The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 198
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    Northeast OH
    Posts
    3,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    Being homosexual is not a free pass to do whatever you want without consequences or criticism, nor are people required or obligated to like or love you because you identify as such and that is what Trak is trying to say.... in his own special way....covered in hot sauce.
    I absolutely agree.

    All the article is suggesting, however, is that people should consider perhaps not actively reminding gay individuals that they believe they're sinners, abominations, and going to hell.

    People are perfectly entitled to feel hateful or angry (although both seem like a waste of time to me), but IMO it takes a special sort of awful person/church/whatever to repeatedly pound messages of hate and eternal damnation into others... especially over some attribute the victim didn't choose, can't change, and probably would be quite happy over IF others didn't discriminate against them for.

    Even when people avoid actively spouting hate, but tell gay kids that they love them "even though" they "disagree with their lifestyle" is reprehensible. That is exactly how you build self-loathing and trash a kid's self esteem. Sexuality isn't a choice, it isn't a "lifestyle," it's a biologically driven preference.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You do realize that there are not many "unbelievers" out there, don't you?
    Last statistics I read, in the good old USA, the percentage of believers was around 90%.

    Hard to blame much of anything on that small 10%, as much intolerance there is out there.

    Do you really think that all those votes against gay marriage were not the majority from those that call themselves christians?

    What a way to re-direct the blame.
    Correlation does not equal causation. I would blame it more on politics than religion...politics using religion to control the masses.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2007
    Location
    Bremo Bluff, Virginia
    Posts
    1,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy Palomino Hunter View Post
    All the article is suggesting, however, is that people should consider perhaps not actively reminding gay individuals that they believe they're sinners, abominations, and going to hell.
    I just felt this part needed repeating.
    "In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people angry and has widely been considered as a bad move." -Douglas Adams


    9 members found this post helpful.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2013
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy Palomino Hunter View Post
    I absolutely agree.

    All the article is suggesting, however, is that people should consider perhaps not actively reminding gay individuals that they believe they're sinners, abominations, and going to hell.

    People are perfectly entitled to feel hateful or angry (although both seem like a waste of time to me), but IMO it takes a special sort of awful person/church/whatever to repeatedly pound messages of hate and eternal damnation into others... especially over some attribute the victim didn't choose, can't change, and probably would be quite happy over IF others didn't discriminate against them for.

    Even when people avoid actively spouting hate, but tell gay kids that they love them "even though" they "disagree with their lifestyle" is reprehensible. That is exactly how you build self-loathing and trash a kid's self esteem. Sexuality isn't a choice, it isn't a "lifestyle," it's a biologically driven preference.
    Sexual acts are certainly a choice - homo or heterosexual. Unless you consider teenage hormones gone wild...

    I do believe that homosexual sex is a sin, but I also think it is blown way out of proportion. Overeating is just as much of a sin. But you don't see people out there protesting against overweight people.

    I still don't understand the baker controversy. He agrees to bake cakes for homosexuals, but not for a homosexual wedding. He's not discriminating against the individual but instead the event. Would this same controversy be happening if he refused to bake a cake for a release of a porno movie starring black actors? Would that be discriminating against blacks even though he's just opposed to the porno?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,629

    Default

    You do realize that there are not many "unbelievers" out there, don't you?
    Last statistics I read, in the good old USA, the percentage of believers was around 90%.
    Yes, but the number that actually really are religious are far far less. Even amongst people who attend church, very few of them have read the Bible. Why? I'm not quite sure. Few people actually read. I'm sure that very few people have ever really heard what Jesus actually said.

    That's why I say so many of his actual words - not for unbelievers, but for "believers"


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coyoteco View Post
    Ahh, but they should be that important. That's the better intellectual inquiry. How to make laws less intrusive.

    So, see??? The continuous dialog about this issue of gayness is not because of the Christians. The continuous dialog is because the gay radicals and their straight but radical friends (as opposed to gays in general) are obsessed with keeping it in the forefront.

    This goes back to the original post. Why express an opinion? Because the same people who "outed" gays in previous decades are determined to abuse another generation.
    This post makes no sense.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  7. #147

    Default

    Sexual acts are certainly a choice - homo or heterosexual. Unless you consider teenage hormones gone wild...

    The sexual acts one participates in are influenced by your sexual orientation, which you don't choose. Straight couples can choose to participate in the same sexual acts as gay couples, so the acts themselves don't matter.


    I still don't understand the baker controversy. He agrees to bake cakes for homosexuals, but not for a homosexual wedding. He's not discriminating against the individual but instead the event. Would this same controversy be happening if he refused to bake a cake for a release of a porno movie starring black actors? Would that be discriminating against blacks even though he's just opposed to the porno?

    For the umpteenth time, he denied them service. Period. He wouldn't make the cake because it was for a gay wedding, so he was discriminating against them based on sexual orientation. The baker openly admitted it, so there was no questioning his reason behind it.

    I don't know if there's any law that allows a person to refuse to create something portraying an obscene image. Cake Disasters and other cake blogs have featured vagina and penis cakes, so they definitely have been made by someone. Obviously, if the baker outright said "I won't make this porno cake because the actors are black" that would be a legal issue because they're admitting it's race driven.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Yes, but the number that actually really are religious are far far less. Even amongst people who attend church, very few of them have read the Bible. Why? I'm not quite sure. Few people actually read. I'm sure that very few people have ever really heard what Jesus actually said.

    That's why I say so many of his actual words - not for unbelievers, but for "believers"
    Technically, you're really only hearing what others heard Jesus say. It's a technical point but an important one.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2008
    Location
    Greeley, Colorado
    Posts
    3,882

    Default

    I have no dog in this fight but I do have to pop in and say something. It is SO refreshing to see posters like moonriverfarm and OneGreyPony talk so rationally about religion. It's so much easier to have a discussion with Christians like them who consider all sides of the argument instead of using the bible to justify bigotry and hatred. Thank you!
    **Friend of bar.ka**

    Fils Du Reverdy (Revy)- 1993 Selle Francais Gelding
    My equine soulmate


    8 members found this post helpful.

  10. #150

    Default

    My thought has always been that we are created in God's image. God doesn't make mistakes. So we are all children of God, straight or gay. Blue eyed, brown eyed. Tall or short.

    Being gay is no more a choice than eye color or height. It's just another genetic variation and it's shameful that some use religion to justify hate of any group.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,629

    Default

    Technically, you're really only hearing what others heard Jesus say. It's a technical point but an important one.
    Sure. I suppose you could argue that. Although I'm not sure why you would. What he is reported to have said is far different (and way more liberal) than most would have you believe.

    That doesn't really take away from the point, though. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. Contextually, the type of homosexuality that Paul was speaking of in his letters was actually related to the practice of raping male conquerees and visiting male prostitutes in temples (while we are bringing context into it).


    4 members found this post helpful.

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 2005
    Posts
    2,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    I can't remember having to produce a specific document to ensure my DH get's all my stuff when I die, other than a legal marriage. Pretty sure he gets it just because we are married. Or the right to see me in the ICU. Isn't that what happened to those little old ladies? And the one left behind got nothing from their lifetime together. Yes it could have been remedied by paying a lawyer to draw up specific documents. Why do they NEED to pay lawyer to have the same benefits marriage would have given them? I say it must be the lawyers fault!
    Seriously, you don't know the intestate laws of your state, and you don't have a will because you'd have to pay a lawyer or research how to draft your own? That's irresponsible, actually. Depending on your state and depending on other things, you may not be leaving everything to your spouse, or he/she to you.
    The little old ladies that I know about were sisters, so I don't know your point.
    And I absolutely do not think it is "discrimination" or "unequal treatment under the law" for a person to take the tiniest bit of responsibility for his/her life.
    Seriously, you do want a nanny state.



  13. #153
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coyoteco View Post
    Seriously, you don't know the intestate laws of your state, and you don't have a will because you'd have to pay a lawyer or research how to draft your own? That's irresponsible, actually. Depending on your state and depending on other things, you may not be leaving everything to your spouse, or he/she to you.
    The little old ladies that I know about were sisters, so I don't know your point.
    And I absolutely do not think it is "discrimination" or "unequal treatment under the law" for a person to take the tiniest bit of responsibility for his/her life.
    Seriously, you do want a nanny state.
    There's a lot more to legal marriage than what happens if you don't make a will.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 2005
    Posts
    2,296

    Default

    Just to let you all know that the civil rights act prohibits denial only od "public accommodations" and that does not include cupcakes. Do none of you notice that the gay man and his mother didn't want to buy anything expensive - they wanted to make their point and wanted to ensure that if he agreed, they wouldn't buy anything that profited him much.

    They are just horrible people and his being gay does not change that fact.



  15. #155
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 2005
    Posts
    2,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grayarabpony View Post
    There's a lot more to legal marriage than what happens if you don't make a will.
    Yours is a quote of my post that specifically addresses issues raised in the post it addresses - where the poster was saying that it was too expensive to hire a lawyer and having to hire one is too onerous a burden to place on a gay couple. That's a pretty lame argument.



  16. #156
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coyoteco View Post
    Just to let you all know that the civil rights act prohibits denial only od "public accommodations" and that does not include cupcakes. Do none of you notice that the gay man and his mother didn't want to buy anything expensive - they wanted to make their point and wanted to ensure that if he agreed, they wouldn't buy anything that profited him much.

    They are just horrible people and his being gay does not change that fact.

    They're horrible people because they ordered cupcakes? And why are cupcakes not included under the civil rights act?


    10 members found this post helpful.

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coyoteco View Post
    Yours is a quote of my post that specifically addresses issues raised in the post it addresses - where the poster was saying that it was too expensive to hire a lawyer and having to hire one is too onerous a burden to place on a gay couple. That's a pretty lame argument.
    A gay couple shouldn't have to hire a lawyer. They should just be able to get married. Arguments against that are pretty lame.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    32,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coyoteco View Post
    Yours is a quote of my post that specifically addresses issues raised in the post it addresses - where the poster was saying that it was too expensive to hire a lawyer and having to hire one is too onerous a burden to place on a gay couple. That's a pretty lame argument.
    It starts with children born into a marriage, where gay couples have to adopt...
    the next of kin issue, should you end up in the hospital
    Taxes on inheritance...
    and the list goes on and on.
    I do not have to make a will (unless I want certain things go to specific places) for my husband to get my stuff.
    There is no question about hetero spouses being included in the health insurance policies and death benefits....
    And that is only the stuff I can think off at the top of my head. Heck, even 'common law' couples enjoy greater protection and benefits!


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 2005
    Posts
    2,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grayarabpony View Post
    They're horrible people because they ordered cupcakes? And why are cupcakes not included under the civil rights act?
    They re horrible people because they went out to find a person to bully. They had many places from which to order cupcakes. They selected this man because they knew of his beliefs and they wanted to punish him for his beliefs. He was polite to them and said he'd be happy to serve them for any other event and he welcomed them as customers.
    They are intolerant bullies. That is what I mean.

    Cupcakes are not within the definition of "public accommodations". It is that simple.



  20. #160
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,629

    Default

    If I'm reading Coyoteco's point correctly, it seems he/she believes that these folks were doing that just to make a fuss, as opposed to being innocent and being denied. And that does happen, people often walk into a Lion's Den just so they can make a fuss. I'm not sure that is the case here, but like I mentioned before, I missed the whole bruhaha, so I may not have all the facts.

    Regardless of intent, it sounds like the action was against the law, which is kind of a tricky law IMO, but I'm not sure if I see a better way of doing things.

    Again, and for the record, I think they should be able to buy cupcakes. I'm just talking about the legal part.

    Related to intestate laws, there are loads of weird situations related to that. One *should* check your State's laws


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 16, 2013, 01:36 PM
  2. US Olympic Trials: less than perfect conformation doesn't matter at the top
    By Dutch Lovin' Dressage Rider in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Jun. 26, 2012, 07:59 AM
  3. I know size doesn't really matter, but...
    By Risk-Averse Rider in forum Off Course
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2011, 05:39 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jul. 10, 2011, 10:46 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Jul. 19, 2010, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness