Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Ian]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You wanna know the Saddest part.....

There was a contingent of Marathon Survivors that also had an MIT police cruiser trailing it in rememberance for Fallen Officer Sean Collier.....and nobody is saying boo about it.

Sad...

Agreed. It was led by a couple Watertown cruisers too... by far my favorite part of the day. Walked back inside after that... Great tribute

At first I was surprised there weren't more people in the duck boat, but then I thought about it and was surprised that even the two that were in the boat were extremely brave to attend such a public event after such a short time.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I think there is some of this going on too, but given the history of intolerance and the recent victories their movement has gotten, I think they felt tired of not being #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, figured they'd give it a shot... and as far as attention is concerned, it seems to have worked. And not just in Boston.

Oh, the gays want "tolerance", do they? Then why do they sue Christian business owners, solely for their religious beliefs? When the government tells a Christian photographer, "go to this gay wedding or we will fine you", please tell me how that's not also persecution? I don't think the government would force a black photographer to take pictures at a Klan rally, and I don't see a shred of difference.

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, the gays want "tolerance", do they? Then why do they sue Christian business owners, solely for their religious beliefs? When the government tells a Christian photographer, "go to this gay wedding or we will fine you", please tell me how that's not also persecution? I don't think the government would force a black photographer to take pictures at a Klan rally, and I don't see a shred of difference.

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Answer this...

Why couldn't they just march with the vets, as vets? Why do they have to make a statement about their sexuality? What harm does it do to leave that aside for one afternoon?

Yea, why can't you just get in the closet for the afternoon.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

Oh yea Jim, those gay US Veterans are really trying to stick it to the good God fearing people of South Boston.

Please.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

I would be interested to know what harm a sign could possibly bring to the parade.They are marching as a bunch of gays,why not fly the flag and tell the world who you are?

The Collier part is sad, especially since he was killed by the cops.

[Swimmer]

There were gay veterans marching in the parade. One marched the entire route with congressman Lynch. He had a couple of ex-marine pieces of apparel on, and was interviewed just before the end of the parade by the media. He did not carry a sign, or make any demonstrative actions about being gay. What was important to him was that he was a marine veteran
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

The Collier part is sad, especially since he was killed by the cops.

Did I miss something here? He was killed by who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, why can't you just get in the closet for the afternoon.

-spence

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

Of course you have a point there. My point is, under this administration, there are plenty of examples of Christians being asked to abandon their beliefs (which is blatantly unconstitutional) to advance the agenda of the current administration. This is a bit off-topic, but I'm confident that I'm correct.

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

If one group is not inclined to consent, then fortunately for them, they have the right to stay home. No one is forcing them to participate in a St Patricks Day parade.

We live in a pluralistic society, and like it or not, it requires a certain degree of assimilation at times. We all have to try and fit in a bit. We can't always get our way, all of the time, in every situation. Most of us learn this by the time we are 6 or 7 years old. In my opinion, this patricular group, is struggling lately with the notion that others have the right to pursue their vision of happiness as well.

Banning gays from the parade would be one thing. Asking them to leave their sexuality aside for 2 hours is not nearly the same thing, despite Spence's desperate attempts to paint it that way.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

The politicians don't march because they have no balls. They lack of moral standard.
It's the same reason the GOP allows Obama to get away with everything. Because he's black they are afraid of being called racist.
When we have a truly colorblind and sexually orientated blind society none of that will matter.
It seems that people that make the issue the most about race and sexual orientation are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The agenda is, "I'm gay, and you better accept that or else".

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists(sounds scary) is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one ...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

"there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong"

And one of the reasons is that they don't want to have to defend themselves against baseless accusations of intolerance, from the likes of you. That's precisely why you incessantly make these claims when losing an argument, in the hopes that it will shut some people up. It works, especially in the case of people seeking to win elections. That it doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty, doesn't mean it's not effective.

"Your position is quite hypocritical."

It's not the least hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I supported the right of heterosexual vets to march as such, but not homosexual vets.

Spence, I have asked this several times, and you keep dodging. I'll do it one more time, and I'll try to go slowly.

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

You have fun trying to answer that. Hint..., screaming "HATE CRIME!" isn't really answering the question that I asked.

Here, I'll make it asy for you, all you need to do is fill in the blank.

"In this case, homosexuals and heterosexuals are being treated identically. All are welcome to march, and all are asked to leave sexuality out of it. I, Spence, think that's discriminatory because ______________".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one ...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

Asking for acceptance and tolerance is one thing. Asking that everyone else abandon everything they hold dear, every time it conflicts with your own pursuits, is a bit different.

