Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Old 10-10-17, 02:37 PM
  #101  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cultshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: True North Strong & Free
Posts: 11,132
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Lt Ripley View Post
A long winded racist bigot. Just what I long to be...
Don't do it, having one of those in our forum is already insufferable enough.
cultshock is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 03:00 PM
  #102  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Of course, Sdall. You apparently failed to correlate that little add-on edit to the person to whom it was responding...a person who constantly interjects minorities into non-racial issues to "color" the discussion with loaded terms (and had just done so). It was a jab at the race-baiting by showing an example of evil "whites" being targets of discrimination...and to rebut in advance any claim that "you wouldn't say that if the victims were white." Well, think again...one more assumption shot down.

I thought the fact that the owner appears to be of the same race as his targets would be sufficient to catch the sarcasm.
Ok.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 03:29 PM
  #103  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Your "viewpoint" is that people who you disapprove of should be discriminated against. I've considered it.
And evidently concluded that it's the appropriate course of action.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 04:49 PM
  #104  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,642
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
And evidently concluded that it's the appropriate course of action.
Learn to read.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:39 PM
  #105  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 19,459
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Thank you ... that cleared up some things and confused others.

So, let me just say again ... Bob and Matt. Not a couple, just two guys I work with. Who their spouse is or what their tastes are do not matter one damned bit to me.

I was called a racist for making a similar statement in another thread, but I will make it again here. Hopefully I will be a little clearer here. I don't care what your characteristics are. While they are a part of you, they don't define you. To reduce yourself to labels is insulting, and I refuse to do it.

I applaud the part about "taking the word back" and refusing to give it power. Yet another thing I was lambasted for in another thread. Words are only what we let them be. We can chose to give words power and allow people to use them as weapons against us or we can choose to make them just words and leave racist, sexist, and whatever other -ists looking just as ignorant as they actually are.
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 09:51 PM
  #106  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 19,459
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Sdallnct, I know you created this thread with the best of intentions, but this turned out exactly as I expected.
I was hoping for a piñata, some merriment, and lots of social drinking. But, yeah.
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:26 PM
  #107  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,317
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

I think it was Vibs who said she’s not fond of the Q word, precisely because it has long been used as a slur. So I think it’s fair to say that we (the general we) should avoid that one at all costs... except for specific people who specifically ask to be called that. Genderqueer seems fine, but again, only if the person is specifically using that terminology themselves.

As for using labels to define people, it’s a two-sided coin. On one side, it’s definitely not our place to “approve” what terms people want to use for their sexuality and gender identity. I honestly think it’s only made into a big deal by people who don’t want to have to be considerate; whether by lack of exposure or genuine willful ignorance. If it takes labels for the marginalized groups to find each other and make connections, I’m all for that. Isolation just makes things so much worse. They need to know they’re not alone, especially if their friends and family aren’t as accepting.

But the problem with the labels, as I mentioned earlier, is that the nefarious types use them to make targeting these people much more efficient. It’s pretty disgusting that folks do that to people that are already marginalized, but they seem to have nothing better to do than ruin other peoples lives. But that’s why speaking out against the bigotry and hate is so important.

All in all, I think the labels, as applied by the LGBTQ+ folks themselves, not us casual observers, has more pros than cons.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 10:31 PM
  #108  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 19,459
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post
For anybody actually interested in treating people like humans there is no need to define people beyond being humans. Doing otherwise is how we end up with blacks being considered less than 100% human, "No Jews served here" signs, gay marriage not being legal, and creeky's recent "separate but equal" proposal.
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 10-10-17, 11:23 PM
  #109  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 44,548
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Abob Teff View Post
I don't care what your characteristics are. While they are a part of you, they don't define you. To reduce yourself to labels is insulting, and I refuse to do it.
inri222 is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 01:25 AM
  #110  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,317
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

That video is fucking awesome.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 06:10 AM
  #111  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
No, I don't think the clerk should have issued it. I think she should have resigned, just as the baker stopped making wedding cakes. At the same time, I think that she had just as much right to engaget in civil disobedience as other citizens who were jailed for disobeying the law...and who are lionized for doing do.

