Since you brought up Billy Idol, have you guys heard the song “Black Wedding”, it’s a collaboration between In This Moment and Rob Halford. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fHAi_-DOy40 It’ a new/old sound.
No.
One of these flags symbolizes the idea that state governments should be able to decide to leave the United States and take their state with them if the United States government should impose legislation that demands regulation of unfair labor. Including unfair labor which has its roots in human trafficking and institutionalized racism.
The other is a flag that promotes the equal treatment of humans who want to have intercourse with other consenting adults whose biology does not allow for the pair to produce offspring.
I certainly understand the tension which might result from a flag that largely represents a minority group being hung so close to a flag that represents a group who believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you not to buy and sell minorities.
And I realize it's more complicated than that. The civil war wasn't just racism. Some of it was that the north and the south had radically different populations who benefited from different laws. The south had relied on slavery and doing away with it had crippling economic effects. I'm not trying to say slavery is acceptable, but isn't. But its important to remember the reasons people made the decisions they made in the context of when they made them.
And I realize that homosexuality has been demonized by certain religious organizations for centuries. I am aware that some people believe that homosexuality will result in eternal punishment. And I realize that there are homosexuals who have responded to this belief by hating those who have said believe. But it isn't a majority of homosexuals, and the ones who do are responding to a group of people who have been known on occasion to protest funerals and beat minors in the name of being agaisnt homosexuality. Again, not most.
It appears you have a popular opinion, I’m not interested in swimming upstream; but the loud vocal minority of sexual deviants are iron fisting(pun intended) their way of life on everyone else through totalitarian legislation. Tolerance of people who disagree with them is the last thing one would find.
intolerance of intolerance is the only way a society stays tolerant. It's Popper's paradox. Intolerance of people being intolerant to lgbt individuals/other races/etc is the only way to make progress towards a further tolerant society.
Also the civil war had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln needed more soldiers and decided to get the black population fighting on his side. Then the only reason it was banned in the south after the war was over was to cripple their economy as a punishment for trying to leave. The only people in the south that had slaves were the rich motherfuckers. The people that actually did the fighting fought to protect their states and their homes from the northern invaders. They didn't care if slavery was a thing or not they just wanted independence from what they saw as an oppressive government.
The verdict is not quite in. People can make compelling arguments based on fact of the period and conflicting first hand accounts to either point- wether slavery was or was no a central cause of the civil war is a fact we can’t, likely couldn’t have at the time, really declare. It was a component certainly, and we can’t argue against that. It was an issue which played a part, regardless of how big and regardless of why who felt what about it. The period after the war well into the present tells us that there were plenty of those under confederate and US flags both who were equally racist and equally against racism, who you fought for or where you lived doesn’t automatically determine an individual persons disposition or reasoning. We can also argue the original intent of a thing isn’t as relevant in the present as what a thing comes to be- and that even today there are those who fly either US or confederate flag as a symbol of hate or discrimination- “Alt right patriots” will fly a...
US flag while rallying to send “them” home or telling us how this group or that should “know it’s place” or is “ruining society” the same as a Klansman might say while under a confederate flag. At the same time, one might fly the US flag as a symbol of independence and liberty, the same as to an individual the confederate (battle) flag might still stand for such things. On a societal level however- most in the present will view the confederate flag as a sign of treason at the least, and for its post war association with racism. The entire Nazi party is not and was not solely about the Holocaust or Arian superiority. Not all Nazis or those who proudly flew the flag were aware or even agreed with those things, they may have been patriots or felt wronged after WW1 and sought “justice.” The US has done horrible things. Japan did TERRIBLE things in WW2, yet not only is the rising sun still widely used in products and Japanese military units- but even the US and other militaries often use it
As unit symbols for those operating in Japan. All this despite the fact that it not only was a military and political symbol of an enemy country who committed horrible atrocities on massive scale- but is STILL used by the Japanese ultra right wing nationalist groups. So it isn’t the most simple or clean cut thing- instead- the perception of any symbol changes through time and also by specifics of context and history, and in the end a symbol may mean very different things to individual people regardless. However it is juvenile and naive of us to think that our behavior does not effect others. That is where the paradox comes in. When someone associates an element of cultural tradition, a language, a religion with something like hate, violence- should they have to make sure that around others they do not show those things because of how others feel about those things versus how they do? Or should others understand that just because some would do evil under a symbol doesn’t mean the....
