The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 33

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

 

what about about all the gay people suffering in Muslim countries?  Why doesn't Bingo want to talk about them?  

I don't know. You aren't talking about them. Why should he? 

because he talks so much about gays suffering because of Christinity?

I honestly don't see the point you're trying to make here Warb.

 my point is that he only talks about one and not the other.  I seek equality.

 Again, not trying to speak for Bingo, but really? Really? People need to complain equally about all the evils in the world or it's somehow unfair? 

Really?

RicOlie_2 said:

 

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 It's a private university, so it should be able to ask for Christian conduct. According to Christian religious belief, gay marriages are not genuine marriages.

Discrimination would look more like this:

heterosexuals can have sex; homosexuals must abstain from sex.

However, the rule is that everyone must practice abstinence unless they are married. 

 You're cognitive dissonance just made my head blow up.

"Christians believe homosexual marriage isn't genuine, so they can never get married. Let's include in our code of conduct the privileges marriage grants that can never be achieved by homosexuals."

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION. Literally. You could put that in a dictionary as an example. 

Listen. I get it. you don't like gays, you don't think they should be allowed to marry, you want to be able to discriminate against them, and if those Canucks get to discriminate against gays you're happy for them. 

At least that dude in Oklahoma admits he wants to stone gays. 

If you're for a system where people in a group by virtue of their power get additional rights and privileges... why keep lying and saying you aren't for that?

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

In reality, equality is a goal for all, but it is unachievable in practice, especially since the definition of equality in each circumstance will forever be in a state of flux.

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom.  There must also be freedom to discriminate, even when at times others find that discrimination offensive.  If you thought about the many behaviors you don't approve of, or how many outspoken individuals have lost their jobs due to racist comments, you'd realize that you discriminate, with every legal right to do so.

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Because equal rights (like the right to not be stoned to death) are soooooo frustrating.

 Frink, in all fairness, please remember Jetrell Fo said this:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone. 

 

 Then pehaps he shouldn't agree with lunatics when they act lunatic-y.

I said I understand his basic reasoning, I did not say I agree with lunacy.  Do not put words in my mouth as Bingo did, it does not suit you well, unless that is the effect you are going for.

 All I'm trying to do is understand what you said.  I guess I failed.

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

In reality, equality is a goal for all, but it is unachievable in practice, especially since the definition of equality in each circumstance will forever be in a state of flux.

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom.  There must also be freedom to discriminate, even when at times others find that discrimination offensive.  If you thought about the many behaviors you don't approve of, or how many outspoken individuals have lost their jobs due to racist comments, you'd realize that you discriminate, with every legal right to do so.

Every man has the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood as long as he is a Muslim. Just as every gay can get married in a Muslim country...to a member of the opposite sex.

"Never" is a bold term to throw around. I venture that some LDS based church will at some point perform a same sex wedding or blessing.  Other Christian churches already do but not all of them obviously, Some synagogues do too and did this before the civil legislation in the UK legitimised those marriages in a legal context.

I don't know of anyone who wants to force a Church to marry them. It's a different kettle of fish when people run a public business and refuse to serve people because they are gay or of a different ethnicity or creed. Nobody is immune for that sort of error.

TheBoost said:

Listen. I get it. you don't like gays, you don't think they should be allowed to marry, you want to be able to discriminate against them, and if those Canucks get to discriminate against gays you're happy for them. 

At least that dude in Oklahoma admits he wants to stone gays. 

I do hope you are not implying that RicOlie_2 wants to stone gays, cause I don't think that is the case at all.

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket,

While I you have the right to your opinion, if you are swearing while child are present, I think that is just wrong.  

but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

 I could be wrong, but I thought the Boyscouts had started to let gays in.

Warb either ignore me or don't ignore me.

Ignoring me means not replying to what is quoted either as if you can't read everything I post you won't get the larger context.

And that includes snide quotes in your signature banner.

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

 I agree with what ender wrote. The freedoms of religion, speech, and the press all allow us Canadians and Americans to discriminate. That's the beauty of a free country. You can discriminate in many ways. I wouldn't want it any other way. People discriminate against my beliefs when they try to force their values on me.

However, I think that anything that is not a choice should not be discriminated against. It should not be legal for people to discriminate against homosexuals just because they are homosexuals, and it should not be legal to discriminate against someone because they are black, or brown, or white.

