Is Everyone Now Pro-Gay?

[travelsouth]

but you entirely refuse to grasp the concept that individual freedom

Key word there is INDIVIDUAL... not organization or business. If you are a god damn church you better serve all your community because we are letting you operate tax free. If you are a business you damn well better serve your community because the only color you care about in business is green.

As someone who likes many tenets of the libertarian movement let me be the first one to say I believe in individual freedom not organizational freedom. We hold a business (and if you don't think a church is a business you are loco) to different standards. I don't think the national hobby shop chain or chicken shop gets to discriminate. And if you pass a basket around for money and you don't pay taxes on that, then you can go ahead and serve the community as well.

[Cornfed]

If you are a god damn church you better serve all your community because we are letting you operate tax free. If you are a business you damn well better serve your community because the only color you care about in business is green.

Faggots, satanists etc. are not part of a Christian community.

[gsjackson]

Yeah, that's a pretty odd libertarian idea -- that governments get to use the coercive power of the tax system to define what a religious community should be. They should be all-inclusive? That would have been the oddest of notions at the time when religion was established as a constitutionally valued and protected institution. It more or less defines religion out of existence, and I guess if it is being compared to vendors of hobbies and food, then that's the whole idea here.

Well, it certainly removes a major impediment to the normalization of homosexuality and other forms of behavior that religions have traditionally opposed.

[travelsouth]

Yeah, that's a pretty odd libertarian idea -- that governments get to use the coercive power of the tax system to define what a religious community should be. They should be all-inclusive? That would have been the oddest of notions at the time when religion was established as a constitutionally valued and protected institution. It more or less defines religion out of existence, and I guess if it is being compared to vendors of hobbies and food, then that's the whole idea here.

Well, it certainly removes a major impediment to the normalization of homosexuality and other forms of behavior that religions have traditionally opposed.

We've been having this debate for awhile now. Are corporations people? If you are a sane person you realize they are made up of people, but the actual organization is merely paper.

Under the law we either allow discrimination or we don't. If you can deny fags, then you can also discriminate against interracial couples. And all you old white dudes are thinking... alright no problem I guess. Aren't a lot of you trying to get with hot latinas and asians? And that's what it comes down to. I get to do my thing with the latinas and the butt pirates get to do their thing.

Stop worrying about everyone else and worry about your damn self. Defend your right to Colombians, and stop worrying about what other men do with their assholes. Don't be like Donald Trump. A man with two foreign wives, and the grandson of a foreign war dodger, with no money, who came to America. Not one of the good people "the Donald" would let stay after removing birth right citizenship. Moral of the story, don't be an assclown.

If you are actually traveling overseas and dating women you don't care about this crap. Only those in desperate need for a blowjob get worked up about this stuff. If you are getting your dick wet on 9s and 10s... then you are way to busy traveling to worry about what other men do with their peckers.

[gsjackson]

We've been having this debate for awhile now. Are corporations people? If you are a sane person you realize they are made up of people, but the actual organization is merely paper.

Under the law we either allow discrimination or we don't. If you can deny fags, then you can also discriminate against interracial couples. And all you old white dudes are thinking... alright no problem I guess. Aren't a lot of you trying to get with hot latinas and asians? And that's what it comes down to. I get to do my thing with the latinas and the butt pirates get to do their thing.

Stop worrying about everyone else and worry about your damn self. Defend your right to Colombians, and stop worrying about what other men do with their assholes. Don't be like Donald Trump. A man with two foreign wives, and the grandson of a foreign war dodger, with no money, who came to America. Not one of the good people "the Donald" would let stay after removing birth right citizenship. Moral of the story, don't be an assclown.

If you are actually traveling overseas and dating women you don't care about this crap. Only those in desperate need for a blowjob get worked up about this stuff. If you are getting your dick wet on 9s and 10s... then you are way to busy traveling to worry about what other men do with their peckers.

No, no one's been having the debate you've conjured up. The U.S. Constitution's valuation and protection of religion has nothing at all to do with the legal status of corporations, which has been determined by case law. Religions are not merely pieces of paper, reflecting an organizational pursuit of monetary profit. They are historical accumulations of doctrine, ritual and folkways that have been integrated into the fabrics of most societies throughout history.