Symbol is evil? I don’t actually know. I don’t think the answer is universal though. I don’t think we can say that in all cases there is one way to handle it. I think we have to take things and individuals into account and as difficult or inconvenient as it may be, I think we need to consider each situation as it occurs and not just try to throw everything into sweeping and broad catagories that are “all encompassing” and absolute. Absolutes are necessary in life, but should generally be avoided as the absolute is in itself a slippery slope that closely ties in to intolerance and closed mindedness.
As Bethorien says- paradoxically, tolerance often carries intolerance of the intolerant. People raised on ideals of liberty and personal identity often do t realize we are projecting our own values when we say things like: “I can’t abide you suppressing this persons choice.” When it comes to the idea of tolerance- the ideals of liberty default to “live and let live-“ however- when the rights being protected are the rights of a minority, by default most of society wouldn’t natively include those people. So if you take a hands off approach- say that person A is free to have a face tattoo of sponge bob, but person B is free to deny them basic oundations of a life such as rights to the same commerce or home or other opportunities- it’s tantamount to not protecting the minorities right at all, and is not “live and let live” but is actually forced consensus by majority. Since the only criteria is whatever group finds itself as a minority in an issue, those individuals could be anyone....
... depending on the time and place. So it stands to reason that the only way to protect the right of ALL people to live and let live, is when all people allow all other people to live their way without impediment. Since that is the basis upon which a “free” society must function, society would require that those who do not willingly allow others to freely enjoy all the opportunities they would otherwise afford them, and equal treatment in their affairs, would be destructive to the foundations of freedom and society. What is crime? Why do we have jail? Because theft, murder, arson, whatever crime- has been determined to harm or disrupt society right? Freedom isn’t anarchy. You can’t allow a person to just kill whoever they want because that is what they felt like doing- and by default while you technically COULD go jay walk today if you wanted to- there would be a consequence if caught. Not because of any moral argument. Why is jay walking morally wrong beyond the circular argument...
... that it breaks a law? If there were no law- what would be the moral argument? It’s practical. Jay walking causes instability. It can cause accidents, death, property loss. If people cross wherever they want the road system wouldn’t function as intended and society and commerce suffer. Likewise- a society underpinned by liberty does not function where those liberties are arbitrarily curtailed based on subjective opinion. The liberty of a “free” and functioning society is one where freedom isn’t absolute. One has freedom so far as to not impinge upon the basic freedoms of others. When one does so- it is generally a criminal offense of some nature from trivial to severe. To discourage them and others from further destructive behavior, and hopefully help change their behavior. Intolerance by its nature is criminal in a “free society” and like many crimes- were the enforcement not backed by law, the enforcement itself would be criminal. To murder a murderer, to imprison a kidnapper...
... to disrupt the life of a person who disrupted another’s, to curtail the freedom of one who’s crime was to curtail the freedom of another... ironic perhaps. Hypocritical, imperfect. But also what we have, and what we apply as universally as possible to all harms of society. So yes, the tolerant can be intolerant of intolerance- because freedom and liberty as we know them demand it. And yes there are exceptions- some people who claim to be tolerant or seeking equality and universal acceptance but who would just as much rather simply change the roles from oppressed to oppressor than to truly try to make things equal. Those who seek revenge instead of justice, and so on. But a truly freedom seeking society doesn’t dwell in extremes. It seeks balance from all sides. In the same vein- those who are unbalanced in either direction commit the same crime they would hang their “enemy” for.
@guest_ Has the right idea here. It's a little complicated, but the jest is this: you cannot tolerate harm. You as a free person have the right do a lot of things, but your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbors right to not be hit begins.
And unfortunately it's often the loudest members of any group that are the least moderate.
I want to be left the hell alone by wieird city people. They insist on inserting themselves into my life and telling me that I do everything wrong. They make fun of us for being hicks and rednecks and Catholics and trade workers and farmers. God forbid I mention their foibles.
You’re a real disagreeable one aren’t you. Do you have any other moves besides crying false equivalency? What have I ever said that makes you think I’m homophobic? Is that just your go to? Homophobic, racist, xenophobic the trifecta of name calling to give the illusion that your intolerant ass has the moral high ground. How about it, can you defend your allegation of homophobia?