But religion is a choice, and so is homosexual marriage. I think that discrimination should be allowed in those areas, with the exception of the government, which should protect people's right to discriminate while avoiding discrimination itself.

In my religion, the Sacrament of Communion is limited only to baptized Catholics who have not committed a mortal sin without going to confession. Is that discrimination? In a way it is, but I don't think anyone should be able to come in and force us to allow non-Catholic communicants.

In the same way, I don't think anyone should be able to come in and say that a Christian (not public) university shouldn't be allowed to prohibit attendance based on the moral beliefs of the Christian religion. Homosexuals are still allowed at the university--it would be discrimination if they weren't--but they are bound to the same rules as everyone else.

How is that not fair? Would you be opposed to the university prohibiting polygamous or incestual marriages and sexual activity among its students and staff?

I think the right to one's own religion, and the rights to free speech and the freedom of the press should outweigh any other rights, like the "right to marriage". I would like to see some valid reasons why that shouldn't be so.

And remember, if this was a public university, it would be a different scenario. But it isn't. You don't think that practicing homosexuals should be allowed into the seminary, do you? There are even more rigid rules about sex at one of those.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

 

what about about all the gay people suffering in Muslim countries?  Why doesn't Bingo want to talk about them?  

I don't know. You aren't talking about them. Why should he? 

because he talks so much about gays suffering because of Christinity?

I honestly don't see the point you're trying to make here Warb.

 my point is that he only talks about one and not the other.  I seek equality.

 Again, not trying to speak for Bingo, but really? Really? People need to complain equally about all the evils in the world or it's somehow unfair? 

Really?

 it is unfair when you focus and complain about the evil in one religious book but don't say anything about the exact same evil in another religious book.

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Because equal rights (like the right to not be stoned to death) are soooooo frustrating.

 Frink, in all fairness, please remember Jetrell Fo said this:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone. 

 

 Then pehaps he shouldn't agree with lunatics when they act lunatic-y.

I said I understand his basic reasoning, I did not say I agree with lunacy.  Do not put words in my mouth as Bingo did, it does not suit you well, unless that is the effect you are going for.

 All I'm trying to do is understand what you said.  I guess I failed.

That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.

Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions. 

These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.

I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration.  How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question.  Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature?  Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it?  How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?

Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct?  Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality?  Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?

Respect requires boundaries to work properly.  If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.          

I could say more, but I don't have time.  I'll just clarify that I meant to say Nation of Islam, not Muslim Brotherhood.  The Brotherhood would likely let me in, were I to convert (though since I haven't, they do discriminate against me).  The Nation of Islam would never let me in, as my religion can be changed, but race cannot.

Jetrell Fo said:

 

That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.

Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions. 

These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.

I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration.  How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question.  Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature?  Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it?  How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?

Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct?  Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality?  Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?

Respect requires boundaries to work properly.  If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.          

How far does equality have to go? What an asinine question.

Imagine yourself in the Jim Crow south, addressing a victim of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, public stoning, some young man with his eyes melted from bleach, some woman being executed for being the wrong religion in the wrong country, and asking "how far do we have to go to satisfy you people??"

So actually yes. If something old, capital 'C' Covenant or not, is based on discrimination and oppression, changing it would probably be good... or at least acknowledging that yes, we're discriminatory but we don't want to change because we enjoy our position of power and privilege.

Looking back on the past and acknowledging the bad things humans have done is a good thing (off the top of my head lets start with the chemical castration of the greatest war hero of WWII because he was gay). Erasing the past is usually what people who want to justify/continue oppression (lets call them the Bad Guys) want to do.

As for gay dinosaurs, deep down you must know your opinion is based on irrational prejudice , or else you wouldn't seek to justify it with something so utterly mouth-breathingly stupid.

My cousin and her wife are the most loving wonderful couple I know... but fuck it,  I guess we all might as well be dead.

Warbler said:

 it is unfair when you focus and complain about the evil in one religious book but don't say anything about the exact same evil in another religious book.

 Every time I eat at Del Taco, I get the worst diarrhea. It pissed me off because everyone always want to go and enjoy their bargain priced Mexican goodies, like the ChiliCheese Burrito, or the Double Del Combo.

