Same-sex marriage and children Prop8

[Zaac]

While Lynn can be abrasive, I am not sure this is a fair characterization.

Oh it is. And I must say, at least she is consistent. If it has to do with GLBT and your view is not the liberal viewpoint, you can expect to be accused of being hateful.

 

[fated]

While we're at it, can we return to the days of slavery, segregation, and where women couldn't vote? The civil rights movement really did put such a damper on things didn't it?




You do have that right. It's called, go to a Christian private school.

Illogical charges of bigotry.

A quote of a quote of a black person:
"I have met ex-gays, but I've never met an ex-black."

An action or self-identity is not the same as an objective reality. Therefore, it is impossible to create the equal status necessary to make the charge of bigotry (by alluding to segregation, you have done so). Now that I've told you that, it would be immoral for you to make the charge again.

 

[Texas Lynn]

She seems to be in the habit of running from thread to thread accusing anyone who disagrees with her liberal viewpoint as hateful.

That's kind of painting with a broad brush. Disagreeing is fine. But there is right and wrong and there is love and hate. To advocate harm to another is generally hateful.

The demonizing of LGBTs, while perhaps stating one's position, can certainly be considered hateful objectively--things such as the 1977 Briggs Initiative which sought to prohib LGBTs serving as teachers and failed by a landslide, was certainly a campaign for institutionalized hatred which the voters wisely and justly rejected.

It seems much of your points amount to overgeneralizations.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'm sorry my friend I don't see all ignorance as willful ignorance. It took me years of experience to arrive where I am and I can assure you that I was never willfully ignorant. Nor was I guillible (sp?)

As for giving the LGBT population the benefit of the doubt I am certainly what one would consider conservative and I just as certainly give them they benefit of the doubt and do not as far as I know seek to actively harm anyone. I am afraid you may be allowing a stereotype to rule your thinking.

As they say the devil's in the details. If you have for instance contributed to right-wing "ministries" pushing harmful legislation your claim would be false. Maybe it's you "allowing a sterotype" in your case one of yourself. A lot of people who claim to be "conservative" really aren't exactly.

 

[No Swansong]

As they say the devil's in the details. If you have for instance contributed to right-wing "ministries" pushing harmful legislation your claim would be false. Maybe it's you "allowing a sterotype" in your case one of yourself. A lot of people who claim to be "conservative" really aren't exactly.

Well I don't financially support any ministry other than my local Church nor do I financially support any political organization so I am pretty sure I haven't supported anything pushing "harmful" legislation.

As for conservative I am sure I fit well in the category.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Oh it is. And I must say, at least she is consistent. If it has to do with GLBT and your view is not the liberal viewpoint, you can expect to be accused of being hateful.

Well, that depends. McCain, for instance, is no 'phobe. In fact, his Chief of Staff on the Senate Staff is a gay man. He met with the Log Cabin Republicans. Sure, he has exploited the issues, but it's more a matter of his particular ruthlessness right now (willingness to do anything to try to change the race in his favor) than being actively hateful. Now, should he win (even though that's doubtful now, but, work with me here) I think it is quite possible he would not veto ENDA (the Employment Non-discrimination Act) if it is passed despite right-wingers who voted for him demanding that he do so because he knows they are wrong and has an appropriate contempt for them.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Illogical charges of bigotry.

A quote of a quote of a black person:
"I have met ex-gays, but I've never met an ex-black."

An action or self-identity is not the same as an objective reality. Therefore, it is impossible to create the equal status necessary to make the charge of bigotry (by alluding to segregation, you have done so). Now that I've told you that, it would be immoral for you to make the charge again.

The particulars of the characteristics of either African-Americans or LGBTs are unimportant in determining whether or not bigotry exists against them. Bigotry is an attitude of the one who has it, and has nothing to do with the attributes of the objects of it. One can be bigoted against African-Americans, Norwegians, LGBTs, female crane operators, red-headed Jews, Georgia Tech alumni, short people and an endless parade of persons of various characteristics.

BTW, some question whether or not "ex-gay" is a valid characteristic and there are African-Americans who "pass" for white but not as many as there were fifty years ago.

 

[Zaac]

That's kind of painting with a broad brush. Disagreeing is fine. But there is right and wrong and there is love and hate. To advocate harm to another is generally hateful.

I have yet to see a single time where anyone has advocated any such harm to another, yet you are calling folks hateful.

The demonizing of LGBTs, while perhaps stating one's position, can certainly be considered hateful objectively--things such as the 1977 Briggs Initiative which sought to prohib LGBTs serving as teachers and failed by a landslide, was certainly a campaign for institutionalized hatred which the voters wisely and justly rejected.

Where have you seen someone demonize homosexuals? Honestly some of yall create this notion in your heads that people hate homosexuals and it just some kind of way affects your thinking.

The Briggs Initiative has nothing to do with what any one on this board has said.

It seems much of your points amount to overgeneralizations.

It would seem that your overgeneralizations about people hating other people are manufactured and an attempt to win people to your liberal viewpoint.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I have yet to see a single time where anyone has advocated any such harm to another, yet you and Crazy Liz are calling folks hateful.

PPoR

Show me where I used the word "hateful" or anything like it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I have yet to see a single time where anyone has advocated any such harm to another, yet you and Crazy Liz are calling folks hateful.

The advocacy of harm to LGBTs and their families is a well-documented practice of various religious right groups. I'm referring to such things as Focus on the Family's praise of Chick-Fil-A's CEO Truett Cathey asserting he will never make a homosexual a manager of one of their stores. This is advocacy of discrimination in hiring practices, a form of harm, and illegal in about half the states. Other examples abound.

Where have you seen someone demonize homosexuals? Honestly some of yall create this notion in your heads that people hate homosexuals and it just some kind of way affects your thinking.

Any assertion LGBTs and their relationships are not as good as heterosexuals and their relationships constitutes the same.

The Briggs Initiative has nothing to do with what any one on this board has said.

Not specifically, yet it is the sort of legislation that warms the hearts of bigoted folks.

It would seem that your overgeneralizations about people hating other people are manufactured and an attempt to win people to your liberal viewpoint.

When harm to others is advocated it deserves to be called what it is.

 

[Zaac]

PPoR

Show me where I used the word "hateful" or anything like it.

My apologies Crazy Liz. I got some of Texas' posts mixed up as yours.

 

[Zaac]

The advocacy of harm to LGBTs and their families is a well-documented practice of various religious right groups. I'm referring to such things as Focus on the Family's praise of Chick-Fil-A's CEO Truett Cathey asserting he will never make a homosexual a manager of one of their stores. This is advocacy of discrimination in hiring practices, a form of harm, and illegal in about half the states. Other examples abound.

So what? They are his stores. He's a Christian. If he doesn't want to hire someone as a manager who goes against the foundational beliefs of His faith, he doesn't have to. Neither does he have to hire an adulterer, transgendered or liar if he doesn't want to.

When harm to others is advocated it deserves to be called what it is.

The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. So what should we term it when liberals insist that we advocate behavior that leads to death? Can a person be harmed more than death?

 

[Crazy Liz]

So what? They are his stores. He's a Christian. If he doesn't want to hire someone as a manager who goes against the foundational beliefs of His faith, he doesn't have to. Neither does he have to hire an adulterer, transgendered or liar if he doesn't want to.

So how does Romans 13 relate to Title VII, the Unruh Act, and similar laws?

 

[Zaac]

So how does Romans 13 relate to Title VII, the Unruh Act, and similar laws?

God has not called His people to submit to any law or belief that trangresses or contradicts His Word.

 

[revanneosl]

So what? They are his stores. He's a Christian. If he doesn't want to hire someone as a manager who goes against the foundational beliefs of His faith, he doesn't have to. Neither does he have to hire an adulterer, transgendered or liar if he doesn't want to.

...and if he doesn't want to hire black people, or Jews, or women as managers, then he shouldn't have to do that either?

...and if he doesn't want to serve black people, or brown people, or women who are not appropriately and modestly dressed, then he shouldn't have to do that either?