When faced with a logical fallacy doing anything other than calling out the fallacy is giving credence to its validity.
on the the rest of your post
"I see a lot of intolerance from those screaming “tolerance” the loudest. Just sayin."
this tends to be used solely by homophobes trying to justify their hateful opinions. Just sayin
then suck it up and deal with being called out on using logical fallacy. Or learn to create an actual function arguement. The latter being preferable tho I know rather unlikely.
You saw Catholic farmer and called me a homophobe. That annoys me. It’s a lazy way to attempt to dehumanize me and invalidate what I say. I have decided that anybody that decries me based on my religion or social status is in fact a bigot.
everyone ive ever seen use that arguement has used it to defend their homophobia or to bash on lgbt people for demanding rights. As such anyone that uses said argument will be assumed homophobic until proven otherwise.
Not only that but in context this use of said argument its being used to invalidate lgbt individuals who won't accept being treated with intolerance.
intolerance of lgbt people is inherently homophobic.
There is a valid point in the fact that bigotry and stereotypes, marginalization of a person based on certain attributes, is the same crime regardless of the attributes we choose. There are some flaws, but the big flaw comes in here: Beth:”made fun of in the same thought as "God forbid I mention their foibles"”
Poke: “That’s the point.” This sort of idea- the “turnabout is fair play” mentality is a spiral. The same behaviors you are complaining about from certain “kinds of people” are the behaviors that those people could attribute to “your kind of people” against them. And around and around it goes- until someone decides to be more evolved and say that two wrongs don’t make a right, and they aren’t going to play that game anymore. Otherwise the resentment you feel gets passed back to “people like them”- often not the same individuals even involved in the unpleasant events, who then pass that to “people like you” and we can keep going for centuries or more in a tug of war.
Come on, some city people do weird shit! Do you own a bicycle and car; or do you subscribe to them? Does your apartment building have one storage locker that every tenant shared in the basement? Do you listen to your neighbors mate through a shared wall? These are things that I consider absolutely nuts. Putting my life in the hands of a livery driver that I don’t know scares me. Being in close proximity to thousands of people and their disease ridden bodies on elevators, busses, subways and giant office buildings makes me cringe. Your normal is my nightmare. Now people that embrace this alien way of life make my laws and tell me how to live. There are legislators in New York State that have never traveled west or North of Albany and do not know what a real farm looks or smells like. The animals in their lives get pedicures and wear stupid little sweaters. How am I expected to accept this? Manufacturing, farming, construction, and food production all rely on rural dwellers, without...
...us you all die of exposure or starvation. We are not respected. We are a novelty to be paid lip service like the Amish. When we do push back we are labeled bigots and homophobes and xenophobes and any other kind of phobe they come up with next month. Most of us don’t give one flying fuck what you do as long as you’re not an asshole. Now the Information Age has our own kids led to believe that we are backwards and that we are the root of all evil in this country. You can only be told so many times from so many outlets that you are the problem before you decide to lash out. Now we gave you Trump. The subsequent freak out and two year temper tantrum has been amusing and eye opening. They have doubled down on the condemnation of Us and our way of life. Don’t call me a piece of shit and then tell me to adapt to your line of thinking when our people have fed, clothed and housed this nation for generations.
"you people are weird and the basic way that city life is that hasn't changed except by what tech is around in thousands of years is weird"
"we are a minority so we get treated like a minority and im going to complain about another minority getting rights while telling people to respect my minority and not point out my intolerance"
"being told that intolerance will not be tolerated makes me mad and more intolerant."
"my children don't like that im being intolerant and its all your fault for being intolerant of intolerance."
"don't tell me to stop being intolerant because we get paid to give you products and we've been paid to give you products for many generations"
Lmfao. You just told somebody else you are arguing with, “Please go learn how to construct an argument” your example is to resort to name calling and stereotypes and levying false accusations. I don’t know who hurt you but it wasn’t me.
I’m not sure why you have me labeled as a homophobe, but that label isn’t going to stick. Im been close with several homosexuals my entire life and know the nonsense they can be subject to.
you haven't made a single functional argument in this entire thread. you've just resorted to logical fallacy and whinged about people being different from you. You are an intolerant person. You never address your opponents argument. You pick out one bit, spew fallacy and semantics and then act like a pigeon that just shit all over a chess board believing to victorious.
