• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

. Ah, but they can move. Really? Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Maybe they are there because they wanted to get away from the gay ghetto in Austin, TX. Maybe Billy's Mom has cancer and they are there to care for her. Why should they have to move just to avoid the bigotry of KT and his townsfolk?

?

In life there are tradeoffs.

And why should I care one whit about what Exodus International thinks about homosexuality?

Derp

You should care, because Exodus International is the spokesgroup above all others for your side of the religious aisle when it comes to this issue. If the very ex-gay organization above all others that speaks for all others doesn't say homosexuality is a choice, then that should be a signal to you that you are yourself wrong about it. You should care, because these are people to whom Christians (and with you, believe me, I'm using that term very, very loosely) tell people like me to go to. If you don't believe them, then why should anybody else?

You see, these people, even though many find them disagreeable, do, at heart believe the Gospel and there is no way on God's green Earth you can impugn their morality or their theology without falling into the trap of exposing yourself for the bigot, the moralist, and the Gospel-denier you are. Further, somehow I don't think you have it in you to share the Gospel with a gay person. You'd rather spout off about how immoral they are without any refernence to the Gospel. Like so many fundamentalists, you are all Law, no Gospel, more comfortable with pointing out others sins than anything else. You see, the Gospel is that Christ alone is the perfect substitute for the sinner, not Christ, a membership in a Restorationist church, and getting them thar sins washed away when baptized by an approved Administrator, and hopin you don't mess up and loose your grace before you die. That's not faith in Christ alone; that's not the Gospel. But that's what your group teaches, and you've given more than enough evidence by the way you act and the things you say that you don't believe the true Gospel - you're just cultist who uses his cult to validate his bigotry, racism, and misogyny. Of course, I also don't think you'd know the Gospel if Jesus or Paul walked up to you and preached it to you; after all, you deny Romans, James, and Galatians abd the best you can muster when contradicted by somebody who actually knows these Scriptures is "show me your credentials" (which, of course ultimately undermines you ability to explicate the Bible yourself, as I've pointed out already, and to which you didn't respond, which I've noticed is your habit when you know I've cooked your goose well in front of eveybody - best give it a few pages and ignore it or change the topic, beat a hasty retreat to save face and hope nobody will notice).

And I think, at heart, the real reason that you don't like homosexuality has nothing to do with what the text of the Bible says, rather, like so many others, when the real KT shows himself, it amounts to "Gays - eww," because, deep down, you know that the truth of the matter is that the only way you can justify discrimination against gays in employment is to call them "immoral" based on what you think they do in bed, not what you can prove they are doing - which at heart exposes your own sexual immorality, for it necessarily requires that you are far more obsessed with gay sex that any gay man or lesbian is. You are, at heart, quite the voyeur.


And I am sorry for you, so very sorry, but there is no chance of you becoming President or the EEOC passing into obscurity any time soon. So, you're going to have to do better than "Gays -eww" to justify discriminating against them in employment. That's the real world in which we live, not your 1950's throwback fantasy world or the world of moral hypotheticals that have no present application.
 
To the latter, never was.

That's a lie. You stated that people choose to be gay. At some point, you made your choice. When was it, and when did you stop finding yourself sexually attracted to men?


except in the same post I said that I have always been attracted to women only and you know it.

You're promoting a strawman argument where people who dislike homosexuality are smeared with the suggestion they have such tendencies themselves.
 
On the contrary, KT.

I have many conservative Christian friends and acquaintances, and in spite of the things I completely disagree with them and don't always see exactly eye-to-eye on, we get along. I respect them for the often funny, entertaining and smart people they are. I spend time with some of them. Been camping and hiking with some of them. Eaten dinner, seen movies and just generally hung out with them. Been there for some of them when they had family illnesses. Weddings. Births.

I'm so far from perfect it's not even funny, and I'll never even be within a light year of it. But I was raised to be open minded and accepting of people to the greatest extent that I can. I've been friends with all sorts of kids, teenagers and adults I didn't necessarily agree with in regards to some of the things they believed or even their behavior. But I kept my mind open. And took risks. And I made a lot of damn fine friends that I love and still care about even if they might believe in or sometimes do something that I think is completely out of this world.

So, yeah...I have gone out of my way to find happy and positive things in some fundamentalists I've known. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Christ, a membership in a Restorationist church, and getting them thar sins washed away when baptized by an approved Administrator, and hopin you don't mess up and loose your grace before you die. That's not faith in Christ alone; that's not the Gospel. But that's what your group teaches,.

Well that is what the New Testament of the Bible teaches so we'll just have to resign ourselves to being on different sides of this issue.
 
On the contrary, KT.

I have many conservative Christian friends and acquaintances, and in spite of the things I completely disagree with them and don't always see exactly eye-to-eye on, we get along. I respect them for the often funny, entertaining and smart people they are. I spend time with some of them. Been camping and hiking with some of them. Eaten dinner, seen movies and just generally hung out with them. Been there for some of them when they had family illnesses. Weddings. Births.

I'm so far from perfect it's not even funny, and I'll never even be within a light year of it. But I was raised to be open minded and accepting of people to the greatest extent that I can. I've been friends with all sorts of kids, teenagers and adults I didn't necessarily agree with in regards to some of the things they believed or even their behavior. But I kept my mind open. And took risks. And I made a lot of damn fine friends that I love and still care about even if they might believe in or sometimes do something that I think is completely out of this world.

So, yeah...I have gone out of my way to find happy and positive things in some fundamentalists I've known. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Good for you. You are obviously a nice person.

Just don't try to weigh me down with those same obligations.
 
Knight Templar said:
Hasn't it occurred to you that someone can find any sexual practices beyond "one man, one woman" to be absolutely disgusting and utterly abhorrent?

Never mind
 
To the latter, never was.

That's a lie. You stated that people choose to be gay. At some point, you made your choice. When was it, and when did you stop finding yourself sexually attracted to men?


except in the same post I said that I have always been attracted to women only and you know it.

You're promoting a strawman argument where people who dislike homosexuality are smeared with the suggestion they have such tendencies themselves.

No, he's exposing the fallacy that lies behind your own argument. Since he doesn't believe that persons with homosexuality are bad people, immoral by definition, and so on, it would not be a smear tactic at all. It would only be a "smear" if he considered these negatives.

Rather, he's pointing out that "choice" implies a volitional act, and that act includes options of some sort. That's not an eccentric definition at all. So, to say that a person "chooses" to be gay implies he/she must have had some attraction in both directions from which he/she chose one opton over the other. This be true under either a libertarian or a compatibilist action theory of free will. In the former, the options would be of equal weight; in the latter, one option would be of greater weight than the other. The same would apply to a heterosexual such as yourself as well. If one is a choice, then so is the other. That, KT, is what he's pointing out. So, by your own logic, you have had some homosexual attractions as well. It's a shame somebody else has to point out what "homosexuality is a choice" actually means and requires to be true, and how it applies equally to heterosexuality as well if true, when you are the one invoking the argument itself. Wow.
 
^completely ridiculous.

The "choices" are not necessarily between "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality".

They can be between "heterosexuality" and no sexuality at all.
 
Christ, a membership in a Restorationist church, and getting them thar sins washed away when baptized by an approved Administrator, and hopin you don't mess up and loose your grace before you die. That's not faith in Christ alone; that's not the Gospel. But that's what your group teaches,.

Well that is what the New Testament of the Bible teaches so we'll just have to resign ourselves to being on different sides of this issue.

I'm sorry, but what are your credentials. You're no Bible scholar of any kind, so why should I trust that? If you have credentials, please post them.
 
The "choices" are not necessarily between "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality".

They can be between "heterosexuality" and no sexuality at all.

Whoa...wait, now...I thought you said quite forcefully that homosexuality is a choice?

If the choice is between being straight or no sexuality whatsoever, then how can being gay be one?
 
^completely ridiculous.

The "choices" are not necessarily between "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality".

They can be between "heterosexuality" and no sexuality at all.

Well, in that case, the choice can be between homosexuality and no sexuality at all.

On that level, we choose our desires, instead of choosing according to our desires.

Where is the supporting argument?

That's the point, when you say sexuality is a choice, you are saying a person chose those to have desires. Where's the supporting argument.

Let's cut to the chase. You're trying to figure out to reconcile two things: How you have never had homosexual desires, only heterosexual ones yourself and the idea that sexuality qua sexuality is a voluntary moral choice.

You can't. It flies in the face of all data, even the action theory of the will taught in the Bible (that says we choose according to our desires, not that we choose our desires) - and that's another reason if you don't believe us, you should believe Exodus International. They are on your side, but you could learn some things from them if you'd open you little mind.
 
The "choices" are not necessarily between "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality".

They can be between "heterosexuality" and no sexuality at all.

Whoa...wait, now...I thought you said quite forcefully that homosexuality is a choice?

If the choice is between being straight or no sexuality whatsoever, then how can being gay be one?

Some people have tendencies to choose from like myself which are

either heterosexuality or no sexual tendencies at all.

Some people have heterosexuality and homosexuality to choose between.

Some have homosexuality and no sexual tendencies (I believe the term is "antisexual") to choose between.

And of course the "bisexual" tendency or option can be thrown in there as well.
 
Some people have tendencies to choose from like myself which are

either heterosexuality or no sexual tendencies at all.

Some people have heterosexuality and homosexuality to choose between.

Some have homosexuality and no sexual tendencies (I believe the term is "antisexual") to choose between.

And of course the "bisexual" tendency or option can be thrown in there as well.
Who the heck are you to be speaking intelligently about what other people can "choose" to be?

Post credentials or retract.
 
Some people have tendencies to choose from like myself which are

either heterosexuality or no sexual tendencies at all.

Some people have heterosexuality and homosexuality to choose between.

Some have homosexuality and no sexual tendencies (I believe the term is "antisexual") to choose between.

And of course the "bisexual" tendency or option can be thrown in there as well.
Who the heck are you to be speaking intelligently about what other people can "choose" to be?

Post credentials or retract.

My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.
 
Some people have tendencies to choose from like myself which are

either heterosexuality or no sexual tendencies at all.

Some people have heterosexuality and homosexuality to choose between.

Some have homosexuality and no sexual tendencies (I believe the term is "antisexual") to choose between.

And of course the "bisexual" tendency or option can be thrown in there as well.
Who the heck are you to be speaking intelligently about what other people can "choose" to be?

Post credentials or retract.

My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.

There's a term that in Christian circles: Will Worship. In other circles, it's just intuition. Intution is not a sufficient warrant for belief. As a "Christian" you should know that. Once again, this is why you need to man up and familiarize yourself with the very literature on this subject that emanates from your own side of the aisle.
 
My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.
And that's why you continue to be ridiculed. Science disagrees with you. Read up a bit on the National Mental Health Association and what they say about sexual orientation and its complexity.

What you believe is irrelevant and self-serving. What science can prove about sexual orientation is important and binding.
 
Nurture vs. Nature? Mind over Body? Man can overcome his basic nature? That sort of stuff?

If you believe that, then why doesn't your God believe it then? After all, if true, why does man need Jesus Christ? According to what you are proclaiming, man can do it without Him.
 
My faith in the will of an individual is nearly unlimited. I believe a person can choose what they are and are not regardless any any biological factors.
And that's why you continue to be ridiculed. Science disagrees with you. Read up a bit on the National Mental Health Association and what they say about sexual orientation and its complexity.

.

Aren't they the same ones who used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top