My coworker today was all, "Hey, lets go to Del Taco and get some delicious Chili Nacho Tostadas"

I was all, "No way. I get mad diarrhea when I eat at Del Taco."

He was totally as like, "That's not fair. You would get the same diarrhea if you ate at Taco-Time, Del Taco's Northern California competitor. Why you be hating bro?"

That's probably true about Taco-Time, but I haven't been to a Taco-Time or gotten sick from their gooey "Mexi-Fries" in years, and there are no Taco-Times around me. 

Is it unfair of me to complain about Del Taco? Am I being unjust somehow? Should I always finish a complaint about Del Taco with a lengthy caveat about Taco-Time's menu, or how it might as well apply to many America Tex-Mex fast food establishments, possibly including but not limited to Moe's Southwest Grill, Nacho Harry's in Sacramento, or Taco Bell?

I keep waiting for Boosty to say something I disagree with.

TheBoost said:

Jetrell Fo said:

 

That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.

Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions. 

These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.

I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration.  How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question.  Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature?  Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it?  How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?

Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct?  Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality?  Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?

Respect requires boundaries to work properly.  If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.          

How far does equality have to go? What an asinine question.

Imagine yourself in the Jim Crow south, addressing a victim of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, public stoning, some young man with his eyes melted from bleach, some woman being executed for being the wrong religion in the wrong country, and asking "how far do we have to go to satisfy you people??"

So actually yes. If something old, capital 'C' Covenant or not, is based on discrimination and oppression, changing it would probably be good... or at least acknowledging that yes, we're discriminatory but we don't want to change because we enjoy our position of power and privilege.

Looking back on the past and acknowledging the bad things humans have done is a good thing (off the top of my head lets start with the chemical castration of the greatest war hero of WWII because he was gay). Erasing the past is usually what people who want to justify/continue oppression (lets call them the Bad Guys) want to do.

As for gay dinosaurs, deep down you must know your opinion is based on irrational prejudice , or else you wouldn't seek to justify it with something so utterly mouth-breathingly stupid.

My cousin and her wife are the most loving wonderful couple I know... but fuck it,  I guess we all might as well be dead.

I have no need to be concerned with your childish name calling just to make someone look lesser than yourself. 

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

I also found it strange that you chose NOT to mention Alan Turings pardon and the public apology received that acknowledge he was NOT treated fairly.  Seems some people in this world wanted to correct an injustice that had been done.

I disagree with wiping out the past to white wash it in the name of equality.  I support doing what we can do now to make sure that equality for all is an accepted everyday practice.

If you didn't just pick only certain words or phrases of a post to use them out of context to try and discredit someone I'd be more agreeable with you but internet posters like you are a dime a dozen.  

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

 I think it's important, and not just for you, to see the difference between an analogy and a parity.  There may come a time when people argue for legal human/animal or human/robot marriages.  And I have a feeling that many "progressives" might find a point that is "too far" for them, thus find themselves on the receiving end of the intolerance label.

You have every right to boycott the Boy Scouts.  It sounds to me that your attitude towards them is pretty harsh and that many of them are not exactly as you describe, but rather that they believe something to be wrong and are afraid of the practice spreading among their members.  The legitimacy of that believe can be argued, but I don't think their reasons are simply because they "don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around."  Oh, and an added, "Praise Jesus," so we get the picture that you, the non-stereotyping, progressive, all-accepting, non-discriminatory fellow that you are, are clearly drawing parallels with uneducated Southern Christians.

I don't mean to be harsh or rude, but rather I am pointing out how often the most vocal proponents of equality and non-discrimination can't see their own faults in the matter.  Tone down your rhetoric and your point will be far stronger, less diluted by your own prejudices.  Less is more.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

In reality, equality is a goal for all, but it is unachievable in practice, especially since the definition of equality in each circumstance will forever be in a state of flux.

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom.  There must also be freedom to discriminate, even when at times others find that discrimination offensive.  If you thought about the many behaviors you don't approve of, or how many outspoken individuals have lost their jobs due to racist comments, you'd realize that you discriminate, with every legal right to do so.

Every man has the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood as long as he is a Muslim. Just as every gay can get married in a Muslim country...to a member of the opposite sex.

As I pointed out, I meant Nation of Islam, an anti-white Muslim organization which would clearly not grant me entrance.  But still, the Muslim Brother would discriminate against me as well, and have the right to do so.  There has to be some permission in discrimination.