""I see a lot of intolerance from those screaming “tolerance” the loudest. Just sayin."
that right there is directly complaining about people not accepting being treated with intolerance.
if youd actually read my derisive statement "im going to complain about another minority getting rights"
I said your complaing about another minority GETTING rights.
Understand this. I don’t care how many gay weddings you have. I’ve been to one. I don’t care (don’t require my church to officiate though). I have never spoken against your right to marriage equality. I hate the tax burden put on me and the Orwellian laws being championed by progressives in my state legislature. Tell me what I’m being intolerant of?
@pokethebear- you’re right in many regards, and certainly entitled to your feelings. City folk without any exposure to anything else don’t understand it, the same as country folk without exposure to anything else don’t understand city life. Those with experience in both prefer one or the other usually, and neither way is a clear winner since people also switch back and forth and each has pros and cons. It’s also true that many try to use “out of sight out of mind” to unfairly burden groups with less voice, or who don’t get as much attention, including many underprivileged groups, many minorities, and rural Americans. They figure that 5,000 people living on farms won’t have the same impact to their election or get the same bad press they would shafting 40,000+ in the city. However- in the end it doesn’t matter where or person lives or how they choose to live because all of us are on earth. That means that what we do effects other people. When they pass laws like no burning- that...
... doesnt likely effect city folk near as much as those in rural areas- but the overall intentions are for the common good. There are 7 billion people on earth. They all have to go somewhere. Laws are case by case. Some are stupid and one sided like you say, others may seem intrusive but are for good reason. We are only each one single person amongst billions all trying to live. The laws won’t be perfect for anyone, they are meant to allow everyone the best chance to live their lives though.
@pokethebear- And to the “don’t make my church marry you” thing... say a gay couple is living in a small town- and the church tells them to go get married somewhere else. And every church says the same thing. What do they do then? Can the church next to that one say they don’t have a problem with blacks, but if they want to marry they should go find another church? What if somehow all the churches in your area were ran by people who refused to marry straight people? That’s not ok. If you can refuse to marry gay people, you can refuse to do interracial marriages, or allow people of a certain race into your church. You can refuse to allow them to go to church functions, shop at the church owned businesses. They’d be cut off from networking and opportinities that often come through a church. And in small or rural areas, especially ones where there aren’t many like them- they’d be isolated and unable to get certain basic services. What’s more- once you establish that president, people...
... get very loose on defining what is and is not “Church” related. This isn’t speculation. It’s loterally the reason why so many of these types of laws telling people what they can and can’t do exist. Because always, but especially “post civil rights” post segregation etc. many went out of their way to try and find creative loop holes which allowed “legal” ways to keep discriminating. In fact- segregation “separate but equal” was itself a way to work around the spirit of the law to exclude people by upholding the ida that no ones human rights were being violated because people were being treated “equally,” just separately. And just like you want to live your life without someone with no idea what it is like to be you telling you that you can’t- so do those people. So someone has to play mommy when adults act like children.
First part- I was in Buffalo for a year in college. City living was not for me. Parking tickets for not moving my car at the right time on Wednesday really rubbed me wrong. The constant non stop noise was awful, we rented near an expressway near a hospital, a park and a zoo. I never saw the stars and it never got dark at night.
Second part- Don’t give me that church thing, justices and judges and church of the internet officiants marry people every day. I’m catholic, the Catholic Church does not perform same sex marriages. Indiana tried to press the issue several years ago. Nearly every town has a judge that can wed anybody. If there was a church of the internet that only married homosexual couples that was the only church in town the straight couples could also be wed by a Justice.
To the first part- I figure as much. Nothing you’ve ever said or done implied to me you didn’t have experience in a wide variety of things. If it’s not for you- it’s not for you. Me, I dislike suburbia, and I dislike big city living. I also only like country living in small doses. I like medium cities near enough big cities. I think New York City is a pretty terrible city, it doesn’t interest me and I wouldn’t put up with the crap there. I used to like SF (to cost not live,)less so now.
