Gay writer makes the case for the baker in the gay-wedding culture war

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And you've got the nerve to tell me that I'm the one who has a problem with others who don't think the way that I do. I'm not trying to tell them how to behave. Like @homersapien said, which you had trouble understanding and where I jumped in the conversation, those cake bakers can be as bigoted as they want. I'm not trying to tell them they have to bake anybody a cake. That's the difference. 

Virtually every law that you back tells someone how to behave, and prescribes consequences for when they don't.  Every opinion that you hold and that you support societal "shaming" or disapproval of is telling people how to behave.  They are no more of a bigot than you are.  The difference is, in this case he's not attempting to keep them from getting married, live together, have sex or whatever they wish to do.  He simply wants to be left out of any part of the wedding.  

Your definition of bigotry is far to broad in one direction, or far too narrow in the other.

[homersapien 11,357]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Your opinion is duly noted.  Thankfully our constitution and those who have interpreted it over the years do not subscribe to the same line of thought.

Considering it's history, I wouldn't be too quick to hold up our constitution as the ultimate arbiter of what's right and what's wrong.

[homersapien 11,357]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And that's your opinion, but multiple world religions (especially those in the Abrahamic tradition - Judaism, Christianity and Islam) believe differently.  They say that we are more than what we feel.  What we feel is not necessarily who we are.  We are more than the things we want.  Sometimes we want things that are wrong.  They hurt others, hurt ourselves or both.  Or they are good desires ordered in a wrong direction or in a wrong context.  Thus, even though some moderns believe human are by nature non-monogamous, Christians say that a person who is unmarried should not be having sex with anyone, and a married person should resist the desire to nail the hot neighbor and direct their sexual impulses toward the person they exchanged vows of marriage with.  

 

Well, we are supposed to have a secular government. 

God help us if we drift into a theocracy. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, we are supposed to have a secular government. 

God help us if we drift into a theocracy. 

I would say that most modern secularists wouldn't automatically go along with the idea that just because one feels something therefore they must be allowed to act on it or you're denying who they are.  They wouldn't subscribe to the idea that our feelings define our identity.

[homersapien 11,357]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I would say that most modern secularists wouldn't automatically go along with the idea that just because one feels something therefore they must be allowed to act on it or you're denying who they are.  They wouldn't subscribe to the idea that our feelings define our identity.

No, I am saying - in the case of homosexuality - it's just the opposite, our identity defines our feelings.

Or more accurately, our chemistry defines our feelings.

Of course, the same is true for psychopaths.  So that's not necessarily a good thing.  It's important to consider what harm is being visited to others.

I don't see much harm in simply violating scriptural texts of any given religion.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Virtually every law that you back tells someone how to behave, and prescribes consequences for when they don't.  

Yes. They more or less dictate that people not hurt each other. That's why gay marriage was finally legalized. Unlike you, the law usually draws a distinction between what is actually wrong and harmful and what simply made some dudes feel uncomfortable in the desert a couple millenia ago. 

Quote

Every opinion that you hold and that you support societal "shaming" or disapproval of is telling people how to behave.  

My only disapproval is of those who would prevent other consenting adults from experiencing love just because of their own hangups. And shaming doesn't occur unless somebody's actually ashamed. Feel free to vent. 

Quote

They are no more of a bigot than you are.

 

I suppose a legal case could be made, but I'm suuuuper comfortable with my stance, which I didn't require a book to dictate (or justify). 

Quote

 The difference is, in this case he's not attempting to keep them from getting married, live together, have sex or whatever they wish to do.  He simply wants to be left out of any part of the wedding.  

Because he doesn't tolerate them. Refer back to the definition that was already provided.

Quote

Your definition of bigotry is far to broad in one direction, or far too narrow in the other.

Possibly so, but you haven't proven it here. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, I am saying that - in the case of homosexuality - it's just the opposite, our identity defines our feelings.

Or to put it more abstractly, our chemistry defines our feelings.

Of course, the same is true for psychopaths.  So it's not necessarily a good thing.  It's important to consider what harm it causes to others.

I don't see much harm in simply violating scriptural texts of any given religion.

It's sooooo simple. Psychopaths, drunk drivers, irresponsible gun owners, etc endanger the safety and well being of others. 2 consenting adults having sex with each other don't.