Nothing is ever that simple or consistent. But from where I sit, I don't see a lot of tolerance coming the the most vocal advocates of this group. I don't see them asking for basic acceptance, I see demands that we cater to every whim out of fear of being labeled a homophobe. And I see very little willingness for them to acquiesce to the beliefs of others.

It's a difficult situation, I have no answers. I just don't like being called a hate-monger for seeing both sides.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

You have to understand that in our day and age congresspeople (be careful--congress(men) could be sexually discriminative now) are more equal than the rest of us. They are a part of the ruling class. They set the agenda and the rules by which we live and the rights that we have.

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

Associations, are by definition, a matter of choice. Without choice, association is irrelevant--everyone and everything are all one, without distinction. "Association" without choice loses its distinctive quality and becomes a redundant, unnecessary word.

Human rights issues can be of two kinds: prescribed or unalienable. If they are prescribed, they cannot be denied by "association." On the other hand, if "association" is an unalienable right, it cannot be denied by a prescribed right. So there must be an accommodation between prescribed and unalienable rights. All manner of prescribed rights do not interfere with the unalienable right of association.

Rights of free association, also, must not encroach upon each other. "Gay" rights, insofar as they are unalienable, cannot distort heterosexual rights, whatever those are, insofar as they are unalienable. Gay right to free association must not distort heterosexual, or any other group, right to free association. Each is free to associate on their own terms.

All human rights issues, when they conflict with one another, are hot button issues. Whichever may currently be more "popular" may get better press, but is no less "hot" to the less popular "right." And the latter may very well get criticized, but it is no less a human right.

At least, that is how it used to be.


If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

The civil rights movements in the 1960's were about human rights. Not the unalienable rights to be black. No one was denying them the right to be black. What they wanted, initially, were the unalienable rights with which humans are endowed. Mostly those individual unalienable rights to free association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to possess property. And, as well, the prescribed right of equality before the law.

They weren't interested in joining other than racially defined parades by touting their blackness. If a parade didn't appeal to their values, there was no need to participate. They wanted to enjoy participation in their own parades which celebrated their own culture insofar as that was distinctive from the rest of society. And to join in other parades which celebrated similar values to their own.

Government was not used to promote, initially, specific "black" rights, but to promote equal rights.

A lot of that has changed. There are now set asides, entitlements, and privileges which are targeted to specific groups. This has fostered the notion that government can be used to do so. And this is used as leverage for various groups to get specific treatment at the expense of other groups.

This was accomplished by first blurring the lines of distinction through the rhetoric of equality and fairness. The old unalienable rights were possessed by individuals. Equality in the old system was merely before the law and "fairness" was trumped by individual ability. Unalienable rights stood in the way of "fairness" and equality of outcome. Unalienable rights had to be dissolved and replaced by prescribed rights. Those rights which government prescribed and granted. Only then could true "equality" and fairness be achieved. The lines of distinction were not only to be blurred, but to be obliterated. The great divisive distinctions in gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc., etc., would be of little to no importance and replaced with equality. And the great division in wealth would be ameliorated, eventually to be erased. Again, true equality and fairness would be achieved.

Of course, those goals are still a work in progress. That there are actually even greater distinctions of wealth now--but that is only in the top 1%--is merely a bump in the road (even though this has always existed in top down authoritarian systems). And, also, the distinctions among us are even more delineated now, but that is merely because groups have been given a voice to demand. Those who were victims of racism are now the most vocal racists. Those who were gender or sexuality oppressed are now the most vocal and active sexual agenda activists. And we can surely see how that is right and necessary--eventually, we will all be the same and those voices will no longer be necessary.

This all became possible through the centralization of power to the Federal Government at the expense of the power once inherent in the States and the People. And much was done exactly in order to transfer that power. And the rationale for that transformation is to eliminate those problems that were fostered by the supposedly fuzzy notions of unalienable rights, and create a far more supposedly efficient system of governance. Individual "rights" beyond the reach of government is a by-gone nostrum of outdated enlightenment era thinking. The only way to effective "rights" is to define and prescribe them by those experts who have gone beyond a sort of organic "enlightenment" and have been progressively educated in the solution and administration of human needs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

But why is that? Why is it easy for one group to avoid public proclamations about their sexuality, and one group struggles with that? Lots of heteresexuals identify pretty closely with being heterosexual, right? Yet, i didn't hear any of them complain about not being able to flaunt their heterosexuality during the parade.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

There are currebtly some high-profile cases of Christian bakers, photographers, etc being sued by gays, because they didn't want to provide their services at a gay wedding, for religious purposes. You can google it, if you can't find one, i can find it for you, I'm not making it up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

"Why are Congressmen allowed to march " For the same reason that vets are allowed to march...because that has nohting to do with sexuality. The fact that congressman can march, would only support your argument, if only heterosexual congressmen were allowed to march, and no one has made that claim.