And what is it you mean by "discrimination?" I'm sure most any body of worship would permit homosexuals to attend and participate. If, however, they want sanction for behavior that the religion deems to be immoral, then the religion must either say no or fundamentally change its character.

Why do you care about people who "care about this crap," and deem yourself sufficiently omniscient to make generalizations about them? Just to strike a pose of superiority? Seems like a pretty cheap thrill. Or is it to bring in your dismissive and reductionist view of religion?

[OutWest]

We've been having this debate for awhile now. Are corporations people? If you are a sane person you realize they are made up of people, but the actual organization is merely paper.

Under the law we either allow discrimination or we don't. If you can deny fags, then you can also discriminate against interracial couples. And all you old white dudes are thinking... alright no problem I guess. Aren't a lot of you trying to get with hot latinas and asians? And that's what it comes down to. I get to do my thing with the latinas and the butt pirates get to do their thing.

Stop worrying about everyone else and worry about your damn self. Defend your right to Colombians, and stop worrying about what other men do with their assholes. Don't be like Donald Trump. A man with two foreign wives, and the grandson of a foreign war dodger, with no money, who came to America. Not one of the good people "the Donald" would let stay after removing birth right citizenship. Moral of the story, don't be an assclown.

If you are actually traveling overseas and dating women you don't care about this crap. Only those in desperate need for a blowjob get worked up about this stuff. If you are getting your dick wet on 9s and 10s... then you are way to busy traveling to worry about what other men do with their peckers.

No, no one's been having the debate you've conjured up. The U.S. Constitution's valuation and protection of religion has nothing at all to do with the legal status of corporations, which has been determined by case law. Religions are not merely pieces of paper, reflecting an organizational pursuit of monetary profit. They are historical accumulations of doctrine, ritual and folkways that have been integrated into the fabrics of most societies throughout history.

And what is it you mean by "discrimination?" I'm sure most any body of worship would permit homosexuals to attend and participate. If, however, they want sanction for behavior that the religion deems to be immoral, then the religion must either say no or fundamentally change its character.

Why do you care about people who "care about this crap," and deem yourself sufficiently omniscient to make generalizations about them? Just to strike a pose of superiority? Seems like a pretty cheap thrill. Or is it to bring in your dismissive and reductionist view of religion?

...+1. It's the "strike a pose of superiority and the dismissive reductionist view of religion" part...

[travelsouth]

We've been having this debate for awhile now. Are corporations people? If you are a sane person you realize they are made up of people, but the actual organization is merely paper.

Under the law we either allow discrimination or we don't. If you can deny fags, then you can also discriminate against interracial couples. And all you old white dudes are thinking... alright no problem I guess. Aren't a lot of you trying to get with hot latinas and asians? And that's what it comes down to. I get to do my thing with the latinas and the butt pirates get to do their thing.

Stop worrying about everyone else and worry about your damn self. Defend your right to Colombians, and stop worrying about what other men do with their assholes. Don't be like Donald Trump. A man with two foreign wives, and the grandson of a foreign war dodger, with no money, who came to America. Not one of the good people "the Donald" would let stay after removing birth right citizenship. Moral of the story, don't be an assclown.

If you are actually traveling overseas and dating women you don't care about this crap. Only those in desperate need for a blowjob get worked up about this stuff. If you are getting your dick wet on 9s and 10s... then you are way to busy traveling to worry about what other men do with their peckers.

No, no one's been having the debate you've conjured up. The U.S. Constitution's valuation and protection of religion has nothing at all to do with the legal status of corporations, which has been determined by case law. Religions are not merely pieces of paper, reflecting an organizational pursuit of monetary profit. They are historical accumulations of doctrine, ritual and folkways that have been integrated into the fabrics of most societies throughout history.

And what is it you mean by "discrimination?" I'm sure most any body of worship would permit homosexuals to attend and participate. If, however, they want sanction for behavior that the religion deems to be immoral, then the religion must either say no or fundamentally change its character.

