Christians " take it in the TEETH, time and time again " so one day there will be no teeth left and smarter dicks fuck of your oral cavity will be all the easier.



A lot of hidden and metaphorical meanings there.

So slavery is back on then, yes? Exodus 21.

Huckabee's obliviousness to the fact that the Bible HAS been rewritten and edited many times throughout history is laughable.

This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with Mike Hucabee.

Gay people should not be turned away from like a best buy, applebees, whatever. But people who take photos, make videos, design clothes, they should be allowed to say I can't do this for you because my heart would not be in it.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

@VoodooV
Human morality surpassed biblical morality a long time ago.

You are sadly mistaken. Only the foolish think otherwise.

All evidence to the contrary.

And I know you'll back up your claims with some sort of objective evidence, won't you.

<sarcasm>of course you will</sarcasm>

Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality.

Just think, Fred Phelps did more to help Gays gain sympathy and rights than probably any of you did.

Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

@Jinx To me it's quite obvious that Phelps has had the opposite effect that he intended to have. People weren't willing to see themselves side with or compared to such an extremist and he gave ammo to those who said it's crazy to hate gays.

The Gay Rights movement is unprecedented in our countries history for how fast it is moving and achieving real results. You need to take a step back and recognize that fact, it's moving at a blistering pace. This is largely because of past movements which have laid the groundwork and the civilizing effect of the late 60s early 70s.

You can cite Russia all you want I don't care about Russia. I'm talking about the United States because this post is about a United States pundit/politician. If you want to discuss Russia fine but it should be on a video about Gay Rights in Russia.

Really? Lets say a wedding photographer was hired to shoot a wedding, but then refused to do so once the they found out it was going to be a wedding of a mixed race couple. And they said; "We're not going to shoot your wedding because interracial marriage is against our beliefs."

You don't think that sort of discrimination is worthy of the state human rights commission to fine that business?

Personally, I'm sick of bigots using religion as an excuse to treat fellow human beings like trash and getting away with it.

Maybe if you're a piece of shit bigot, you shouldn't own a business that deals with the public, or run for office.

If a wedding photographer said YES I will do your photoshoot and then showed up to the wedding they still have to do the shoot. Its their job to perform the shoot because it's not fair to the couple to have NO photographer once the wedding starts.

I have creative pursuits. If someone told me to make a song about hating cats I'd be like "sorry I can't I love cats".

It's not about hiding behind religion for me it applies to anything I don't believe in or like or whatever. As an artist I shouldn't be forced to do something with my pen, camera, note, paper, whatever I don't like or agree with.

You seem to have a lot of hate in your heart dude.

The key difference that you are ignoring is that this photographer told the client the reason they refused them service was because of their sexual orientation. If the photographer told the client that they had different artistic views, that would be different, but they didn't. New Mexico's anti-discrimination law forbids for-profit businesses from turning down customers on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that's a good law because I believe discrimination is bad.
I don't have hate in my heart "dude", it's indignation.

What makes being an "artist" so fucking special? Gee, I should be able to do whatever I want too without feeling inconvenienced and pressured in any way imaginable Let me guess, you're not a janitor, you're a sanitation engineer right?

I think Jon Stewart said it best: You're confusing religious oppression with not always getting what you want.

why is @Darkhand 's comment so hard to comprehend?
i would even take it a step further,because i have done it,and point the customer to another venue who would better serve them.

no muss.
no fuss.
and nobodies wittle feewings got hurt.

now if we take @Hanover_Phist 's analogy.
well thats a whole different animal.thats about integrity.
if i have committed myself to a venue,i honor my promises.if something about that venue bothers me then i better suck it up and maybe next time pay closer attention to who i was dealing with at the time of contract negotiations (been there as well).

so the disagreement between darkhand and hanover are really semantics and not relevant to each other.

and @VoodooV ,you are confusing 'artist" with "whore"....difference.

though there is no shortage of "artists" who "whore" themselves,but im gonna guess that darkhand is not one of those artists.

come to think of it,i can see how that can be confusing looking at the current state of art in regards to pop culture....

fuck me im getting old...and cranky.

dont judge me!
and get off my lawn!

My analogy has nothing to do with accepting the job and backing out, it has everything to do with WHY they refused these clients service. These people were turned away because of their sexual orientation. That was the photographers own words, it's not contested. 'We don't want to shoot your wedding because same sex marriage is against our beliefs.' That's discrimination. It's really quite simple. If you turn down customers on the basis of sexual orientation you are discriminating. You pay a fine.

I don't care to get into a pissing contest with you but there are things that just don't fit the evolutionary thought.

If evolution is the order of the day why would we need to have multiple dimensions. Physicists theorize that there are about 10 or 12.

Where does Quantum physic fit into evolution?

We all believe in the big bang theory but where did all the matter come from? What evolutionary reasoning explains this?

There are stuff out there that just make you stop and think otherwise.

wow...did you have a stroke or something bob? Nice attempt at another dodge. We're talking about YOUR claims of the superiority of biblical morality, not evolution. nice copy and paste from a right wing blog btw

no pissing matches, just changing the subject. gotcha. I can change the subject too. Hey look at the pretty flower!!

prove it or gtfo. I knew you'd fail like you always do, The best minds in the world can't prove your claims, so it's a given that a guy who has problems with constructing basic sentences sure as hell isn't going to be able to prove anything.

It's my fault though, I actually did give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't be a coward and change the subject.

It's time for you to go back yelling at kids to get off your lawn. You can't handle the internet, too many people willing to call you out on your cowardice, bullshit, and bad ideas. Off to the nursing home with you. grandpa.

I've always been ambivalent with those kind of people. Their actions and reactions either cause derisive humour or outright hostility. I kinda get the creeps if I ever have to talk to them, due to their unnatural and disturbing ways of thinking and acting. Most of the time, I kinda just want them to shut up and maybe just live their lives silently. They probably wouldn't have any troubles if they didn't broadcast their way of life to any who will listen.

I'm ok with gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders though. They don't bother me.

I never said it wasn't a huge improvement. I just don't want to attribute that improvement in any way to Phelps. Any alliance against him is about as weak as his position was.

I see what you did there :-)

Bobknight33...not to be rude, but did you go to school? Did they teach science there? You seem to not understand the terms you are using in the least....
Evolution is a biology term, describing the changes in biology over time due to environmental pressures.
Multiple dimensions is theoretical physics, attempting to describe how reality works....not biology, no evolution here.
Quantum physics is a different, somewhat theoretical, physics, attempting to describe how reality works at the mico level (which oddly is completely different from how it works on the macro level)....again, not biology, no evolution.
There are no clear, accepted theories about what happened before the big bang...yet. Normal physics breaks down at the beginning/bang, so anything said about what happened before is a guess, an educated guess at best. This is also a physics issue, not biology, so evolution doesn't enter into it.
Do you truly not understand this? If so, I blame your education, and suggest you go to night school and learn some science, especially if you intend to comment publicly about it and don't want to look a fool.

EDIT: Your questions are analogous to a person asking why the Old Testament doesn't explain the works of Muhammad, or really closer to asking why Shinto doesn't explain the life of Jebus. They aren't related except loosely in the 'religion' category, just like your post mixed up ideas from the 'science' category to imply it's all the same and related directly and one should describe and explain the other...that's just not right.

I would somewhat agree with VoodooV, except to state that there never was a biblical morality...much of what the bible teaches is completely immoral, like killing those that don't believe exactly what you do, or worship exactly as you do, or enslaving them, or raping them, or sleeping with your close relatives, etc. I could go on all day listing immoral suggestions from the bible, and I don't know it that well.
In my eyes, the bible was NEVER moral, or even intended to be, but was created as an immoral attempt to consolidate political power by consolidating religions....and it worked exactly as intended.

Along with @VoodooV you both blindly miss the point. Voodooh is not worth even answering anymore. He is carrying around too many personal issues that the chip on his shoulder is weighing him down.

You believe that everything evolved and t there is no room for Quantum physics in evolution. You say these 2 ideas are exclusively different and not connected

I say Yes Quantum physics is part of evolution "Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level." But from that understanding it is theorized that you are in multiple places at once. That point of thought has been well stated by your non god believing scientist.

