Gay Marriage? Not in this Bakery!

[Kemaiku]

True, he did go beyond the starfleet crews comfort zone and present a constant reminder of the diversity of alien life they were likely to encounter.

 

[Shawnster]

Of course it is. Why would I consider something immoral if it's not harmful?

The "problem" (for lack of a better word) with morality is that it's subjective based on the person involved. What one finds moral or acceptable another may find immoral or repugnant. This is because people don't agree on what the source of morality should be. Without being united on who/what determines what is good and what is bad, everyone's viewpoint will be out of sync.

This is totally different than the clear cut, black and white nature of harmful vs. not harmful.

The problem is exactly that: An arbitrary definition of morality based on fear and hatred.

I fear that most people don't take a rational approach to questions of morality.

These comments illustrate my point on morals being subjective. What one person considers moral and acceptable, another finds revolting.

Perhaps it also depends on what one means by harmful. Physically harmful? Emotionally harmful? Harmful to one's relationship with another individual? If the definition of harmful is broad enough, then, yes, I'll concede to that point.

But it has to be a broad definition. The reason behind that is an individual may determine that X television show, Y movie or Z song might be wrong or immoral to listen to. Electronic media in and of itself is not going to physically harm an individual, yet there is something about such entertainment our hypothetical individual finds offensive or immoral.

Same goes for speech. Certain words are considered by some individuals to be vulgar or immoral. The words themselves are not going to cause anyone physical pain or injury but that doesn't change their perceived degree of morality or lack thereof.

 

[Kommander]

I just caught that Paradon said "Queer as Phlox." The guy has three wives, each with three husbands, so I guess that's to be expected

I, for one, was glad to finally see a positive polyamorous role model on television. Generally, poly people are depicted by the media to be promiscuous, sex-crazed individuals that do not value commitment. It was a refreshing change of pace which I would like to see more of on TV.

Um, Phlox's wife was depicted as pretty sex crazed and lacking commitment by pursuing Tucker in the episode she was in.

Commitment works a little differently with polyamory than with monogamy. Well, mostly in that exclusivity isn't a part of it. (And yes, there is much more to commitment than fidelity.) She was honest about her intentions, and one can still value commitment and still pursue casual relationships and sex. My only criticism of the way she represented polyamory was that she continued to aggressively pursue Tucker after he had made it clear he wasn't interested.

 

[SmoothieX]

If they don't like it, go to a different bakery. Problem solved on their end.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If they don't like it, go to a different bakery. Problem solved on their end.

And if all the bakeries in town refuse to serve you?

That's why we have to make laws about these things, because if enough people decide to be assholes, they can easily stomp all over the rights of others.

 

[Avon]

as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back.

and i'd much rather be a liberal lefty cultist than an unenlightened bigot.

 

[Amaris]

as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back.

and i'd much rather be a liberal lefty cultist than an unenlightened bigot.

Nice.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back.

and i'd much rather be a liberal lefty cultist than an unenlightened bigot.

Okay, you win the thread.

 

[sojourner]

as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back.

Then again, you have Justin Bieber in your avatar.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But it looks like a freeze-frame right before Justin Bieber gets wiped out by a warp core explosion.

 

[Trekker4747]

No cake for you!

A central Iowa same-sex couple's wedding planning came to a sudden halt.

Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria's Cake Cottage in Des Moines, met with Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers during a cake-testing appointment to break the news, which caught them off-guard.

The article goes on to inform us that Ms. Childress, a "christian" refused to serve the happy couple because they have Teh Ghey.

Seriously, wtf century are we living in?

A quick Google search for "Victoria's Cake Cottage" (515) 729-0253at 420 NW 51st Pl, Des Moines, IA 50313

shows there are several boycotts now running for this place. There are also at least 25 news articles about this homophobic bakery owner.

I'm sure they were wearing shirts. I'm sure they were also wearing shoes. So why no service?

As much as I wish people were more tolerant about same-sex couples and marriage as business owners they do have the right to refuse service to people or at the very least only take on certain clients.