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

 

big·ot·ry

ˈbiɡətrē/

noun

 

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

According to this simple definition we should change the name of this forum to Bigotry Forum

[PUB78 1,356]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think that's a distinction without a difference.  Homosexuals have a right to be who they are, period. 

Christians are certainly within their rights to exclude them for that. Like I said, both sides had a valid case.

But I don't think that helps the core values of Christianity - and I expect many others see it the same way - which is why I said it's not a "victory" for Christianity..

 

Homosexuality is not and never will be a core value of Christianity. However, in the core values of Christianity, there is redemption for the homosexuals and all sinners in Jesus Christ.

[homersapien 11,357]

5 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Homosexuality is not and never will be a core value of Christianity. However, in the core values of Christianity, there is redemption for the homosexuals and all sinners in Jesus Christ.

In order:

I never suggested that.

Does that require dropping the "sin" of simply living as they are?

[homersapien 11,357]

4 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

According to this simple definition we should change the name of this forum to Bigotry Forum

[AUDub 11,136]

Interesting article. The judges were pretty careful about how narrow the ruling was, however:

 

[PUB78 1,356]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

In order:

I never suggested that.

Does that require "dropping" the sin of living as they are?

??

[homersapien 11,357]

22 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

??

Sorry.  Can't work with that. 

You'll need to explain your confusion.

[PUB78 1,356]

Didn’t understand “dropping the sin of living as they are “.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Interesting article. The judges were pretty careful about how narrow the ruling was, however:

 

Holy Cognitive Dissonance Batman!!

Very interesting take on this.  Thanks for posting.  (You post the best links. )

[homersapien 11,357]

1 minute ago, PUB78 said:

Didn’t understand “dropping the sin of living as they are “.

No, I understood it perfectly. (I wrote it .)

The question is, what is it you don't understand?  Please tell me in using declarative sentences, if you can. 

You're above response is not much better than "??".

[PUB78 1,356]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, I understood it perfectly. (I wrote it .)

The question is, what is it you don't understand?  Please tell me in using declarative sentences, if you can. 

You're above response is not much better than "??".

Homer,

What exactly did you mean by that statement?

[homersapien 11,357]

35 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Homer,

What exactly did you mean by that statement?

Sorry, but you omitted the "I" in your declarative sentence.  That threw me off.  I apologize for the confusion.

Here's what I meant:

Assuming you consider being a homosexual is acceptable (not a sin) providing they don't actually act on their homosexuality, then they would be accepted as natural members of the Christian community.

But, if they act on their homosexuality, say by marrying another homosexual, then they are considered to be willfully engaging in sin, thus, not accepted as natural members of the Christian community. 

In other words, to be accepted as a sincere Christian by the Christian community, they should not act in a way that reflects who they actually are.  Or at the very least, they should strive to not act in that way.

So, the requirement - or at least the goal - of a Christian homosexual is not to commit the sin of actually living as they really are.

Does that help?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

25 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Homer,

What exactly did you mean by that statement?

He doesn't understand  his own babbles.?

[homersapien 11,357]

10 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

He doesn't understand  his own babbles.?

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Perfection. 

[PUB78 1,356]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, but you omitted the "I" in your declarative sentence.  That threw me off.  I apologize for the confusion.

Here's what I meant:

Assuming you consider being a homosexual is acceptable (not a sin) providing they don't actually act on their homosexuality, then they would be accepted as natural members of the Christian community.

But, if they act on their homosexuality, say by marrying another homosexual, then they are considered to be willfully engaging in sin, thus, not accepted as natural members of the Christian community. 

In other words, to be accepted as a sincere Christian by the Christian community, they should not act in a way that reflects who they actually are.  Or at the very least, they should strive to not act in that way.

So, the requirement - or at least the goal - of a Christian homosexual is not to commit the sin of actually living as they really are.

Does that help?

Yes, Homer, that is correct. Good explanation. Thank you.

[17-16 21]

The goal of ALL Christians should be not to live as we are......sinners.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Yes, Homer, that is correct. Good explanation. Thank you.

It wasn't an explanation, it was a clarification of your beliefs. 

I think it's irrational.