"Never" is a bold term to throw around. I venture that some LDS based church will at some point perform a same sex wedding or blessing.  Other Christian churches already do but not all of them obviously, Some synagogues do too and did this before the civil legislation in the UK legitimised those marriages in a legal context.

I don't know of anyone who wants to force a Church to marry them. It's a different kettle of fish when people run a public business and refuse to serve people because they are gay or of a different ethnicity or creed. Nobody is immune for that sort of error.

 I agree.  Except that I highly doubt my Church's position will change.  Indeed, many do, but considering the nature of my Church's doctrines on marriage, I can't see it happening.

Ender,

I think it's important, and not just for you, to see the difference between an analogy and a parity.  There may come a time when people argue for legal human/animal or human/robot marriages.  And I have a feeling that many "progressives" might find a point that is "too far" for them, thus find themselves on the receiving end of the intolerance label.

This is what I've been trying to get at but apparently I'm not saying it right?  I'm not sure.  I worry, as it has been insinuated here and said by others publicly that if you're not down with the change, you're going down.  Why does it have to go that far?  Why can't a guy who can refuse service to someone not wearing a t-shirt or shoes not be able to refuse service to other things he may not like?  Why does he have to be forced?  Is it so the media can say "we told you so" or that progress can use it as a victory in it's favor?  I guess I don't completely understand why this is acceptable to anyone just wanting equality.  

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

In reality, equality is a goal for all, but it is unachievable in practice, especially since the definition of equality in each circumstance will forever be in a state of flux.

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom.  There must also be freedom to discriminate, even when at times others find that discrimination offensive.  If you thought about the many behaviors you don't approve of, or how many outspoken individuals have lost their jobs due to racist comments, you'd realize that you discriminate, with every legal right to do so.

Every man has the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood as long as he is a Muslim. Just as every gay can get married in a Muslim country...to a member of the opposite sex.

As I pointed out, I meant Nation of Islam, an anti-white Muslim organization which would clearly not grant me entrance.  But still, the Muslim Brother would discriminate against me as well, and have the right to do so.  There has to be some permission in discrimination.

Anything is possible over time. Though some changes only add emphasis to the fundamental silliness of the organisation.

Oh and Jetrell Fo, I didn't put words in your mouth. I quoted huge chunks of your text, tried to get you to say what you meant by it and then you decided to give up.

You appeared to claim there was bigotry on both sides you appeared to  claim there was some point of comparison between acts of violence and suggesting to remove the passages that inspire them from official versions of church scripture (despite the lack of a homosexual manifesto calling for violence against Christians) and when drawn on it you spiraled into knot of circular nonsense which you accused me of looping when I was really trying to straighten it out.

It's not changing history to take those passages out of a church's official editions or to clarify the change in position within the official version. Most church scripture is in some way the result of selection and to various degrees of accuracy translation of other works which still exist in libraries for scholars to examine.

It's not as Warb once implied a call to burn old Bibles but rather to clarify what people of any faith believe now in the books held as the scripture of a contemporary religion. If a faith wants to keep those bits unchallenged they should stop pretending to be peaceful non-violent people because stoning people and burning people is on par with bleaching people and if you deliberately keep that in your official scripture you are party to contemporary violence based on those ancient texts.

Jetrell Fo said:

Ender,

I think it's important, and not just for you, to see the difference between an analogy and a parity.  There may come a time when people argue for legal human/animal or human/robot marriages.  And I have a feeling that many "progressives" might find a point that is "too far" for them, thus find themselves on the receiving end of the intolerance label.

This is what I've been trying to get at but apparently I'm not saying it right?  I'm not sure.  I worry, as it has been insinuated here and said by others publicly that if you're not down with the change, you're going down.  Why does it have to go that far?  Why can't a guy who can refuse service to someone not wearing a t-shirt or shoes not be able to refuse service to other things he may not like?  Why does he have to be forced?  Is it so the media can say "we told you so" or that progress can use it as a victory in it's favor?  I guess I don't completely understand why this is acceptable to anyone just wanting equality.  

History has shown that most important changes towards equality came from forceful campaigning not by just simply waiting politely for people to relinquish a position of power over others.