It's a disgusting act on their part, sure, but they're hardly acting outside the bounds of law.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Of course it is. Why would I consider something immoral if it's not harmful?

The problem is exactly that: An arbitrary definition of morality based on fear and hatred.

I fear that most people don't take a rational approach to questions of morality.

These comments illustrate my point on morals being subjective. What one person considers moral and acceptable, another finds revolting.

Perhaps it also depends on what one means by harmful. Physically harmful? Emotionally harmful? Harmful to one's relationship with another individual? If the definition of harmful is broad enough, then, yes, I'll concede to that point.

But it has to be a broad definition. The reason behind that is an individual may determine that X television show, Y movie or Z song might be wrong or immoral to listen to. Electronic media in and of itself is not going to physically harm an individual, yet there is something about such entertainment our hypothetical individual finds offensive or immoral.

Same goes for speech. Certain words are considered by some individuals to be vulgar or immoral. The words themselves are not going to cause anyone physical pain or injury but that doesn't change their perceived degree of morality or lack thereof.

"Perceived" is the key word. If it's arbitrary, it doesn't count. There has to be some real harm done for something to be immoral, not some make-believe, justifying-irrational-rules kind of harm.

 

[scotpens]

According to health teacher I once had when I was in high school, masturbation is a symptom of homosexuality.

And did any of you believe that? I mean, don't most guys jerk off to pictures of naked women?

 

[RoJoHen]

According to health teacher I once had when I was in high school, masturbation is a symptom of homosexuality.

And did any of you believe that? I mean, don't most guys jerk off to pictures of naked women?

I don't know if we believed it. I think people were probably freaked out a little bit, considering we were being told this by a supposed authority figure.

 

[OldManDax]

You can call it what you'd like, 4th hanson - but my experience on the BBS has clearly been that the majority of the ultraleft posters here act like crazed cultists who require that others toe the line on their pet issues. And if someone does not - and actually has the audacity to be STEADFAST in their opinions - they are bombarded with with all manner of out of left field insults, defamation, and wild-eyed slander. Yet the MODS rarely do anything about it, most likely, if we're being honest, because they prefer those ultaliberal viewpoints, and fall back into the any liberal = openminded and "progressive" and conservative = backwards and hateful duality, which is nonsense. I thought this was a discussion board.

One strong evidence of the above is your suggestion that my mentioning "cowardly politicians" rises to the level of trolling. Given that this is a label regularly used by commentators right and even left (have you looked at TNZ lately), it comes off as a bit of red herring. And suggests that perhaps you are driven by other motivations.

I was going to come up with a rational and well-reasoned response for you, but it would be pointless.


Shut the fuck up.

No, YOU "shut the fuck up." See, now we all understand each other.

Now, back to more reasonable discussion points...

 

[{ Emilia }]

According to health teacher I once had when I was in high school, masturbation is a symptom of homosexuality.

And did any of you believe that? I mean, don't most guys jerk off to pictures of naked women?

Well, yeah, that's rubbish of course.

It does cause blindness, though.

 

[OldManDax]

For the record, to all those who would suspect I was merely a troll - my initial statements about not responding to any posts last night - and I'm still laughing at the implications that I am somehow REQUIRED to discuss my viewpoints, since I didn't start the thread - had to do with the central fact that I WAS ON A LIBRARY COMPUTER at the time, and knew my time would be running out soon. Moreover, my home internet connection is currently down, and I may choose to KEEP it down. Also, these kind of threads are known to get very intense, and I knew I would not have much time to engage in the requisite back and forth regarding this issue last night, as I was required to work. It was merely a PRAGMATIC issue, not anything having to do with wanting to make driveby statements.

Why would you give your viewpoints, particularly viewpoints that foment shock, dismay and outrage, if you didn't intend to expand upon them? It's not like your statement was a simple matter of taste. "I like pie" doesn't need to be expounded upon, but a statement denigrating people who are gay is most certainly a comment that cannot be made and left to sit without stirring up controversy.

Umm, J. Allen, I've dealt withyou enough to in the past to know how strongly and how personally you feel about this topic - but could you please tell me WHERE I made any statement "denigrating gay people"?

 

[OldManDax]

Based on your stated intention not to respond tonight, and then only to posters who respond in the method you set out, you have earned an infraction for trolling. Comments to PM

This aside, I'll play. I think I can call his bluff.

Umm why in the world should she be required to participate in the celebration and affirmation of something she finds morally reprehensible?

She shouldn't. However, in standing up for her beliefs, she should be willing to accept the consequences of this decision. i.e.: boycotts from those that disagree with her actions and the resulting loss of business.


Actually, there is plenty of scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined through natural causes, such as genetics and hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb, and no scientific evidence that it is a choice and nothing else. Morality and existentialism are infinitely debatable, so yeah, those aren't, and never will be, settled.


Also, all the scientific evidence I mentioned that is cited in the Wikipedia article. (Also, before someone questions the accuracy of Wikipedia: An article about the accuracy of Wikipedia from a scholarly journal.)


Sexual orientation is not determined by behavior alone. Based on your post, I take it you're heterosexual. If you have had sex, did you know you were heterosexual before the first time you had sex, or was your sexuality unknown until you became a practicing heterosexual? If you're a virgin, how do you know what your orientation is? Is it because you feel attraction for the opposite sex? Is it because opposite sex partners feel right?

I identify as a straight male. If I was raped by another man, does that make me gay? No, it does not. As far as "cured" homosexuals go, yeah, they can display heterosexual behaviors, but there is no way of knowing whether they've actually become heterosexual or are just kidding themselves.

I could do the opposite. I could go pick up some dudes at a gay bar, sex them up, and say I've never been happier. However, on the inside I'd still be attracted to women. I could do it, but I wouldn't enjoy it.

Btw, since the inevitable insults will begin flying (God forbid someone here actually reason for themselves, and refuse to toe the ultraliberal line on the BBS - Public Enemy Number #1!), please know that I will NOT respond to any questions or challenges on tonight, as I will be quite busy, and when I do, it will ONLY be those that reasonably engage in discussion, not slash and burn, zero-sum insults. Mere name-calling and defamation is for children. I grew out of that stage a long time ago.

Reasonable, insult-free response granted. Let's see where this goes.

^Wow. That was awesome. Am I allowed to say that?

No, you may not. This is why asking for permission is a bad idea.

Contrary to the depraved rantings of some on here, it is NOT a settled issue, scientifically, morally and existentially, that homosexuality is as natural as people being born black, latino, a pacific islander, female or whatever else.

Yes, it is proven scientifically that homosexuality is natural and not harmful. For homosexuality to be immoral, it would have to be harmful. As for existentially, who cares?

So, yes, it's settled.

First, I DO want to apologizefor the "depraved rantings" comment, as I realized that can be construed provocatively.

However, I am sorry to inform you, RJDiogenes, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest it is not a settled issue.

First, it is interesting to note that the Wikipedia article Kommander posted the link for itself suggests that homosexuality is currently considered to be a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors.

However, I suggest you look up the websites "Free Republic" and "The Redding Posts" and search for this topic (I don't kno how to post a link, btw). There are some EXTREMELY well written, and thoroughly vetted articles on why this is so NOT a settled issue, despite the claims of advocates.

And before anyone play the sleight of hand that because at least one of these sites has a link to a "religious" organization, it cannot be trusted, I challenge anyone to dismiss the science on it's merits. Because, after all, good science is value-neutral, right?

So, no, not a settled issue.

 

[RoJoHen]

I've never really understood why the origins of someone's sexuality are important. Whether a person was born gay, raised gay, or chose to be gay, it shouldn't matter. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Being gay doesn't harm a single person. Humans and animals have been engaging in homosexual activities for thousands of years. The notion that it is "wrong" or "immoral" is strictly an idea that somebody came up with and that a bunch of other people agreed with, but it's just an opinion.

Can we prove that homosexuality is the result of genetics? Maybe, maybe not.
Can we prove that homosexuality is wrong? Never.

 

[Cyke101]

as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back.

and i'd much rather be a liberal lefty cultist than an unenlightened bigot.

And I would like to buy you a drink!