In theory you are in many places at once. So what part of evolution does that serve? From an evolution point of view quantum physics should not be needed and should not exist.


And you indicate that before the big bang and up to that point its anybody's guess.

Your best guess is, well we don't know, but no fucking way GOD did it. Now that's being closed minded.


If science proves GOD to be a pipe dream then so be it. But every day I see science proving the case that there is a GOD.

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

You're hilarious @bobknight33...and a hypocrite. You claim that I'm not worth answering to, yet you still @ my name so you know I would see it...thus..answering me. I see you still haven't backed up your claim, coward

@newtboy Don't let him change the subject. He claims biblical morality is superior to secular morality. Then he changes the subject to evolution, which has nothing to do with his claim. Once again, a creationist is trying to shift the burden of proof. He somehow doesn't have to back up his claims, but we have to somehow disprove god...which science doesn't care about. Science only cares about claims you can back up, which the coward bob will never do.

Bob's got the five D's of Dodgeball down pat.

I'm bored, you're boring me, quit boring everyone!

Well see now that is the problem I personally have with people who are of "faith" .

Faith is the belief in something despite the factual absence of evidence.

What all this dimensional and big bang stuff is is theory, thought, based on evidence of the time. Evolution is a theory, a proven theory ( thought). Evolution has been proven, that theory is proven.

The community who are striving to understand the world in a provable and tangibly understandable way, those that are severely unfunded - have only thought and the scientific method to go about their theory and thoughts.

What people of your mind frame do is get in line with something based on nothing but feeling, because they had a vision or were brought up that way or do not fully understand what science actually is ( which I think you fall under ) You do not understand the fact the universe can be trillions and trillions of miles in either direction and you as if in an infant stage curl up into a mental fetal position and stay there. You can not grasp the fact no one knows for sure, what science at the time provides is not what you want to hear or understand so you are directed by whatever influence to go to the basic easiest most ignorant way of going about your time here, interaction with others and your surroundings.

Religion.

The thing that divides people.

yea everything is about you ya twat.

So the smiley-face is supposed to excuse ad-hom, bunny-man?? You could have called him a 'cunt' 'asshole', 'dipshit', any of these would be in violation of civil rules of decorum.

Could this obvious hypocritical double-standard applied to users who disgust you speak to a fundamental personality flaw which makes you just as anti-social as you accuse others of being?

Could pushing the rules of the sift to the brink indicate a personal loathing of anyone who has an opinion other than your own that you then personally deem 'unworthy' of your time when it could have been a springboard for another direction in this thread?

Maybe not, you gave Yogi time enough to label him 'twat' (which I suppose isn't so bad since 'twat' is socially acceptable in jest, etc. in certain countries.

Use that term with reference to a woman in America and see how long it takes your nose to flow red.

How about ya go feed yer bunny and who cares why people of faith bother you so much, sounds like a personal malfunction. Perhaps everything really is, all about you.

Grasping at air.

You comment about shit you have no clue or dealing with.

Yogi and I fuck around like that.... YA TWAT. Not like you are rightfully privledged for the friedly twat.. in this instance you are, like I said grasping at nothing saying nothing, meaning nothing and being nothing (here) .

Your little fart in the wind made me laugh up until the first ..say six/seven lines , depending on how your screen is formatted. You are nit picking at the first thing you see, you see but do not actually fully understand, you are lame. I mean , really just Lame.

picking for shit out of a friendly ribbing from a comment that was not even in any way directed at you.

@dag

nenner neener neener, this guy is a jack ass.

Yeah, yeah, and I joke around with yogi as well. My jab at your manner is lost to you. On the contrary, don't need a clue, as your modus operendi is apparent from your response to an observation, vis-a-vis my calling you out here.

You accuse people of being confrontational? Check that mirror again, perhaps.
You're welcome to maintain and foster any opinion you wish.

Nothing here? Obviously am or your blood-pressure wouldn't have spiked like it did during what appears to be a rather sophomoric and infantile reply.

Admittedly, I am guilty of the same when cornered by haters....working on that.

Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point. The fact that you've been directing foul energy in my direction on this site lately with a view to destroying my character and integrity is evident to all.

Not nit-picking sir, s..t-kicking....and trying to get it out of my way in order to walk unhindered by kak on my boots.

I'd be more than happy to talk to you in private or in real-time with a view to a mutual understanding because I'd rather not play this back-and fourth. Please...Name the venue of your choosing for a discussion.

@chingalara

"Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point"

- Actually the fact that I was installing an internal joke/ribbing into the comment stream is not a moot point, it as a very celebrated and basic point, also- you were brought aware of this point and then decided to point the comment I quoted above. Just so we are clear- grasping at air... or nothing because air is something you are grasping for anything for an argument, which equates to my standard of you being an attention whore.

ok what else what I thinking of ohh, scrolling above I read it. .

You and your character..and Int *cough* egrity

both of which you have little of here.

let me be clear as my final hello of the morning.

Your integrity here is null, your tenure here is null - chingalara??? why don't you sign is as choggie ? ! ? You have no tenure, I do not know why you were let back in, I have a clue why I was. you.. You offer nothing but the ying to a yang. and you never learn, ever. Deluded salt water taffy.

Now I must water some plants and let a rabbit out to frollic on my carpet.

So just to be clear, if an artist is homophobic, that's ok?

How about sexist? If I hire a photographer for a corporate event to celebrate the hiring of a new female CEO, it's cool for them to say "nah, I think women should be home raising kids"?

How about racist? How about discriminating on religious grounds? How about just ugly people? "I would shoot your wedding, but frankly, you're both just hideous and let's face it you don't need photos reminding you of that"

Fuck that.

The difference between the real situation of someone being discriminated on sexual orientation and @Darkhand's ridiculously contrived example of being forced to write a song about hating cats is that hating cats is perfectly socially and legally acceptable. Discriminating against people based on ethnicity, gender or orientation is not.

If you "take photos, make videos, design clothes" you're not an artist, you're a business. Your business happens to include art but you're already "whoring" yourself by offering your services for money. And the price of doing business is that you agree to abide by laws, one of which says that you cannot discriminate based on certain attributes.

OTOH, if you're a landscape artist who's commissioned by an oil company and you want to say "nope, I am not ethically comfortable with you" then yes, you have the right to refuse.

ahh the coward @Morganth rears their ugly head as well.

come on out of the shadows and defend your downvotes, your homophobia, and your shitty religion, if you can.

@ChaosEngine

i guess i was not clear.
so let me clarify.

i was not defending an artists right to discriminate on the basis of:sexual orientation,gender,race,class etc etc.

i WAS,however,defending an artists right to refuse a commission on their own personal grounds (whatever those might be) and they could do it without making a big deal about it.no need to be specific WHY you refused the commission.just that you wont be able to do the job to the best of your ability and that maybe joe-artist down the street could serve you better.

so you may find darkhands analogy trite and contrived but the basic heart of his comment is true.if his heart aint in it you are gonna get crap as a result.

being an artist for hire is nothing like owning a bagel shop or selling t-shirts.

if i aint feeling it...
i aint doing it.

if you want to project that i refuse because you are gay,or because their is a vagina involved..well..thats on you.
my reasons are my own.
i may share those reasons with you,i may not but i have that right to refuse the commission.

and the artists who DOES share a reason of homophobia or sexism is just dumb and probably not worth hiring anyways.

as for calling out artists who "whore" themselves.
i wasnt thinking of artists who accept money for the work they do.we all have to eat brother and if i used your example,each and every one of us are whores in one capacity or another.

i was actually thinking of the artists who lend their pen,brush,camera and instrument to create propaganda videos,commercials etc etc.

basically anyone who would sell their integrity for a buck.

I just disagree on all counts with you here.

What we need to do in these instances is try to help these people understand that gay marriage is okay.

Instead we force them to accept it which just not only further cements their beliefs but it will turn people who are more Laissez-faire about the issue into part of the larger problem. In my opinion this will only breed further extremism and more home grown terrorism.

You win stuff like this by being better than the other side. With love and compassion. Not forcing them to step in line.

did you just call out a sifter for downvoting your video and demand he explain himself?
and call him names to boot?
seriously?
he does not have to explain anything to you and since you added your little side of ad-hom flavor i am willing to bet bet he will NEVER respond to your demands.

yeah..thats classy.

@BoneRemake
i am a man of faith.
do you feel as strongly about me as you do @bobknight33.
do you speak about me in the same tone?

everything i do.
everything i say.
every minute of every waking hour is based on my faith.
is born from my faith.

maybe it is because of my faith i read bobs commentary different.
when he states that human morality has moved on from biblical morality..he is correct.

and i thought it very prescient of him to recognize that fact.

in his second commentary i watched him attempt to express how the picture had become so much larger..and grander,which only served to cement his faith even stronger.he was not dismissing science,he was incorporating it into his faith.

which some here viewed as a dodge.
now maybe that is due to a pre-conceived idea of who bob actually is.
if you think bob is a fundamentalist then yes..his commentary may seem a tad...off.

but if you see bob as a man of faith,then his comment revealed a curiosity and desire to understand and an absolute awe at the way of things unfolding before us.

if we look at science as the understanding of the physical universe by way of theory,testing and repeatable applications of said testing.then science is actually the search for god/creator (from a faith viewpoint).

were you aware that 60% of surveyed scientists regarded themselves as people of *gasp* faith?

i see a lot of people making assumptions and presumptions about other sifters here on this thread.

so you need to ask yourself one question:
how did you come to your assumption in regards to anothers:motivations,intent,feelings,faith?

what tool did you use?

was it a crystal ball?
ouija board?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and gain the super power of peering into another humans soul to discern their true intentions?

as humans we all assume to differing degrees,but if you are not a person of faith,then try to avoid those assumptions.

why not just ask bob?
he is usually gracious enough to interact with those he is full aware disagree with him..almost always.

ok.
enough ranting today.
you kids stay awesome,im off to get my pool ready !

@enoch, did I stutter?

Just so we're clear, you're telling me you have a problem with me calling out someone who has historically downvoted sifts that criticize the immoral acts of religion?

thus directly implying that they support the discrimination of homosexuals and other deplorable acts, and inviting that person to actually explain themselves? maybe they really aren't a bad person, that's why I'm asking them to clarify

you have a problem with this?

Are you defending a guy who supports discrimination? You've got to challenge these people dude, I have no problem admitting that I'm going to hound the sift trolls like bob and lantern53 and call them out whenever they support discrimination like this. The sift sends a really shitty message by tolerating them and their views

@VoodooV

is that what you did?
you just wanted to understand morganths downvote?
for him to clarify his position on why he would downvote a video on discrimination?

ok..let us look at your original comment shall we?

"ahh the coward @Morganth rears their ugly head as well.

come on out of the shadows and defend your downvotes, your homophobia, and your shitty religion, if you can."

i didnt see you ask once WHY he downvoted.
i did,however,see you call him a coward,a homophobe and disrespect his religion.

now maybe each one of your assumptions are spot on but we will never know the truth of that.
why?
because they are assumptions!!!

which is what i was pointing out.i am not defending morganths possible (and maybe probable) homophobia,i am defending his right to downvote without being harassed.

you do not know why he downvoted and neither do i.
maybe he just didnt like the video.
maybe huckebee is his uncle.
maybe he IS a homophobe.
maybe he just doesnt like you.
who knows?

and now we may never know because you did not just ask him to clarify his position..you ridiculed him..in public.

and that brings me to my secondary comment which deals with this issue and i think its an important one.
the subjectiveness of our own perceptions.

now maybe being called names and being poked in the ribs will bring you out to defend your position.....but thats YOU.other people may have a totally different reaction/response.

if your desire to understand is the motivation then maybe calling people names is not the best path in order to get them to share some of their inner-most feelings and/or ideologies.

to get respect you have first to give it.
and assumptions and presumption is disrespectful.

Now I'm bored.

The universe does revolve around me!

Respectfully....
You aren't keeping your word...already.
His comment was not directed at you (although I grant you he did use vulgarity of a type).
You claimed/promised you would only respond in kind if vulgarity and vitriol was directed at you...yet your reply about a comment to someone else still included un-needed vulgarity (although not directed at a person, which is an improvement) I think based on a misconception that he was being 'nasty' to that person.
You're doing better, but not quite there yet. Please try to keep your word to not use vulgarity unless it's directed directly at you (or your comment). Others can usually defend themselves if the feel the need, or you could do so without vulgarity. You promised to. (as I see it)
And trust me, if BoneRemake (or anyone else I notice) starts being as nasty and vulgar as you have often been in the past, I'll ask him to change his behavior as well. I hope it never comes to that again, it's not a pleasant position for me.

Well, I get your point, but @VoodooV did ask @Morganth to 'defend' his downvote, which in my mind is the same as asking 'why' he did it.
True enough, the request for explanation could have been far more respectful, but I have no idea of their respective history together, the disrespect may stem from previous disrespect by either or both parties...and as you said to get respect you first have to give it.

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

I must say I find your sentiment is correct, but not couched fully in reality.
Most people use religion as a tool to foster distrust and hate of others, not love. If more 'Christians' would follow the teachings of Jesus (of inclusion, tolerance, and living by the 'golden rule') rather than couch their arguments and feelings of intolerance in the old testament, there would be far less need for laws to force their proper behavior and fairness. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. Not only do more people use it to judge others rather than love them, rarely do we see that behavior called out by other Christians, making all of them somewhat guilty of it by complicity.
(I only single out Christians because 1)it's the major religion here and 2) it's the one being discussed here...not because I'm implying they have a monopoly on bad behavior).
Are you suggesting that religious marriage should no longer be legal marriage? If so, that's quite an interesting position to take as a preacher, one I applaud. I feel that if a church wants to remain 'separate' from government, it should not try to share ANY duties with it. If it wants to do things with legal civil implications outside religion, I think it's taking a dangerous road that puts it in bed with the current government, a road that may at some time force them to violate their conscience to remain 'compliant'.

Yes. I don't think the Church ought to act as an agent of the State. If people really want the State to recognize their marriage, they can go to a Justice of the Peace. If they want a church (mosque, temple, etc.) wedding they can arrange that where they worship. I would vote for that in a heartbeat.

Nice. That's an enlightening position to hear, and I fully support it.

Essentially that's already how it is in a lot of the world.

When I got married in NZ we had a secular wedding that was essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

When my friends got married they had a religious ceremony that was.... essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

As far as the state is concerned, you're married when you sign the documentation. Whatever else you do around that (secular, religious, whatever) is irrelevant.

As for gay weddings and churches, no-one is suggesting forcing churches to perform gay marriages. But once again, this is really, really simple. If you run a business*, you cannot discriminate against either your customers or employees on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.


* and no, there is no special exemption for your business if your business includes art.

The marriage license is a legal document in effect at the time it is returned to the court with a signature from the party performing the wedding. My signature on that document is required by the state when I perform a wedding. If I don't sign it after I marry them, they aren't legally married. Ministers are acting as an agent of the State in these weddings. My position is that it needs to stop.

I have considered refusing to sign these licenses, but it creates such a hassle for people at this point it's not worth it. I predict that there will come a day that the Church tells the State, 'we don't sign those any longer," and that will be good for everybody.

Just so you know, and it would appear some people on this thread don't, anti-discrimination law is not legislation designed to punish bigots or to teach people tolerance, they are there to protect people from discrimination. Protection from discrimination is something everyone needs. These are good laws that do good things. I find people's lack of faith in laws that protect people rather disturbing.

Ooooh, you used the "F" word.

Comm'on! I was referencing Darth Vader... for some reason.

@Hanover_Phist Sorry about that. I decided I had something more to say. I think I'll repost that comment.

@Hanover_Phist

@ChaosEngine

There are several cases currently being discussed in the US regarding Christians not wanting to support a gay marriage either through attending/participating (photographer) or by providing goods thereby giving the impression that they celebrate gay marriage (wedding cakes, etc.). The case with which I am most familiar is the Oregon couple who decided not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here is my understanding: The bakers were already serving gays and lesbians in the course of their day-to-day business. In fact, the couple whom they refused to provide with a wedding cake were already walk-in customers of the bakery. So, this isn't 'you're gay, you can't come in here.' This isn't a case of bigotry. They aren't saying, "I'm not going to serve you because of who you are." They are saying, "I can't do that wedding because of who I am." Bigotry says, "you can't come in here because you're black, gay, asian, white, straight, muslim, whatever." The bakers said, 'you are welcome here. We can serve you. You are also welcome to get married, however, we are not able to go there with you.'

In Canada, a woman went to a Muslim barbershop which only serves men. She demanded a haircut. Devout Muslim men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not a member of their own family. They denied her a haircut based not on who she was, but on who they were. They offered to find her a barber who would cut her hair. Not good enough. She pressed the issue. It became a case of what is now called 'conflicting rights.'

This is what has begun and will increase - cases of conflicting rights. People on both sides have rights. But the law is so blunt that all it has been able to accomplish at this point is to protect one side of those rights. I think that sooner or later our Supreme Court is going to have to take up this issue although, to date, they have been reticent to do so.

I would rather err on the side of love than the side of law any day. Love knows how to protect everyone.

First of all, I believe the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair is a jerk. I think that's kind of obvious. Outside of human rights, I think there should be laws to protect you from jerks. Depending on the area, municipal or provincial legislatures could address these kinds of issues in a more sensitive, localized, one on one basis.

But when it comes to basic, universal, human rights; your life, the colour of your skin, the sex you were born as and your sexual orientation are more protected than the thoughts in your head.

So when you say “People on both sides have rights” You leave me with the impression that you think these rights are equal, and they are not.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Thanks Silvercord, I do believe you've articulated yourself here better than I have. I don't take much issue with anything you've said above and I think we agree more than we disagree.

You're right, I'm from Canada. I have a unique perspective of American culture at the same time as living in the most culturally diverse city in the world. Here, multiculturalism is enshrined in law. We see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot. Something I'm quite proud of. (but not all Canadians feel the same way) There are plenty of conflicts of culture to choose from around here.

But when I'm speaking about an individuals 'fundamental human rights', I'm not speaking as a Canadian, or Torontonian or North American, I'm speaking as a human. And when I stated that religious/cultural rights were trumped by physical ones I didn't mean to suggest they were non-existent. The Klu Klux Klan for example is a religious organization (or at least that's what they call them selves) as is the Westboro Baptist Church and it's because their rights "extend to the tips of their noses" that they can't impose their will over people they believe are lesser than themselves. They are free to carry hateful ideas around in their heads, (as is their "right") but if it causes them to commit hateful actions, they are breaking the law.

The same can be said of the baker and the photographer. Albeit of varying degrees. The reason the baker and photographer have a sacred idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is because of an intolerance of homosexuality. You say they're not intolerant because they serve the gay community in every other aspect outside of marriage and I say if there is any way they treat the gay community differently than that is the very definition of discrimination. Again, it's just in varying degrees.

What if I held a religious belief that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman and refused to supply services to anyone outside of that definition? "Sorry we can't in good conscience go there. Oh, it's not you, it's me." I would be running my business in a discriminatory fashion and I would pay a fine. As it should be.

Might I suggest if you want to be selective as to who you will serve and who you won't based on the physical attributes someone was born with, that you keep those reasons to yourself and politely refuse service to those people citing a scheduling conflict or artistic differences. Because to stand up proudly saying you don't recognize gay marriage or mixed race coupling as your 'fundamental human right' is offensive. By all means, carry your intolerant ideas in your head, just don't carry out intolerant actions and think the rest of the community has to respect you for them.

"Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't."

Um, no, you're right. It doesn't work that way. But laws do create culture if not for this generation, than for the next. As Yogi stated above; "Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality." A little harsh perhaps, but when you you think back to the '40s, '50s and '60s and the how attitudes and culture have changed for the Black community you can't deny that civil rights laws have made the world a better place, for equality and for everyone.

Also;
http://videosift.com/video/Your-Arguments-Are-Invalid-Gay-Marriage