What you have identified is at the crux of the religious freedom argument. You're okay with people having religious beliefs as long as they stay in "that world." You are not allowing for those who say that their "religious world" goes with them 24-7...just ad your convictions do.
No, that is not correct. When I say "their world" I'm not talking a time frame.

I think it a stretch (to say the least) that opening a for public bakery is a religous endeavor or practicing your religion. I think it a stretch (to say the least) that being a county clerk is a religous endeavor or practicing your religion. Can the baker run his business as a "Christian". Absolutely. Right up until it breaks the law. Which is what he did. Had he done that in another state it would not have broken a law (which I don't agree with, but not the point).

These people have chosen to work in non-religous areas. As such should absolutely have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. It's fundamentally unfair to suggest otherwise. And as the courts noted, you can't force your belief on others. Which is exactly what the baker did.

I have some thoughts in that religous freedom has been morphed into something it should not have been, but I want to post I'll put in the Christian Exchange idea thread.

But let's be honest this is about group A refusing to accept group B for who they are. That's it. You try to compare them to an action (divorce) rather than to who they are (such as a black person or a women). You said we discriminate all the time. I'm curious, what other person is acceptable to you to discriminate against simply for who they are (not what they did, not for a belief). And please don't make up some BS "what if" thing.

If the bottom line is you don't believe they are who they are, and I'm fairly sure you never will, I'm not sure what there is to talk about. I have no issue with the baker not making a divorce cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. I have no issue him not making a Halloween cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. Again, it's not about the cake, it's about the person. If he makes divorce cakes for men, but not women, then we have an issue.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 10-11-17 at 06:15 AM.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 06:39 AM
  #112  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
That video is fucking awesome.
Agree...awesome.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 07:12 AM
  #113  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
No, that is not correct. When I say "their world" I'm not talking a time frame.

I think it a stretch (to say the least) that opening a for public bakery is a religous endeavor or practicing your religion. I think it a stretch (to say the least) that being a county clerk is a religous endeavor or practicing your religion. Can the baker run his business as a "Christian". Absolutely. Right up until it breaks the law. Which is what he did. Had he done that in another state it would not have broken a law (which I don't agree with, but not the point).

These people have chosen to work in non-religous areas. As such should absolutely have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. It's fundamentally unfair to suggest otherwise. And as the courts noted, you can't force your belief on others. Which is exactly what the baker did.

I have some thoughts in that religous freedom has been morphed into something it should not have been, but I want to post I'll put in the Christian Exchange idea thread.

But let's be honest this is about group A refusing to accept group B for who they are. That's it. You try to compare them to an action (divorce) rather than to who they are (such as a black person or a women). You said we discriminate all the time. I'm curious, what other person is acceptable to you to discriminate against simply for who they are (not what they did, not for a belief). And please don't make up some BS "what if" thing.

If the bottom line is you don't believe they are who they are, and I'm fairly sure you never will, I'm not sure what there is to talk about. I have no issue with the baker not making a divorce cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. I have no issue him not making a Halloween cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. Again, it's not about the cake, it's about the person. If he makes divorce cakes for men, but not women, then we have an issue.
The last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, and I agree. You believe that it's about "identity"; I believe that identify is based upon actions. I also believe that it's difficult if not impossible to have an honest discussion on the matter since there is a lack of consistency on the part of many...actually most...people to apply their ideas to other situations involving consenting adults.

Regardless whether you believe that all consenting adult relationships should be legal and embraced as good and normal...and that includes every possible consenting adult relationship unless one is being highly selective...the matter still comes down to forcing someone else to abide by your beliefs.

It's also difficult to discuss matters if the goalposts keep shifting. One minute we're discussing ethics; the next we're on to "legality;" the next we're on to defining terms such as "identity." If this were just a legal discussion, it would have been a moot point when same-sex marriage was illegal...the argument would have been ended with "follow the law." So legality is not the question; laws change and/or are revoked. Some people maintain that ethics and morality change (apparently, some things that are considered immoral now were "moral" when a majority of society approved and vice-verse.

I could just as easily say that the non-accepting "Group A" are those who are forcing those in "Group B" to act in ways that violate their conscience. I've pointed out that Group B is only asking for narrow exceptions to be made. Providing services for a wedding is extremely different from providing a generic service, such as the ridiculous hypothetical example of "refusing to sell gas to customers on their way to a gay wedding." The courts would reject that appeal in a heartbeat. But the courts have also recognized religious objections such as conscientious objectors in wartime. And the courts generally try to make accommodations that reach a compromise as much as possible or at least consider which party would be burdened most by their decisions.

Your question about "who they are" reflects your beliefs. It appears that you have bought into the "everything is fluid" current trend that regards gender, race, etc. as a matter of one's choosing. Why shouldn't someone declare age to also be fluid; after all, if one doesn't accept the calendar system used by most people, he/she can "believe" themselves to be any age they choose...and who are we to argue? If someone born in 1945 wants to proclaim that he/she is actually ten years old, then we should "accept" that as "who he...or ze or beta or alpha or gamma ray...is." And if you insist upon age limits for a certain thing, you're "discriminating" against that person for "who they are." And if a person is attracted to another person(s) in a manner that is currently illegal, then that person(s) is being discriminated against, and we should be writing letters (or emailing) Congress to protest this unfair treatment and should be creating internet threads to advocate for laws overturning prohibitions against those relationships. To do otherwise is to be hypocritical and only jumping on the latest bandwagon.

That being said, it still comes down to forcing an owner of a privately-owned business to do your bidding. Saying that they "serve the public" is a specious argument..."the public" includes every human being. And I think you have agreed that owners can refuse service to members of "the public" whom they don't want to serve if those members aren't part of an identified "protected class."

Perhaps the only thing that would temporarily satisfy the legal demands (short of repealing laws or enacting religious freedom laws that allow for appeal for exemptions) would be to say that certain services are only available to "members" who join a "private organization." Thus, wedding services would only be available to those who apply for a membership. That wouldn't last long since those rejected for "membership" would file lawsuits as soon as they were rejected, and then we'd be right back to where we started.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 07:25 AM
  #114  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
These people have chosen to work in non-religous areas. As such should absolutely have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. It's fundamentally unfair to suggest otherwise. And as the courts noted, you can't force your belief on others. Which is exactly what the baker did.

If the bottom line is you don't believe they are who they are, and I'm fairly sure you never will, I'm not sure what there is to talk about. I have no issue with the baker not making a divorce cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. I have no issue him not making a Halloween cake. He doesn't make them for anyone. Again, it's not about the cake, it's about the person. If he makes divorce cakes for men, but not women, then we have an issue.
Two other specific points addressed to your points quoted above:

1. You say that "you can't force your beliefs upon others." But that is exactly what you (and the homosexual couple) are doing by demanding that the business serve a same-sex wedding. Let's amend your statement to say, "You can't force your beliefs upon others unless it's the ''right" belief." Or "customers can force their beliefs upon owners, but owners cannot do likewise."

2. You're being very technical here. He "won't make a Halloween cake" for anyone, but he will make a Thanksgiving cake. He's "discriminating" against those who celebrate one holiday over another. He won't make a "divorce cake," but he will make cakes for married or single people not celebrating a divorce. He's "discriminating" against divorced people.

You see the point? He will make cakes for other holidays, but not those which violate his beliefs. He will make cakes celebrating other occasions but not a divorce. He will make cakes for traditional heterosexual weddings but not for same-sex weddings. In all instances, some people are being served while others are not...based upon the specific event or occasion.

If you want to get technical, he won't make a wedding for a same-sex wedding for anyone. If you go down to buy a cake for that occasion for friends or family, he would refuse to serve you...a heterosexual...not based upon "who you are" but because the event itself is something that violates his beliefs. And, btw, he would make a birthday cake for a homosexual person asking for one. So it's not based upon "who the customer is." It's based upon the specific purpose for which the cake is designed.

You can argue against that logic, but the facts demonstrate otherwise.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 07:53 AM
  #115  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,642
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION. Are you fucking deaf? Take that shit back to your Christian Echo Chamber thread, creek.
Vibiana is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 07:59 AM
  #116  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
The last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, and I agree. You believe that it's about "identity"; I believe that identify is based upon actions. I also believe that it's difficult if not impossible to have an honest discussion on the matter since there is a lack of consistency on the part of many...actually most...people to apply their ideas to other situations involving consenting adults.

Regardless whether you believe that all consenting adult relationships should be legal and embraced as good and normal...and that includes every possible consenting adult relationship unless one is being highly selective...the matter still comes down to forcing someone else to abide by your beliefs.

It's also difficult to discuss matters if the goalposts keep shifting. One minute we're discussing ethics; the next we're on to "legality;" the next we're on to defining terms such as "identity." If this were just a legal discussion, it would have been a moot point when same-sex marriage was illegal...the argument would have been ended with "follow the law." So legality is not the question; laws change and/or are revoked. Some people maintain that ethics and morality change (apparently, some things that are considered immoral now were "moral" when a majority of society approved and vice-verse.

I could just as easily say that the non-accepting "Group A" are those who are forcing those in "Group B" to act in ways that violate their conscience. I've pointed out that Group B is only asking for narrow exceptions to be made. Providing services for a wedding is extremely different from providing a generic service, such as the ridiculous hypothetical example of "refusing to sell gas to customers on their way to a gay wedding." The courts would reject that appeal in a heartbeat. But the courts have also recognized religious objections such as conscientious objectors in wartime. And the courts generally try to make accommodations that reach a compromise as much as possible or at least consider which party would be burdened most by their decisions.

Your question about "who they are" reflects your beliefs. It appears that you have bought into the "everything is fluid" current trend that regards gender, race, etc. as a matter of one's choosing. Why shouldn't someone declare age to also be fluid; after all, if one doesn't accept the calendar system used by most people, he/she can "believe" themselves to be any age they choose...and who are we to argue? If someone born in 1945 wants to proclaim that he/she is actually ten years old, then we should "accept" that as "who he...or ze or beta or alpha or gamma ray...is." And if you insist upon age limits for a certain thing, you're "discriminating" against that person for "who they are." And if a person is attracted to another person(s) in a manner that is currently illegal, then that person(s) is being discriminated against, and we should be writing letters (or emailing) Congress to protest this unfair treatment and should be creating internet threads to advocate for laws overturning prohibitions against those relationships. To do otherwise is to be hypocritical and only jumping on the latest bandwagon.

That being said, it still comes down to forcing an owner of a privately-owned business to do your bidding. Saying that they "serve the public" is a specious argument..."the public" includes every human being. And I think you have agreed that owners can refuse service to members of "the public" whom they don't want to serve if those members aren't part of an identified "protected class."

Perhaps the only thing that would temporarily satisfy the legal demands (short of repealing laws or enacting religious freedom laws that allow for appeal for exemptions) would be to say that certain services are only available to "members" who join a "private organization." Thus, wedding services would only be available to those who apply for a membership. That wouldn't last long since those rejected for "membership" would file lawsuits as soon as they were rejected, and then we'd be right back to where we started.
I'm not sure what "concenting adults" has to do with anything. You do know there is a difference between having sex and sexual orientation, correct?

Making a cake or issuing a lisence is not "accepting" anyone. It is not endorsing anyone. That's just silly. At the wedding no one held a toast for the county clerk and said "I'm so happy she fully endorses and supports us". It was not HER power that married them but that od the states.

"Doing his bidding"? You have got to be kidding. What are you talking about. He runs a business. He sells cookies. Someone walks in and asks for cookies is not "doing his bidding". Wtf. Why aren't those other people part of a protected class? Because (other than religion) protected classes are for who people are. Not what they do. Being a member of the KKK is not who they are. It's a belief. Like religion. Being a white supremist is not who they are. It is what they believe.

When you make up BS stuff that has never happened you do realize what an insult it is don't you? I've asked before so I'll ask again, show me some cases where people "identified" with being a different age. There have always been gay people. As there have always been trans people. Where is this group of "age identifiers".

But here is the issue. Even if you try to make that arguement (which is redicoulsly) as Ive pointed out, people have used religion to discriminate even when they accepted who they are. Religion was used to discriminate against blacks and even "endorse" slavary. Are you going to defend that by saying "well skin color was fluid"? Religion was used to discriminate against women. Are you going to say "well we didn't know women were born that way". So I find it wholly distinguish to suggest if I showed you facts that being gay is in fact who they are, that you would "oh it's ok and the baker should make the cake". History is not on your side.

None of this is the arguement before the Supreme Court. And as a religous person you should be be glad it is not. In fact even the attorneys seem to know that don't have much of a chance on religous grounds. They have turned into a free speech issue. Which I think is risky. If they say free speech "trumps" all other things, then we have to throw out all protected classes. And the baker can refuse to bake the cake for a black or for a Christian or anyone they don't want to. Which is unacceptable in a modern society.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 08:09 AM
  #117  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Vibs is correct. I replied further in the Christian Exchange thread.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 08:20 AM
  #118  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,456
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Beliefs and rights conflict all the time. In this country the courts decide whose belief/right takes precedent at the expense of the others. That is why everyone wants a court sympathetic to their beliefs and rights.
If the court rules against you, you just have to suck it up.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:12 PM
  #119  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 44,548
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

I think I just heard some heads exploding, and that's a good thing.

Gay couple becomes first in Germany to adopt child
Two married men have become the first gay couple to adopt a child in Germany.
Gay marriage became legal in Germany on October 1.

http://www.dw.com/en/gay-couple-beco...ild/a-40890149
inri222 is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:22 PM
  #120  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,604
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by inri222 View Post
I think I just heard some heads exploding, and that's a good thing.

Gay couple becomes first in Germany to adopt child
Two married men have become the first gay couple to adopt a child in Germany.
Gay marriage became legal in Germany on October 1.

http://www.dw.com/en/gay-couple-beco...ild/a-40890149
It wasn't that long ago that gay couples could finally adopt in all 50 states. Mississippi was a hold out for a long time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b083f5c607567f

BUT there are states trying to limit that. Texas tried to impose that a gays could not be foster parents. But then my lovely state, has is putting an all out attack on the LBGTQ community....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lls/101633302/

The adoption thing is simply beyond me. How it took that long. We have kids that need loving parents.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:36 PM
  #121  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 44,548
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
The adoption thing is simply beyond me. How it took that long. We have kids that need loving parents.
We don't need people adopting children to indoctrinate them into a perverted hedonistic sinful lifestyle.
inri222 is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:40 PM
  #122  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 29,791
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by inri222 View Post
We don't need people adopting children to indoctrinate them into a perverted hedonistic sinful lifestyle.
They'd rather deny children a loving home than reward "the gays" for anything.

It's absolutely sickening to have that much hate inside you that you'd prevent a child from having a good home life because of your own prejudices.
Draven is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:47 PM
  #123  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 44,548
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
They'd rather deny children a loving home than reward "the gays" for anything.

It's absolutely sickening to have that much hate inside you that you'd prevent a child from having a good home life because of your own prejudices.
It's all about punishing people, collateral damage be damned.
inri222 is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:49 PM
  #124  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 18,317
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
They'd rather deny children a loving home than reward "the gays" for anything.

It's absolutely sickening to have that much hate inside you that you'd prevent a child from having a good home life because of your own prejudices.
The argument is that a "gay" family and a "good home" cannot be the same thing. I completely disagree with that, but that's the angle. They say it's not a "righteous" home. They say it's not a "my definition of Christian" home. etc. etc.
I understand how that kind of view takes hold, personally knowing folks who think like that, but I am in complete opposition to that view.
Dan is offline  
Old 10-11-17, 12:55 PM
  #125  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 29,791
Re: The General LBGTQ rights (or lack of) thread.

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
The argument is that a "gay" family and a "good home" cannot be the same thing. I completely disagree with that, but that's the angle. They say it's not a "righteous" home. They say it's not a "my definition of Christian" home. etc. etc.
I understand how that kind of view takes hold, personally knowing folks who think like that, but I am in complete opposition to that view.
I get it too. I also don't understand how or why Christians get to make that determination. Who cares if it's a Christian home or not? Just get the kid some fucking parents!

I will never understand that mindset.
Draven is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.