To the second part- but why should they have to? It’s not about what they CAN do, it’s avoit what they can’t. You have a choice. You could have a church wedding, or do something else. So why is it ok to take the choice from someone else? And your rebuttal reinforces my point. We could say the same thing if southern baptist churches refused to marry blacks or mixed couples. That they could go to city hall and get married. Of course- in a bit of dark humor there is a good chance that in a small town....
... the same guy that had to marry them at city hall would be part of and maybe even a preeminent member of the same church that refused to do the wedding. A church is a social meeting place. Mos are open to the public. The same church that would allow a gay couple to go- maybe even love them and hold them up as paragons of virtue if they didn’t know they were gay- would refuse a service to members of the congregation open to anyone else? Hell, many churches even rent out and will marry non members for money. That’s a business and one that is open to the public. What’s more- if you want to play the “sin” or “against the religion” card- let he who is without sin... if churches never married sinners they’d never marry anyone. Especially in Catholism where original sin is on everyone. Homosexuality isn’t listed as one of the deadly sins, it doesn’t get a mention in the 10 commandments, it barely gets called out at all in the Bible and even then it’s open to interpretation....
We might have to agree to disagree on the religion thing. I’ll ask my priest to officiate my cousin’s wedding if you can get an imam to officiate it first. The church’s official position now is no. You can’t force Scientologists to offer holy communion or Jehovah Witnesses to get tattoos or FSMs to recite the Lord’s Prayer. You cannot try to force a religion to step outside it’s own boundaries.
... and you mention catholism. One of the thousands of flavors of Christianity, one of the thousands of religions on earth in a number of religions and spiritual beliefs that grows over time. In fact to be a religion you just need enough people more or less. Jedi is a legal religion. So the argument “discrimination by dogma” can’t be abided by. It’s an argument that says all you have to do to shut someone out is pick a group and say they’re dirty sinners, and now you have the law on your side to exclude them from weddings, services, being in the building, going to schools or events- to many and on many places church is life. If you aren’t in the church you may as well not be part of the community and local economy or politics. We open that door to say you can or can’t turn these people away because your free interpretation of scripture says so and we might as well just keep a stock of “no <race> allowed” signs at city hall so people don’t have to print them.
@pokethebear- we may have to disagree indeed. That said- there’s a big difference between forcing a Jehova to get a tattoo and saying that Jehovas can’t refuse to let people with tattoos witness. There’s a big difference between saying you can’t force a Rabi to officiate over afternoon prayers and saying that Mormon churches can’t refuse to wed people with dark skin because they bear the “mark of Caine” on their flesh. You might be able to tell a Jedi religious follower that they do t have to perform a Sith ceromony, but that’s not the same as telling hem they can’t pull their kids from school to focus on their padawan training with the force, or that they can refuse to wed a sith who wants a Jedi ceromony and is civil, respectful etc. let alone a Christian owned community center that rents out its hall to people regardless of faith or membership- but refuses to host a family reunion because it’s a black family. The logic doesn’t hold up.
The only way, only one way i could see it that you could compell a Catholic priest to officiate a wedding ceremony for two homosexuals is if both parties are practicing Catholics. The Vatican may still put up a fight. Some churches will not wed a catholic to a Protestant. (Interesting side note; my iPhone automatically capitalized Protestant but not catholic, long form Roman Catholic it caught though, sorry I digress). That example is a bit extreme for my tastes but I know it happens. You cannot get a rabbi to wed two Lutherans, or an imam to wed two Jews. That said I can see some standing for two practicing Catholic homosexuals being wed in the church. My cousin is one, his partner was raised agnostic and has not converted. Methodists will wed mixed religions all day, I don’t lnow if they will perform a service for homosexuals, I truly believe that compelling clergy to perform a ceremony that violates their faith is wrong.
@guest_
The reasoning behind not hosting gay weddings isn't the same as the examples you give. The thinking behind refusing to officiate gay weddings isn't for the most part that being gay is considered a sin its that officiating such would be the clergyman committing a sin which is why the line is drawn there.
@pokethebear- I would agree in that regard. It seems that we don’t need to agree to disagree, that we largely agree and just needed to hash out the details. That is to say- you can’t outright force a person to wed two people- a priest might refuse to wed siblings, or might refuse to wed someone who was of a different faith and who’s services they didn’t know or were uncomfortable with or were counter to their own (such as a catholic priest being asked to perform a satanic wedding-) but where a priest would perform a ceromony for two different people under similar conditions, but due to an issue like race, gender, nationality refuses- that is discrimination. Of note- my phone doesn’t auto capitalize Catholic either. I forgot to correct that in an earlier post.
@bethorien- such might be the case- but as to my previous examples- the aptitude is relevant to what you say. Wether it is the issue of personal sin or the sin of another is irrelevant. The point remains that personal morality is that- personal. It is to be kept to your personal dealings. Where is the line? It’s hard to draw. But a history teacher who doesn’t want to discuss dinosaurs- a biology teacher who won’t teach evolution, these are some good examples of where it may be. Is it just fine for an employer to refuse to employ a woman before getting a permission slip from her custodial male before hiring her- since to them it is tantamount to sin to not make sure this woman wasn’t acting without her mans supervision? Can we abide a doctor who refuses to save the life of someone because to do so would be a sin to them? What if the law or principal isn’t discrimination? What if it’s something else like assault? What if your religion demands you stone or otherwise use corporal...
Punishment for a transgression? If it says a righteous and devout person will slit the throat of a blasphemer, or remove the tongue of a liar? By not doing that- aren’t we forcing them to sin too? Now- you might say it’s severe. But severity isn’t the principal here. The principal is harm. There is certainly in the law a hierarchy of things. A slap is not as severe as a gouge to the eye- but even spitting on someone is assault because harm. The principal is to protect from harm. Discrimination on society causes real harm to the individual and to the very working of society. When a person is acting in a capacity where they are dealing with the public, and that person discriminated on protected basis- they are not exercising a personal morality or their fundamental right to conduct their affairs. They are causing harm. Personal freedom is curtailed where public interest is at heart. One person deciding not to be friends with a gay person is a singular decision. One person deciding...
.... not to rent property to any gay people is a broad and far reaching harm. This isn’t a case of want versus want. Where both out singular wills conflict and the one in the position of advantage wins. This is a case where one single person decides to make a decision which influences a mass of people, based solely on discrimination against their existence. Existing is not, cannot, and must never be a crime. There must be a practical and legally defensible reason for refusing to allow a person the same treatment and consideration as anyone else. If we want to argue religion as a trump card to this- we must have a reason. So we say “it’s a sin.” Ok. Show me proof. Where does it say that to marry two men is a sin? Show me where.
Can you? Likely not. But let’s skup that and pretend we see it is. Ok. What is the harm of that sin? Will it make your god unhappy? Because maybe selling beer to a Mexican man would make your racist father unhappy- but that doesn’t mean the guy at the liquor store can refuse to do business with Mexicans just because of their nationality does it? Oh? Eternal damnation? Well. That’s much more serious. Ok. So, we need some proof of that. We know and have proof your discrimination causes harm. So we need to know that by not discriminating you’ll be subject to greater harm. So- shall we have a hearing before the Supreme Court? I suppose we could call the deity of your choice to testify, maybe pass verdict in absencia if they decide not to come be sworn in. But maybe a deposition would do? A simple written statement with sworn witnesses stating that this entity will in fact damn you for all eternity for what you would be asked to do? Huh. Well. I guess we can’t defend that legally...
... I guess we have no proof of a harm being done to you which is held to be worse than the harm you would do? We have belief. But you know- my grandma believed that if she didn’t keep every newspaper the window voices would kill her. The fire marshal disagreed based on his belief that it was a fire hazzardbto have an apartment stacked to the ceiling with newspapers and well- grandma lost and was sent to a home shortly after- where she still can’t have her newspapers. So belief doesn’t trump fact, and we know for a fact that regardless of what you believe that discrimination is harmful to society. We can’t and won’t force the Masons to bestow their highest honor on anyone who asks. It’s a private club and they have rights. But we also won’t and can’t allow them to deny members simply because they are gay, or Chinese, or have one leg....
So if your church allows new members, you have to allow anyone on who follows the doctrine as well as anyone else, who isn’t actively disruptive to your basic function- and by this I mean that they behave themselves. Saying that a person being red haired in your Vinicius ruins your ability to peacefully enjoy life may be a personal truth but it isn’t enough to allow you to not hire red heads. If your church performs weddings for non members, any non member is the same as another provided they follow all basic rules within these same confines. If you don’t want to serve the public then don’t. The public is full of people you might not cotton to. When a person who claims to act in the public interest, who pays no taxes and is given significant assistance to be allowed to do their work, refuses to serve members of the public as they would anyone else on the grounds of a protected status of that weapons very being- don’t serve the public. Take your church private as a for profit entity...
And give up the guise and responsibilities of those trappings. Yacht clubs and country clubs have been doing it for years to keep “those people” out while technically avoiding discrimination in an actionable way. That’s good company to be in for a religion is it not? But hey- why is this even a thing? Don’t take my word for it.
“..whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven..” Fish on Friday? Gone. Meat isn’t a sin. Circumcision? Nope. Staying uncut isn’t a sin anymore. And what about all those parts about a tenant of good faith with god being to abide the laws of man? That all authority on earth is granted through God and that to rebel against the laws of those God has seen fit to put into authority is to rebel against God? So legal gay marriage, illegal discrimination, no mention of it being a sin to wed 2 men (Catholics are BIG on sins. The commandments and other scriptures and church doctrines are very good about...
... making sure you know that you are a sinner, and why, even when that sin is one that was commuted before you were born, or you haven’t gotten around to yet...) and so- in all that there is curiously little about wedding two men.... huh. Well- I don’t see how comiting 2 sins is better than 1, and I don’t see any proof it even is a sin, and if it IS a sin to do so, we have clear evidence that the moment the pope says it isn’t a sin a stops being a sin... so I’m going to say the deck is stacked against any argument to the contrary even before we bring any other logic or principals of law into it. However- I leave an open offer to any who would challenge this to call their deity of choice to testify at an informal heari on the mater and set the matter straight. I will also bring one expert witness so that it is fair.
The pope still hasn't changed his stance on gay marriage. he still says marriage is between a man and a woman. He might say that being gay isnt a sin but he still hasn't changed the fact that for a catholic priest it is a sin to marry a gay couple.
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” It’s ok to commit that sin for a priest it seems. To wed hose who haven’t been properly annulled in Catholic fashion as required.
“You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” This is one the priest probably violates himself. But- what are the odds the bride or groom are wearing 100% wedding garments?
You’ll find all sorts of things in the Bible that people do all the time that are sins. Eating snails is a sin, technically most mollusks, crabs, etc. So we are back to discrimination. If you’re willing to sin to marry straight people but not to marry gay people that is the text book example of why anti discrimination laws exist. It’s your choice how you sin in your life yes. We can’t say that just because you blasphemed once means you might as well...
... adulter as well. However- when you repeatedly and habitually commit sins of convenience, or when you extend an exception to one group but not another on the basis of who they are- that is discrimination. That crosses a line. The church, any church, must change with the laws of the land. It doesn’t matter 2 shits of your religion says you have to cut off a thieves hands if the law says you can’t cut off people’s hands. In Catholicism as an example- the rules often change simply as marketing. Suddenly divorce isn’t this huge sin- it’s ok as long as you complete these new steps that make it ok. Eating meat on Friday is suddenly ok because other Christian faiths allow it and people like meat- so to keep people in those pews the dogma changes. In most of history reforms of the church have come through popular demand or through changing laws forcin the church to say “nah. We changed our mind...” because otherwise they end up a tiny church with no power or money or audience.
God never says to whore out religion to keep em in the seats. There’s no passage that says it’s totally fine to play to upvotes. We have precedent that changescan be made and that change usually comes from the bottom up or through the rule of law. The popes power comes from people giving the pope power, and so the pope cannot do anything so radical that they risk schism or losing support. Popes wait until there is enough support that they can pass a reform even if it is controversial- but not so controversial to cause them to be ousted. It’s pokitics and not religion- so hiding behind the mantle of religion to protect a political agenda is also not something supported in the Bible. If anything to use the word of God and the protection of God to work ones own will is perhaps itself a great sin.
With a rebel yell she cried, more, more, more
One of these flags symbolizes the idea that state governments should be able to decide to leave the United States and take their state with them if the United States government should impose legislation that demands regulation of unfair labor. Including unfair labor which has its roots in human trafficking and institutionalized racism.
The other is a flag that promotes the equal treatment of humans who want to have intercourse with other consenting adults whose biology does not allow for the pair to produce offspring.
I certainly understand the tension which might result from a flag that largely represents a minority group being hung so close to a flag that represents a group who believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you not to buy and sell minorities.