Why do you care about people who "care about this crap," and deem yourself sufficiently omniscient to make generalizations about them? Just to strike a pose of superiority? Seems like a pretty cheap thrill. Or is it to bring in your dismissive and reductionist view of religion?

I'm not dismissive of religion anymore than I am of the 3 little pigs. They are both great fables.

[onethousandknives]

but you entirely refuse to grasp the concept that individual freedom

Key word there is INDIVIDUAL... not organization or business. If you are a god damn church you better serve all your community because we are letting you operate tax free. If you are a business you damn well better serve your community because the only color you care about in business is green.

As someone who likes many tenets of the libertarian movement let me be the first one to say I believe in individual freedom not organizational freedom. We hold a business (and if you don't think a church is a business you are loco) to different standards. I don't think the national hobby shop chain or chicken shop gets to discriminate. And if you pass a basket around for money and you don't pay taxes on that, then you can go ahead and serve the community as well.

No, a fundamental right of business is the right to discriminate between customers. Mind you, discriminating because someone is gay or a race you don't like I think isn't the smartest idea. But in painting for example, there are some brands of paint I would refuse to use. Let's say I want all my customers using Benjamin Moore because I like it and think it's good paint. But a customer wants me to use $15 a gallon paint from a chain store on his house. I don't wish to use said paint because the quality is not good, it would be harder to work with, possibly need more coats, whatever. If the customer doesn't want to use the paint I wish to use and pay $30 a gallon for nicer paint from a brand I like and feel comfortable using, I say bye bye and tell the customer to find someone else. Because I would not want to put my name on something that would be substandard, or do more labor and get a worse result all because "the customer is always right!" That's a fundamental right in business, the ability to refuse a customer for any reason. Same with renting a house, whatever, you get to choose your customers, if someone just *seems* like an obvious heroin addict or something, you have every right to refuse them and look for someone else who seems like they would be a better renter of your property.

As far as religious institutions, they are not the only tax free organizations. There is not an obligation to "serve the community" for a religious institution, and if you think so it is likely because of Christianity giving you that thought process. Religion is about worshipping whatever god or deity you believe in, learning about it, or discussing beliefs. Most religions do advocate community service, but they are not obligated to serve the community. Lots of organizations for better or worse are tax free. Ralph Nader's non-profit is tax free and he makes $500-700K a year and has a 4 million net worth. Most sporting organizations are surprisingly, tax free, but make boatloads of money and again have CEOs making half a million or a million a year. Whether or not you think this is bad or should be changed, this is the way things are. At the very least for almost all religious institutes except for Scientology, while they can ask for money from you, or strongly persuade you to give money to them, you do not have to pay money for their services. Thus why it's a good thing they are tax exempt. To show up to church on Sunday you do not have to pay $5 or $10 for a ticket to church. Meanwhile things like sports, to participate in sports, you have to pay to just show up for the activity, pay competition fees, spectator fees, etc. I mean, to some extent, everything is a scam, so megachurch pastors get gobs of money, but so do do-nothing CEOs of sporting organizations in USA that haven't won Olympic medals in 20 years that charge membership fees. So if you believe a broader look at tax exempt status is looked at, then maybe so, but it's not just religion who is guilty of abuse of it, and I would say they are pretty minor players in it (for example, the NFL was tax exempt.)

[travelsouth]

No, a fundamental right of business is the right to discriminate between customers. Mind you, discriminating because someone is gay or a race you don't like I think isn't the smartest idea.

Think about it like this. You tell the Church they can either be taxed or serve there community. All of the sudden fags wont be a problem at all. Tell the chicken shop they can have a 5% tax discount if they serve fags with a smile... 5 seconds later they'd have a smile for fags corporate policy.

I will agree with you that the issues of "rights" do get complicated. What you will find over and over again as we move forward is that your problem of being grossed out is not considered as important as two queers doing what they want. Two people getting married supersedes you not being "comfortable" with it.

[onethousandknives]

No, a fundamental right of business is the right to discriminate between customers. Mind you, discriminating because someone is gay or a race you don't like I think isn't the smartest idea.

Think about it like this. You tell the Church they can either be taxed or serve there community. All of the sudden fags wont be a problem at all. Tell the chicken shop they can have a 5% tax discount if they serve fags with a smile... 5 seconds later they'd have a smile for fags corporate policy.

