex. We talk on a deep level about these things. They asked me questions about why I believe what I believe.   And I ask them about their experience. I don’t make just a cursory effort to understand another’s position, I make thoughtful, considered and concerted effort to do so. 

Now I realize it’s easier to dismiss me if you can just put me in a preconceived box labeled “prejudiced” or “bigot” or “religious nut”, but it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Hoo boy, you're really just going to keep equivocating people who are allowed to have sex as long as they jump through some hoops and people who aren't allowed to have it at all.

Sad.

Equivocating?  Not exactly. Saying that there are a lot of similarities?  Sure. 

And when did we decide that having sex was the end all be all pinnacle of being human?

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Is that a yes? 

Please just answer the question. 

My mind can not imagine it. I see no need in going to great lengths to refute it though. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

But you said the distinction isn't about gay people? 

It isn’t about gay people. It’s about what marriage is. In the same since it’s also not about polyamorous people.

 

Quote

Fair enough, but do you not keep telling me that you believe these things because they were written in a book ~1500 years ago? 

Not exactly.  I mean, yes I do believe things that are written in an ancient text from millennia ago. But my reason for believing them isn't just because they’re old. There are many complex reasons why someone has faith in the things they do.  I believe there are good reasonings and explanations for why Christianity is the best explanation for reality, who we are, why were here, what is our purpose.  Wrapped up in that, yes, I believe the Scriptures are true.

I get that we have different opinions on this but I don’t think we have to be flippant or dismissive about each other’s position either or the underlying presuppositions that brought each of us to our state of belief

Quote

So flat earth thinking. Do you really not think that we are better prepared to understand and approach these matters now than people were ~1500 years ago? 

 On some things yes. But not everything. I doubt even you believe that. 

 

Quote

"Whatever the culture wishes to pursue or celebrate right now". Yeesh. I have to imagine that's exactly what segregationists sounded like in the 50s and 60s. 

That’s lazy argumentation,not a thoughtful response. What, was the debate store out of Nazi comparisons today?

 

Quote

So you it's not because of an ancient text that you would deny gay folks full expression of their love for each other? 

What makes you think that sex is the full expression of love for someone?

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I don’t have any particular prejudice against gay people.

Except you don't think they should be allowed to physically express love the way that they are biologically compelled to. 

Quote

Frankly it would make my life a whole lot easier just go along to get along. I have no particular desire to take positions that the culture hates me for. I don’t get some kind of weird pleasure from being contrarian.

Great! Hopefully you expend this much energy helping to explain to others that these are some reasons that it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is a choice.

Quote

I believe what I believe because I believe him to be actually true about the world, about who we are, and about how we are to live.

I stand corrected. 

Quote

The other is gay, Christian, and chooses celibacy because he studied the issue and came to the conclusion that he agreed with historic biblical teaching on the matter.

Then be a decent friend and tell him to let go of his shame and go live his life to the fullest. (If he's chosen celibacy for other reasons, cool. People do it. But it's not normal and in most cases is far less healthy, physically and emotionally, than an active sex life.) 

Quote

He disagrees that to not act on attraction means he isn’t “who he is” and would actually be insulted that someone would say that being gay boils down in the end to being able to have sex. 

Yeah, that would be a pretty stupid thing to say. Haven't met anyone who said that, though.

Quote

Now I realize it’s easier to dismiss me if you can’t just put me in a preconceived box labeled “prejudiced” or “bigot” or “religious nut”, but it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. 

Huh? Playing the victim? You sound like Proud. I dismiss your opinions on this issue because you keep expressing them and I find them terrible. You are prejudiced and you are a bigot according to your beliefs as you've expressed them. And evidently they are indeed your beliefs and not just your understanding of Christ's teachings. I mean, sure, you're not like a KKK or Nazi bigot, but definitely a bigot. You can't really be intolerant towards the entire gay population, or any group of people, simply because of how they were born and then say you're not a bigot. And to say that they're not allowed to engage in one of the most basic and natural functions of the human body- one that is the foundation upon which a massively high percentage of humanity's daily decisions are based- with each other is suuuuuper intolerant, any way you slice it.   

Speaking of Proud, he did offer one useful thing one time. The definition of bigot is much broader than I thought. I thought it was reserved specifically for intolerance of people for demographic reasons, but it actually describes somebody who is intolerant of people's opinions, too. So I'm a bigot. Totally. Big time bigot over here. He was right about that that one time. It was a long time ago. It was just that one time. 

I don't think you're a religious nut. Not at all. I think religion is kind of nuts, but that doesn't mean you're all nuts, and this is really your only opinion with which I take major issue. And really the only Christian doctrine I find objectionable, except some of that weird Leviticus stuff that folks tend to just ignore. Beyond this one issue, I consider you to be an exceptionally reasonable, intelligent and empathetic person. Which is the only reason I carry on with you about it. Not that my opinion amounts to anything, but I consider you worth the effort, unlike the monkeys with whom I've mostly quit interacting. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

 monkeys with whom I've mostly quit interacting. 

and the "monkeys" do not miss you or your tantrums. Thanks 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Quote

I get that we have different opinions on this but I don’t think we have to be flippant or dismissive about each other’s position either or the underlying presuppositions that brought each of us to our state of belief.