As far as I can tell, anyone could march, they just wanted to leave sexuality out of it. A small, vocal minority took issue with that, and that's tough cookies for them. I can't park in a handicapped spot just because I like parking close to a building, we all have rules to follow sometimes, and sometimes that means having to set convenience aside.

"When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed "

All associations were allowed to be displayed, as long as they weren't sexual in nature. That cannot be considered discriminatorynot as long as everyone was asked to put sexuality aside. Try as you might, and you are asking tough questions in a respectful way, you cannot make that wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory. In this case, from a sexual perspective, everyone was being treated exactly the same.

Some parents, myself included, like to be able to take a 6 year-old to a parade without any references to sexuality. I don't see why that's so much to ask. If someone wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to their 6 year-old, that's their right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it read every single time I take my kids to the library. Do we need to have a reading of that book played over the loudspeakers, 24 hours a day, at the library? Or is it OK, once in a while, if sexuality can be left out of the equation.

You're looking for something sinister here, and it's not there. Gays were perfectly welcome to march, as long as they followed the same exact guidelines that heterosexuals were asked to follow. Despite what Spence thinks, saying "no" to a group of homosexuals, doesn't necessarily make you a hatemonger. And that's what is at play here, we have a group of people who simply don't want to hear the word "no". When my kids act like that, we call them spoiled brats. But we can't chastise homosexuals like that, because once a group has been anointed with "victim" status by the left, then from that point on, nothing is ever their fault, and anyone who criticizes them is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophob, a bigot, or some other kind of hatemonger.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

Does it matter to you that the constitution explicitly states that people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs? And that the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that to mean that the government can't favor any one religion, nor can they denounce any one religion?

Constitution, shmonstitution, as long as we are fashionable and politically correct.

Many people, not you I guess, get nervous when the President is so comfortable with rejecting the parts of the constitution that he doesn't happen to like.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

If the government can force a Christian photographer to attend a gay wedding, then I presume you would be OK with a law saying that black painters cannot refuse to accommodate a customer who wants to paint a confederate flag on the roof of their house. Aftre all, what's the difference there? Last time I checked, "the South" is not characterized as a hate group. Would you, or would you not, allow a black painter to refuse such a request? And if you would allow him to refuse, please tell me why the Christian photographer doesn't have the same right. And good luck with that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

Correct. Given that there are plenty of photographers who would happily accept, it seems like the "tolerant" thing would have been for the happy couple to say "well, the constitution protects you from being forced to abandon your religious beliefs, so in keeping with the liberal notion of tolerance, I will tolerate your religious beliefs and find another photographer."

What they actually said and did, is something else. Because it'snot about tolerance, it's about doing excatly as they please, exactly when they please, and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

It has been pointed out, over and over, that the so-called "discrimination" was based on a refusal to participate in something their religion prohibited. The bakers and photographers didn't refuse to take photos or bake cakes for the gay's non-wedding occasions, only for same sex weddings. So they were not "discriminating" based on sexual orientation, but in order not to trespass commandments of their religion.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you and Jim are disagreeing about not treading on civil rights. The problem, which I described in about 10 posts above this is when civil rights conflict. It is true that people have unalienable rights to love who they wish. But they do not have an unalienable right to demand that someone else participate in or facilitate their right to love. They only have the right not to be interfered in their right to love. And in the case of the photographers, bakers, and gays disputes, the photographers not only have unalienable rights to practice their religion when it doesn't interfere with the right of the gays to love who they wish, but their right is specifically encoded in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination rights, for the most part, actually deny one of the parties their right of association, speech, or religion. As such they are rights prescribed by government, and insofar as they force one party to lose their right in favor of the other party, they are not unalienable rights.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's were, as I've stated, not about blacks having the right to be black. It was about establishing the unalienable rights of blacks such as freedom of speech, of religion, of association, of owning property, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality before the law. But they were not about abrogating others those same rights. It was not about guaranteeing blacks the right to impose their point of view in parades whose purpose is something else.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

you missed my point, I'm aware of all of those cases, just making the observation that this argument is always framed as Christians(values) vs Gays(rights) (Christians being "told" by their religion to think the way that they do and Gays being the innocent victims of deluded Christian beliefs)...it's hardly the case but an easy perspective to digest especially for the (pot & gay marriage lobby)..there's a good joke there somewhere...

ouch.."the religion of peace"...WIKI

Islam's Views

Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication.

The Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, anal sex [something that is prohibited, regardless of orientation] may also be involved, while in adultery [and fornication], the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved.
Some scholars, based on the Qur'an and various ahadith, hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building or stoned to death[1] as a punishment for their crime, but other scholars maintain that they should be imprisoned until death. [2]

Another view is that between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried, and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.[3]