I will agree with you that the issues of "rights" do get complicated. What you will find over and over again as we move forward is that your problem of being grossed out is not considered as important as two queers doing what they want. Two people getting married supersedes you not being "comfortable" with it.

What does "serve their community" entail? Why specifically churches? Why not tax the Ferrari Club of America? Why not tax, say, USA Swimming or Track and Field? Why not tax any of the numerous LGBT non-profits, too? Why just religion because you're mad at it? Why are you complaining about churches (of which an incredibly small amount of would disallow someone who is homosexual from simply attending services) and not groups like the Masons who have "separate but equal" racially and gender segregated lodges for their members of their downright evil religion? Why would or should the government mandate smiling at people?

Simply being "grossed out" is not my problem regarding gay marriage, and to be honest in your post I was not even addressing gay marriage specifically, just your idiotic assertions about religion and businesses being forced to do things because you think they should.

Anyway, this is the best written argument I've read against gay marriage and I'd like to leave it here.
https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrenc ... y-marriage

So, what is wrong with gay marriage? It’s a reasonable question for water-cooler philosophers: if two guys love each other, why can’t they get married? The question strikes us as reasonable only because we are modern. Ancient people (that is, earlier than 1960), be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or pagan, would have regarded the phrase “homosexual marriage” as essentially oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms. Yes, pagans too. Pagans such as those living in the Roman Empire in the time of Christ generally had no problem with homosexuality (word had it that even Socrates could swing both ways), but they separated it entirely from marriage. Pagans, in other words, though not the slightest bit illiberal, could at least think. They had no problem with a man fornicating (or “hooking up” as we call it today) with any number of women, or with any number of men, or any number of boys. But all this sexuality activity had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage, as ancient pagan, Jew, Christian, and Zoroastrian knew, involved man and woman, and resultant babies whose legitimacy was rooted in the legal obligations the biological parents owed to each other. Accordingly a pagan man might have a wife and legal heirs, as well as other women (and men or boys) on the side. Presumably he had the sense to keep them a reasonable distance from each other. (We think of the toast: “To our wives and sweet-hearts—may they never meet.”) For the ancients, marriage was the institution in which babies were produced and family happened.

This does not mean, of course, that if society allows Gay Marriage, and a justice of the peace or some liberal clergy pronounce them “man and spouse” then the wheels will fall off western civilization by a week next Thursday. But it does mean that changes will have been put into place which will eventually work themselves out in many unforeseen ways in the generations to come. Gender is sufficiently basic to human nature that messing with it and altering the nature of marriage so fundamentally will produce many far-reaching changes. The family factory is not that busted, and if we “fix” it or tamper with it, the resulting human product will be altered in many unforeseen ways. Obviously I cannot elaborate in which ways, or they would not be unforeseen. But fifty or a hundred years after putting the leaven of gay marriage into the lump of what it means to be a family, we may be confident that the lump will be pretty thoroughly leavened. And this resultant bread (to continue to metaphor) will not be Wonder Bread. It will not (as Wonder Bread originally advertised) build strong healthy bodies twelve ways, nor contribute to the health of our civilization. Why should Gay Marriage be disallowed? Because it eventually will alter what we mean by family, men, and women, and this alteration will not be for the better. If and when that happens, those gathering at the water-cooler generations hence will not look back on us with favour.

[travelsouth]

No, a fundamental right of business is the right to discriminate between customers. Mind you, discriminating because someone is gay or a race you don't like I think isn't the smartest idea.

Think about it like this. You tell the Church they can either be taxed or serve there community. All of the sudden fags wont be a problem at all. Tell the chicken shop they can have a 5% tax discount if they serve fags with a smile... 5 seconds later they'd have a smile for fags corporate policy.

I will agree with you that the issues of "rights" do get complicated. What you will find over and over again as we move forward is that your problem of being grossed out is not considered as important as two queers doing what they want. Two people getting married supersedes you not being "comfortable" with it.