Civility kind of takes a hit when you diminish people for how they were born.

Quote

 On some things yes. But not everything. I doubt even you believe that. 

I mean, I try to avoid absolutes, but I can't think of many things that we haven't improved our understanding on in the last couple millenia. Although the Greeks might've had a way healthier attitude towards homosexuality than we do. I've only heard anecdotes, really.

Quote

That’s lazy argumentation,not a thoughtful response. What, was the debate store out of Nazi comparisons today?

Oh no, I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it. You act as though you're the first person I've had this conversation with. 

Thinking it's okay to be gay- since, like, a HUGE percentage of the population worldwide is and has been gay since forever- is not the passing fad that you would have it be. As seen in many conversations in this forum, a LOT of otherwise sane people are REALLY slow on the update when it comes to basic decency. 

Quote

What makes you think that sex is the full expression of love for someone?

Oh FFS Titan. I didn't say that or anything like it. Talk about lazy argumentation. Unless you want to try to say with a straight face that sex isn't a component of the full expression of love for the vast majority of human beings. 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Except you don't think they should be allowed to physically express love the way that they are biologically compelled to. 

Yes. I also believe the same about straights who think we are biologically as a result of evolution meant to have sex with as many partners as possible.  There are limits/boundaries/parameters to sexual expression. Some of them hinder what various people want to do in various ways.   

 

Quote

Great! Hopefully you expend this much energy helping to explain to others that these are some reasons that it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is a choice.

I’ve spoken to people about this before. I’m actually finding fewer and fewer Christians who believe how I do on sexual conduct that really care about the nature/nurture debate. 

 

Quote

Then be a decent friend and tell him to let go of his shame and go live his life to the fullest. (If he's chosen celibacy for other reasons, cool. People do it. But it's not normal and in most cases is far less healthy, physically and emotionally, than an active sex life.) 

I will tell him no such thing. And he’s not ashamed. He’s open about who he is and who he isn’t. He’s not in the closet. He’s not trying pretend he’s attracted to girls. 

Theres nothing unhealthy about choosing celibacy and singleness. You give up some things. You gain others.

 

Quote

Yeah, that would be a pretty stupid thing to say. Haven't met anyone who said that, though.

I’m confused. Homer argued and you seemed to agree that unless someone gets to act on their attractions, they aren’t being “who they are.”  Did I misunderstand you?  Because of that’s true, then you and he are saying that my friend’s gayness ultimately boils down to being able to have sex with a man.  Otherwise, he’s not fully “who he is.”

 

Quote

Huh? Playing the victim? You sound like Proud. I dismiss your opinions on this issue because you keep expressing them and I find them terrible. You are prejudiced and you are a bigot according to your beliefs as you've expressed them. And evidently they are indeed your beliefs and not just your understanding of Christ's teachings. I mean, sure, you're not like a KKK or Nazi bigot, but definitely a bigot. You can't really be intolerant towards the entire gay population, or any group of people, simply because of how they were born and then say you're not a bigot. And to say that they're not allowed to engage in one of the most basic and natural functions of the human body- one that is the foundation upon which a massively high percentage of humanity's daily decisions are based- with each other is suuuuuper intolerant, any way you slice it.   

I’m not playing the victim. I’m saying that you don’t get to chastise me for supposedly not really engaging the subject - acting out of “ignorance and fear instead of making an effort to actually understand the object of derision,” then turn around and flippantly dismiss my views rather than making an effort to understand them. 

 

Quote

Speaking of Proud, he did offer one useful thing one time. The definition of bigot is much broader than I thought. I thought it was reserved specifically for intolerance of people for demographic reasons, but it actually describes somebody who is intolerant of people's opinions, too. So I'm a bigot. Totally. Big time bigot over here. He was right about that that one time. It was a long time ago. It was just that one time. 

I don't think you're a religious nut. Not at all. I think religion is kind of nuts, but that doesn't mean you're all nuts, and this is really your only opinion with which I take major issue. And really the only Christian doctrine I find objectionable, except some of that weird Leviticus stuff that folks tend to just ignore. Beyond this one issue, I consider you to be an exceptionally reasonable, intelligent and empathetic person. Which is the only reason I carry on with you about it. Not that my opinion amounts to anything, but I consider you worth the effort, unlike the monkeys with whom I've mostly quit interacting. 

Thanks. I enjoy good debate. I just hope we can argue our points while giving each other the benefit of the doubt on motive and reasoning. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Sorry. I said huge percentage. It's a huge number. 300 million is a reasonable guess based off studies I've seen.