Universal suffrage took riots, acts of vandalism, hunger strikes and a lot of arguments to happen.

A lot of rich privileged white men didn't want poor men or women of different colours or creeds to have a say in the government of the day. Some poor men and women didn't want it either.

It is generally accepted that it was a change for the better or at least the more fair.

You also said : I also found it strange that you chose NOT to mention Alan Turings pardon and the public apology received that acknowledge he was NOT treated fairly.  Seems some people in this world wanted to correct an injustice that had been done.

That was only after many years of campaigning often by people wearing slogans and carrying banners. And posting on internet forums, forcing their views onto people some of which would rather not hear it.

Power over others is addictive you have to use tough love to get people to break the habit. But don't poor bleach on people, it sort of weakens your argument.

Jetrell Fo said:

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

 You can't be serious.

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

 You can't be serious.

Ok, really Frink, you're the only one that can have a sense of humor?

@Bingo .....  I've said I do not condone such actions so why would you think I would poor bleach on someone just because I don't like them.

Again, for clarity, and hopefully the last time I need to state it.  Bigotry is NOT limited to 1 particular religious group or global group of people.  It IS everywhere on both sides of the fence.  I would call anyone a liar who says otherwise.  If that is NOT clear, I will not say it again. 

You also said : I also found it strange that you chose NOT to mention Alan Turings pardon and the public apology received that acknowledge he was NOT treated fairly.  Seems some people in this world wanted to correct an injustice that had been done.

That was only after many years of campaigning often by people wearing slogans and carrying banners. And posting on internet forums, forcing their views onto people some of which would rather not hear it.

Okay, the fact that it has happened is something to be proud of even IF it took this long.  People wanted to right a wrong.  I would think it a positive that this was done and it should be celebrated.  The man WAS and still IS a HERO. 

Maybe we aren't seeing things on the same level and that is why our dialog has become confusing.  I have hope that this world we live in will evolve in to something far better than it has been.  I do not believe in pulling a George Lucas on Historical documents, religious texts, and such.  You have to know where you come from to see where you're headed.  I don't have issue starting fresh historical documentation to record the changes but you made it sound as if it should be the gay prerogative to change such things just because they don't agree with it.  That is how I took it by what you said.

The internet is so cold when it comes to words.  I think if we were having this conversation in person we would understand each other better.  And it certainly doesn't help when the Boost changes the meaning of what people have said to his advantage or when my friend Frink decides he's gonna toss some gasoline into a fire just to watch how high the flames will go .....  ;)

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

 You can't be serious.

Ok, really Frink, you're the only one that can have a sense of humor?

@Bingo .....  I've said I do not condone such actions so why would you think I would poor bleach on someone just because I don't like them.

Again, for clarity, and hopefully the last time I need to state it.  Bigotry is NOT limited to 1 particular religious group or global group of people.  It IS everywhere on both sides of the fence.  I would call anyone a liar who says otherwise.  If that is NOT clear, I will not say it again. 

You are repeating what you said without explaining what you said.

Discrimination is everywhere, we agree on that. I posted a link to a gay club not letting a disabled couple through their doors but when bigotry has a basis on a text held as 'holy' by one group who claim to be peaceful and claim to be against violence I can't see what is wrong in suggesting they distance themselves from that text.

The phrase "on both sides of the fence" has a particular meaning. It describes and adversarial relationship where a group on one side holds a certain view and a group on another side holds another view.

If you are suggesting this is an adversarial relationship where is the text that homosexuals hold dear advocating violence against Christians or Muslims or Jews?

There are plenty of books calling for violence against Jews or Muslims but none of them are written by or endorsed by Gay people collectively.

And yet all three religions collectively have passages in their holy texts calling for violence towards gay people.

That's a lot of followers and a lot of cultural influence so even if the bleach attacker is an atheist it's impossible to say he was immune from influence from that text.

I don't think there is necessarily an overall adversarial relationship between gay people and people of any other group but the text causes an adversarial relationship to occur between these groups on this one issue so it should be changed in the context of contemporary study and worship. Not expunged from history but placed within a historical context not a contemporary one.

I can get a copy of Triumph des Willens or Mein Kampf from the library but the German government doesn't endorse the contents as national policy anymore (I believe some persuasion was regrettably necessary).

You see what I mean now?

It hasn't been wiped from history but placed in an historical context.