What does "serve their community" entail? Why specifically churches? Why not tax the Ferrari Club of America? Why not tax, say, USA Swimming or Track and Field? Why not tax any of the numerous LGBT non-profits, too? Why just religion because you're mad at it? Why are you complaining about churches (of which an incredibly small amount of would disallow someone who is homosexual from simply attending services) and not groups like the Masons who have "separate but equal" racially and gender segregated lodges for their members of their downright evil religion? Why would or should the government mandate smiling at people?

Simply being "grossed out" is not my problem regarding gay marriage, and to be honest in your post I was not even addressing gay marriage specifically, just your idiotic assertions about religion and businesses being forced to do things because you think they should.

Anyway, this is the best written argument I've read against gay marriage and I'd like to leave it here.
https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrenc ... y-marriage

So, what is wrong with gay marriage? It’s a reasonable question for water-cooler philosophers: if two guys love each other, why can’t they get married? The question strikes us as reasonable only because we are modern. Ancient people (that is, earlier than 1960), be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or pagan, would have regarded the phrase “homosexual marriage” as essentially oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms. Yes, pagans too. Pagans such as those living in the Roman Empire in the time of Christ generally had no problem with homosexuality (word had it that even Socrates could swing both ways), but they separated it entirely from marriage. Pagans, in other words, though not the slightest bit illiberal, could at least think. They had no problem with a man fornicating (or “hooking up” as we call it today) with any number of women, or with any number of men, or any number of boys. But all this sexuality activity had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage, as ancient pagan, Jew, Christian, and Zoroastrian knew, involved man and woman, and resultant babies whose legitimacy was rooted in the legal obligations the biological parents owed to each other. Accordingly a pagan man might have a wife and legal heirs, as well as other women (and men or boys) on the side. Presumably he had the sense to keep them a reasonable distance from each other. (We think of the toast: “To our wives and sweet-hearts—may they never meet.”) For the ancients, marriage was the institution in which babies were produced and family happened.

This does not mean, of course, that if society allows Gay Marriage, and a justice of the peace or some liberal clergy pronounce them “man and spouse” then the wheels will fall off western civilization by a week next Thursday. But it does mean that changes will have been put into place which will eventually work themselves out in many unforeseen ways in the generations to come. Gender is sufficiently basic to human nature that messing with it and altering the nature of marriage so fundamentally will produce many far-reaching changes. The family factory is not that busted, and if we “fix” it or tamper with it, the resulting human product will be altered in many unforeseen ways. Obviously I cannot elaborate in which ways, or they would not be unforeseen. But fifty or a hundred years after putting the leaven of gay marriage into the lump of what it means to be a family, we may be confident that the lump will be pretty thoroughly leavened. And this resultant bread (to continue to metaphor) will not be Wonder Bread. It will not (as Wonder Bread originally advertised) build strong healthy bodies twelve ways, nor contribute to the health of our civilization. Why should Gay Marriage be disallowed? Because it eventually will alter what we mean by family, men, and women, and this alteration will not be for the better. If and when that happens, those gathering at the water-cooler generations hence will not look back on us with favour.

I don't have an issue taxing gays either. Most charities are corrupt as hell unfortunately. Labor unions historically have done great things for society, but if you talk to many folks in a union right now they'll have underfunded pensions. We don't hold leaders accountable. You ass rape kids you can be taxed as far as i'm concerned. If you want to extend that to other special interest groups that's okay by me.

[gnosis]

One of the problems of normalizing the gay lifestyle is the damage it does to normal relationships among heterosexual men. Normal guys have a harder time making friends with men. They also have more difficulty emotionally connecting with men.

The fear of being accused of being gay tends to atomize heterosexual men.

[travelsouth]

One of the problems of normalizing the gay lifestyle is the damage it does to normal relationships among heterosexual men. Normal guys have a harder time making friends with men. They also have more difficulty emotionally connecting with men.

The fear of being accused of being gay tends to atomize heterosexual men.

This type of thought process shows weakness IMO. I can't imagine people with a cowardly attitude being able to handle themselves in a place like Colombia OR to be able to domesticate a strong willed latina for that matter.

[Taco]

This just in...

Society Blind To Psy War On Heterosexuals
http://henrymakow.com/heterophobia_eras ... consc.html