And I realize that homosexuality has been demonized by certain religious organizations for centuries. I am aware that some people believe that homosexuality will result in eternal punishment. And I realize that there are homosexuals who have responded to this belief by hating those who have said believe. But it isn't a majority of homosexuals, and the ones who do are responding to a group of people who have been known on occasion to protest funerals and beat minors in the name of being agaisnt homosexuality. Again, not most.
Also the civil war had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln needed more soldiers and decided to get the black population fighting on his side. Then the only reason it was banned in the south after the war was over was to cripple their economy as a punishment for trying to leave. The only people in the south that had slaves were the rich motherfuckers. The people that actually did the fighting fought to protect their states and their homes from the northern invaders. They didn't care if slavery was a thing or not they just wanted independence from what they saw as an oppressive government.
And unfortunately it's often the loudest members of any group that are the least moderate.
on the the rest of your post
"I see a lot of intolerance from those screaming “tolerance” the loudest. Just sayin."
this tends to be used solely by homophobes trying to justify their hateful opinions. Just sayin
"I see a lot of intolerance from those screaming “tolerance” the loudest. Just sayin." and declared you a homophobe.
intolerance of lgbt people is inherently homophobic.
Poke: “That’s the point.” This sort of idea- the “turnabout is fair play” mentality is a spiral. The same behaviors you are complaining about from certain “kinds of people” are the behaviors that those people could attribute to “your kind of people” against them. And around and around it goes- until someone decides to be more evolved and say that two wrongs don’t make a right, and they aren’t going to play that game anymore. Otherwise the resentment you feel gets passed back to “people like them”- often not the same individuals even involved in the unpleasant events, who then pass that to “people like you” and we can keep going for centuries or more in a tug of war.
"we are a minority so we get treated like a minority and im going to complain about another minority getting rights while telling people to respect my minority and not point out my intolerance"
"being told that intolerance will not be tolerated makes me mad and more intolerant."
"my children don't like that im being intolerant and its all your fault for being intolerant of intolerance."
"don't tell me to stop being intolerant because we get paid to give you products and we've been paid to give you products for many generations"
that right there is directly complaining about people not accepting being treated with intolerance.
if youd actually read my derisive statement "im going to complain about another minority getting rights"
I said your complaing about another minority GETTING rights.
Second part- Don’t give me that church thing, justices and judges and church of the internet officiants marry people every day. I’m catholic, the Catholic Church does not perform same sex marriages. Indiana tried to press the issue several years ago. Nearly every town has a judge that can wed anybody. If there was a church of the internet that only married homosexual couples that was the only church in town the straight couples could also be wed by a Justice.
To the second part- but why should they have to? It’s not about what they CAN do, it’s avoit what they can’t. You have a choice. You could have a church wedding, or do something else. So why is it ok to take the choice from someone else? And your rebuttal reinforces my point. We could say the same thing if southern baptist churches refused to marry blacks or mixed couples. That they could go to city hall and get married. Of course- in a bit of dark humor there is a good chance that in a small town....
The reasoning behind not hosting gay weddings isn't the same as the examples you give. The thinking behind refusing to officiate gay weddings isn't for the most part that being gay is considered a sin its that officiating such would be the clergyman committing a sin which is why the line is drawn there.
“..whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven..” Fish on Friday? Gone. Meat isn’t a sin. Circumcision? Nope. Staying uncut isn’t a sin anymore. And what about all those parts about a tenant of good faith with god being to abide the laws of man? That all authority on earth is granted through God and that to rebel against the laws of those God has seen fit to put into authority is to rebel against God? So legal gay marriage, illegal discrimination, no mention of it being a sin to wed 2 men (Catholics are BIG on sins. The commandments and other scriptures and church doctrines are very good about...
“You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” This is one the priest probably violates himself. But- what are the odds the bride or groom are wearing 100% wedding garments?
You’ll find all sorts of things in the Bible that people do all the time that are sins. Eating snails is a sin, technically most mollusks, crabs, etc. So we are back to discrimination. If you’re willing to sin to marry straight people but not to marry gay people that is the text book example of why anti discrimination laws exist. It’s your choice how you sin in your life yes. We can’t say that just because you blasphemed once means you might as well...