User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 223

  1. #121
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    No. Nope. 1000x no. It's not even worth addressing. I think we're best to agree to disagree, a lot.
    So you're going to ignore aspects of queer theory because they're not helpful to your agenda? Got it.

  2. #122
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The difference is that you don't find elite Conservative Christian Theologians saying that Christians are just a bunch of people following Jesus. You do find liberal queer theorists saying homosexuality is a social construct.
    Me thinks you don't understand what they mean when they say that. Last I checked, it's currently the majority position (though I'm not sure I would say it's de facto consensus) that sexual orientation has at least some biological, non-social component. That's not really what the whole social construct thing is about.

    Let me put it this way. Differing levels of melanin in the skin can make some people appear to be a very dark brown, that is biologically true. Race, however, is a social construct. Do you understand how this works or do I have to explain it further?

    And just about anyone I know who'd call homosexuality a social construct would essentially say the same thing of Christianity.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #123
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Some nightclubs can discriminate based on physical appearance. (I have no knowledge of this practice aside from what I see on TV.) Some restaurants won't let you in without a jacket and tie; some places require you to wear a shirt and shoes. Why are these forms of discrimination allowed? I don't hear anyone in the media ever complaining about these forms of discrimination.

    I don't have a problem with any of these practices because I believe the business owner should be allowed to enter into a bartering situation with whomever he wants. The idea of the government forcing you to associate with someone that you don't want to is frankly, unamerican imho. Don't any of you guys respect property rights? Do you want the government to tell you how to decorate your home because a guest might be offended by your wallpaper? This controversy is simply a case of property rights vs hurting someone's feelings, no? Sorry, but property rights is much more important than sparing someone's feelings.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #124
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    /watches from the gay peanut gallery

    PS: No peanuts served to straight people in the peanut gallery. It goes against my religious beliefs.
    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so


  5. #125
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The difference is that you don't find elite Conservative Christian Theologians saying that Christians are just a bunch of people following Jesus. You do find liberal queer theorists saying homosexuality is a social construct.
    Social construct or not, it doesn't matter. It's an irrelevant moot point. If they are constructs, then we need them, because we need to label and differentiate differences. It's a sematic argument that is nothing more that a distraction. As Eff pointed out.

    The reason I am agreeing to disagree (mostly anyway) is because you're not going to yield an inch in your opinion. Unless I feel like I am going to make ground against someone (of if the lunacy of the argument is so out there that I just enjoy beating them over the head), I don't try; debating is very hard and not a natural skill for me. I'm bad at it and I won't delude myself into thinking otherwise.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  6. #126
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    This article is just an example of conservatives changing the narrative in order to find some way to deal with the "gay agenda". Some conservatives have come to the conclusion that legislation enforcing the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is doomed to eventually fail because of the similarity to previous battles against civil rights for blacks and women. They are correct. Thus, they've hit upon this kind of appalling tactic of "gay denial" - positing that no one is really gay, some people just have sex with the same gender. This way, they forestall gays becoming a protected class by arguing that there isn't a true class at all, just some people that like to have some kinky sex.

    I'll give it points for novelty. But it would be like saying there's no such thing as a Christian, just a bunch of people who follow Jesus. After all, the only true proof of being either gay or Christian is in the assertion of such. But I doubt those who cobbled together this philosophy would care very much for its logical extension.
    Feeling gay is a normal feeling based on an abnormal environment. People can say they have a gay orientation. But practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

    Being Christian and practicing Christianity are also two different things.

    Practicing homosexuality is an unholy lifestyle choice and practicing Christianity is a holy lifestyle choice.

    One is based on dysfunction and the other, optimal functioning.


    However, gays and homosexuals should not be excluded, but loved for who they are. They should only be judged by Priests or God's Holy Anointed, or God Himself. The general population, even Christians, have not been granted the right to judge, just rebuke and forgive.

    Quote Originally Posted by maybetmp View Post
    That seems a little optimistic. Besides, if people want a government that conforms to God's Law, then they can vote for those policies in a secular government. This actually works, and is observable in many (mostly negative) ways. What would be a better alternative to this? To do away with republicanism and replace it with a theocracy run by a hierarchy of unelected arbiters who get to pick and choose how the Bible is interpreted and, from there, how laws should be based on those interpretations? What about a court run by God's Law? Are we going to punish people for adultery, blasphemy, sodomy, etc.? Is that really a step forward?
    It is.

    Yes, I understand it's virtually impossible to imagine here on earth--God's Law functioning in all it's Glory.

    Jesus did away with the harsh OT stonings and killings for breaking moral Law. So those governments who want to punish for people committing those sins, are not following God's Law.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #127
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    An interesting example, in equating photography with speech. Seems to be more of an exercise in documenting the speech/actions of others, but no matter. The fact is, employers compel the speech of employees all the time. If you have moral qualms about it, the only choice is to find another job. You might argue that that's just what a fundamentalist Christian photographer is doing when refusing to be hired for a gay wedding. That, however, would be akin to your telling your boss that you won't present a particular marketing briefing because you consider it misleading, but you are willing to do all your other work. Your boss might be willing to accommodate, just as a gay couple might be willing to move on to a more open-minded photographer. But these would be courtesies freely offered, not rights compelled by law. If you are unwilling to serve all comers, don't hang out your shingle.

    Is everyone allowed to discriminate, as long as they can cite personal moral convictions?
    This is about business owners, not employees, a very important difference. An employee who refused to photograph a wedding against the wishes of his boss would not be able to claim a religious or moral exemption, and the business owner would be wise to fire him. If the vetoed law in Arizona said otherwise, then I oppose it (ironically, I debated against Beorn regarding that very thing a while back, except the employee in that case was a relationship counselor in Britain).

    Yes I did, I merely refrained from giving you a quote that could and (if the pattern of this thread is any indication) would be taken out of context, by someone else if not yourself. Individual rights apply to all, and protecting the right not to be coerced into photographing a neo-Nazi wedding necessarily means that the neo-Nazi may refuse to photograph any wedding his perverse ideology objected to, unless the government failed to come up with a compelling state reason against it. That's the reason neo-Nazis and other groups are allowed to march through neighborhoods, with priority given to First Amendment rights rather than the comfort of people in their own neighborhood.

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The difference is that you don't find elite Conservative Christian Theologians saying that Christians are just a bunch of people following Jesus. You do find liberal queer theorists saying homosexuality is a social construct.
    There are also Log Cabin Republicans, but I don't think anyone is looking to them for a representative sample of gay opinion, either.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  9. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    This is about business owners, not employees, a very important difference. An employee who refused to photograph a wedding against the wishes of his boss would not be able to claim a religious or moral exemption, and the business owner would be wise to fire him.
    But the law includes government workers. They don't work for a business owner per se, but they're very definitely employees.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  10. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Feeling gay is a normal feeling based on an abnormal environment. People can say they have a gay orientation. But practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

    Being Christian and practicing Christianity are also two different things.

    Practicing homosexuality is an unholy lifestyle choice and practicing Christianity is a holy lifestyle choice.

    One is based on dysfunction and the other, optimal functioning.
    And this refutes what I said how exactly?
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  2. Reconciling Evolution to Religious Beliefs
    By Mort Belfry in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 11:41 PM
  3. As if I needed another forum to check every day...
    By Cogwheel in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 07:09 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. Add another INFP to the list...
    By Cindyrella in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 01:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO