Phatscotty wrote:I missed that day in school. I just did what came naturally, what the rest of the 97%-99% of human beings do. I don't assume it's any different, I'm sure that is true for some gays. But that's not really the kinda of evidence I was wondering about. I was asking you why you think it's not learned, anything else besides natural boners? How about from a female perspective?
My evidence (so far) is that that's not how it works, as shown by my experience of why I'm attracted to women, and your evidence of why you're attracted to women. How many other people do you want to to go out and find and ask the same question to before the answer we both gave becomes accepted as the truth? Your evidence that it can be learned is more along the lines of "you can't prove it's not". You haven't given any actual examples of someone who learned their seuality against their natural instincts. You haven't actually provided any evidence for gayness being a learned trait. Tell me PS, could you learn to be gay if you had a good enough reason starting today? Could you teach yourself to feel that same attraction but towards men? How do you think you'd go about doing that?
Phatscotty wrote:They kinda are, certainly some of them. Not sure we can talk about the group as a whole on this issue. pertinent to the issue here, yes, some gay couples are trying to force religious business owners to participate in their civil unions, that is definitely trying to impose a certain set of values, and very radical values at that. And would you please be so kind as to explain how not believing in redefining marriage is imposing your religion on everyone else? I don't think that make sense, you might have to reword it. Also I don't see how you bring forcing someone to be gay or change their sexuality has anything to do with the NM baker issue. As I understand it, if the gay couple wanted a cake, the baker would bake them a cake no questions asked. It's more than that though, the gay couple wants the Christian to participate in facilitating a gay wedding, to acknowledge the gay wedding, and to build a cake based on a gay wedding. I have respect for both Christians and gay people. I don't think a Christian should be forced to build a gay wedding cake the same way I don't think a gay person should be forced to admit they are sinners. I find that analogy much more realistic than 'forcing them to be gay' it's about what actions they are taking or not taking, not about their sexuality. I see the distinction sure, but I disagree with your understanding of events and the conclusions you draw from them.
Do you honestly believe that a religious person should be forced to order all the gay wedding cake ornaments? I know you don't see the question the same way and you probably only see that as the same as saying "should the religious people be able to discriminate/not do gay weddings" Maybe you can or can't appreciate how an American feels about the issue and understands the amendment in it's entirety and how if one part of the amendment is overturned then so will follow the rest (freedom of speech, media, to petition for grievances etc). I think if a religious person business doesn't want to participate in something that they say violated their religion, they should be able to refuse, or else this isn't a free country. I know you guys on the other side of the pond do things differently, and you may not be able to view Freedom from the same perspective as an American, I likewise do not try to think my views on the issue are correct from a Brits perspective either.
Make no mistake, the First Amendment here is directly under attack, and the gay agenda has been hijacked as the vehicle against it. It's the perfect wedge issue, emotion vs values. the government gets bigger and more powerful, the citizen and the individual are smaller and have less and less Liberty.
I'd agree with a religious person not serving a gay couple if that religious person could point to the rule(s) in their religion that prohibited it. Not rules that prohibit gayness, but rules that prohibit association with gays. From a christian perspective that rule does not exist as far as I'm aware. Jesus specifically taught that you should love the sinner despite hating the sin. Jesus sepcifically taught that you should not judge anyone else and leave that bit to God. Jesus specifically taight that you should treat EVERYONE how you yourself would like to be treated. There were no caveats in those teachings about "unless they're gay" or "unless they're muslim" or "unless they're black" or anything else.
How does simplification of the law to say that everyone should be treated equally (as opposed to complications caused by having different groups of people needing different laws and structures for their day to day lives) equate to less liberty? I see where you're coming from, but the thing that I think you are constantly missing is that liberty and freedom is for EVERYONE, not just for those that happen to agree with you. Yes you get to live your life however you want, but so does everyone else. What the religious are trying to do is say that you have to live by their rules or they will treat you differently. They are willing to tolerate people not believing in their God as long as they happen to follow their God's rules (I doubt the baker would have a problem making a wedding cake for a straight atheist couple), but if the other person is breaking their rules, without any attempt to force the religious person to break them themselves, then for some reason they should be denied equal treatment.
If the wedding guests are buying their outfits for the day, should they check with the tailors and clothes shops they are buying from that they have no objection to gay marriage? Those clothes are just as much a part of the day as the cake is. When the caterer is buying ingredients for the wedding lunch, should they check with their suppliers that they all have no objections to gay marriage? Should the hotel where the reception is held check with their laundry services? Should every taxi called by any guest to get home at the end of the night be asked whether they support gay marriage? If someone is participating personally in the ceremony then I'd give them a get-out clause, but if we give the get-out clause to anyone providing any service then it just gets ridiculous. Why is the baker supporting gay marriage any more than the tailor, the caterer's suppliers, the hotel's suppliers or the taxi drivers?
