1 edit
Originally posted by FMFclearly the evidence points to bullying as being harmful, this is entirely independent of my opinion, my thoughts or any issues that I may or may not be harbouring.
OK, so you have taken a stance on bullying.
Next. Do you agree with me when I say that parents should be able to send their child to a different school if they want to and do so for their own reasons?
Its a matter for the parents and the schools.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can unequivocally say that I believe parents should be able to send their child to a different school if they want and that whether or not the parents are permitted to move the child is certainly not a matter for the school that the child is attending.
Its a matter for the parents and the schools.
Can you agree with this stance?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are not willing to say whether you personally condone or condemn bullying? The thoughts you are "harbouring" about bullying are, in effect, secret. Is that so?
clearly the evidence points to bullying as being harmful, this is entirely independent of my opinion, my thoughts or any issues that I may or may not be harbouring.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou asked me about a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions who refuses to offer his services to homosexuals getting sued.
no i have no issues.
I said that I thought this shouldn't be allowed to happen and that a private entity like a privately owned business [or a self-employed person's business] should be able to engage in commercial transactions of their choice and with whoever they want.
Do you agree or disagree with this stance?
Originally posted by FMFIn the US that is law. For instance, there was a case a few years ago concerning a business owned by an observant Jew. He owned a restaurant and on Shabbat he did not allow his employees to switch switches and such in observance of that Jewish tradition.
You asked me about a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions who refuses to offer his services to homosexuals getting sued.
I said that I thought this shouldn't be allowed to happen and that a private entity like a privately owned business [or a self-employed person's business] should be able to engage in commercial transactions of their choice and with whoever they want.
Do you agree or disagree with this stance?
One fine Shabbat day, the employees come in to the restaurant to set up, find the place broiling inside, the day being a hot summer one. So one of the employees goes, this is nuts, turns on the AC.
The owner came in, found out, and fired him on the spot.
The former employee filed a lawsuit and lost because basically whatever the private owner sets up as rules, that is law for that company. End of story.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you figure because I SOUND angry, that allows you to reject the whole argument. Sorry, that rationalization does not work. It is clear by the tone of your statements here you are fundamentally against the IDEA of gayness and cannot accept the FACT that being gay is not a choice, but a combination of biological and environmental imperatives.
the usual rant. why do you always sound so angry? it cannot be healthy.
You try to rationalize your objection to homosexuality with counter arguments that just don't fly, basically being just that, rationalizations that prove to go nowhere.
Give it up, you have been outed🙂
Originally posted by sonhouseI would say, perhaps if a gay couple wants to get married and one of them would get a sex change operation, then it might not be so objectionable, because then they would be of the opposite sex as it is defined in marriage.
So you figure because I SOUND angry, that allows you to reject the whole argument. Sorry, that rationalization does not work. It is clear by the tone of your statements here you are fundamentally against the IDEA of gayness and cannot accept the FACT that being gay is not a choice, but a combination of biological and environmental imperatives.
You try t ...[text shortened]... eing just that, rationalizations that prove to go nowhere.
Give it up, you have been outed🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousethere is no conclusive study which has proven a genetic factor that predisposes one
So you figure because I SOUND angry, that allows you to reject the whole argument. Sorry, that rationalization does not work. It is clear by the tone of your statements here you are fundamentally against the IDEA of gayness and cannot accept the FACT that being gay is not a choice, but a combination of biological and environmental imperatives.
You try t eing just that, rationalizations that prove to go nowhere.
Give it up, you have been outed🙂
towards homosexual behavior and even if there was, predisposition is not the same
as causation, I wish that people like you would accept that FACT and stop trying to
palm off your materialism on others. Here are some more real FACTS,
1. We cannot say that the discovery of an innate condition is sufficient reason to
describe the activity it leads to as normal. Many diseases are genetically determined
but we wouldn’t dream of calling them normal. On the contrary, we’d throw the full
weight of medical scientific resources behind the enterprise to discover all we could
about the genetic makeup of this disease in order to cure it. Without wishing to be
unnecessarily provocative, we might say that the homosexual condition is the sexual
equivalent of MS in the medical world.
2. Not everyone who has a genetic predisposition ‘actualises’ their condition. It’s
quite unlikely that should a ‘gay gene’ exist it would determine someone’s activity.
The data suggests that it’s possible for someone to overcome their temptation to a
particular behaviour. It’s probably more accurate to say that genes do not determine
patterns of behaviour but influence them. It’s not the same direct correlation as with
the colour of eyes. As Frame puts it, ‘genes may impel, but they don’t compel’.
3. There are much stronger influences on our patterns of behaviour than our genetic
inheritance. The smoker’s craving for a cigarette would be one example. If we’re
prepared to excuse homosexuality on the basis of a strong influence then we ought
to be consistent and excuse all kinds of behaviour patterns. But we don’t, because
we recognise that influence alone is not a sufficient reason to rule something as
ethically appropriate.
4. The existence of strong influences does not force us to do anything contrary to
our desires. They do not compromise moral freedom. I remain free to do what I
want even if what I want is influenced by other things. On that basis I can be held
responsible for my actions. Understandably the presence of a strong influence will
create a moral weak spot where I’m especially vulnerable to temptation. But our
weak spots arise from heredity, environment, experiences and past decisions.
5. The genetic case for homosexuality does not remove the element of choice. If I’m
predisposed to alcoholism I still make a decision to have a drink. Likewise with same
sex attraction. Those who succumb to the temptation to homosexual activity do so
willingly. No one is forcing them to do anything they don’t want to do. And nothing
inside them is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do. They are simply
doing what they desire to do. The issue is whether that desire is ‘natural’ because
it’s in accord with God’s intentions.
6. The Bible presupposes that it’s possible for someone facing same sex attraction,
through the work of the Spirit, to desire holiness above ungodliness. Christian
ministries exist to help those struggling with same sex attraction to live a life of
holiness. Whilst resisting perfectionist claims of total victory over homosexual
temptation, nevertheless the Bible does hold out the hope of transformation. The
Apostle Paul described a group of people who’d experienced partial transformation
so much so that he could describe their homosexual lifestyle as something of the
past (1 Corinthians 6:0-9-11).
And so, on balance, the argument that same sex activity should be declared holy
because of the apparent existence of a genetic predisposition is utterly
unpersuasive. We cannot find in this line of reasoning just cause to sanctify sin. The
gospel still declares that repentance not acceptance remains the way to forgiveness
and transformation.
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/homosexuality-and-genetic-predisposition/
Originally posted by FMFwhether i agree or disagree is once again irrelevant, it has and will continue to happen to hoteliers in the UK and cake makers in America.
You asked me about a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions who refuses to offer his services to homosexuals getting sued.
I said that I thought this shouldn't be allowed to happen and that a private entity like a privately owned business [or a self-employed person's business] should be able to engage in commercial transactions of their choice and with whoever they want.
Do you agree or disagree with this stance?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wouldn't say your opinion is irrelevant. It seems you want to keep your stance secret. Who knows why? I don't have any difficulty stating my opinions on the issues you raised. I am able to take complete responsibility for my views.
whether i agree or disagree is once again irrelevant, it has and will continue to happen to hoteliers in the UK and cake makers in America.
I condemn private companies facing law suits for the reason discussed, even if you don't.
I think a 'public' school teacher [you copy pasted from an American web page, so I assume you mean "state school"] voicing his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook [with the caveats I mentioned] should not face any retribution. Do you share my stance on this issue?
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFI am uninterested in trading opinions FMF, I am interested in facts and evidence, have I not made that clear enough. What is it about that which is so difficult to grasp? Why must you construe some kind of secrecy? why must you construe that one is not capable of taking responsibility simply because they wish to remain detached? i dont understand this spin that must be placed upon everything? why can you not simply discuss details of events without having to form an opinion? Is having an opinion mandatory? I wonder if I may be autistic?
I wouldn't say your opinion is irrelevant. It seems you want to keep your stance secret. Who knows why? I don't have any difficulty stating my opinions on the issues you raised. I am able to take complete responsibility for my views.
I condemn private companies facing law suits for the reason discussed, even if you don't.
I think a 'public' school teacher veats I mentioned] should not face any retribution. Do you share my stance on this issue?
I wonder if its linked to my understanding of chess, you see FMF, there is no opinion in chess, there is only the pieces and the pawns and their respective juxtaposition and the dynamics which are created as a consequence and one is only interested in identifying these and formulating the correct plan depending upon the dictates of these elements. Sometimes its clear other times its not so clear, but one must remain free from bias at all times, free from personal attachment, there is no I in chess and it should appear to me to be the same in debate, there is no room for personal opinion, there is simply facts and an evaluation of their legitimacy or otherwise based upon the strength of that evidence. Sometimes its compelling, other times, less so. Why this is so hard for you to understand or accept, i cannot say.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am uninterested in trading opinions FMF, I am interested in facts and evidence, have I not made that clear enough. What is it about that which is so difficult to grasp? Why must you construe some kind of secrecy? why must you construe that one is not capable of taking responsibility simply because they wish to remain detached? i dont understand this spin that must be placed upon everything? why can you not simply discuss details of events without having to form an opinion?
Because it is your opinion that homosexuals should not be permitted to marry and that there should not be such a thing as gay marriage. The entire thread has been people "trading opinions", surely? Several people have been disagreeing with your opinion. You must have noticed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSurely it is you who is applying spin - or spinning-staggering-stumbling, depending on how one looks at it! 🙂
i dont understand this spin that must be placed upon everything?
This for example:
Originally posted by FMF
I wouldn't expect you to have any enthusiasm at all for ending the kind of discrimination against homosexuals that is seen in countries like Indonesia.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude there is a simple solution, they should stop putting their willies where God never intended them to be.
Originally posted by FMF
Is this your personal point of view?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its the Biblical point of view.
Originally posted by FMF
Is your personal point of view the same as "the Biblical point of view"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please dude, thats personal.
Originally posted by FMF
So you are unable to personally endorse "the Biblical point of view"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is what it is FMF, why it should make a difference whether I personally endorse it is relevant, how? and so on and so on...
You appear to be trying to somehow avoid taking personal responsibility for the points of view that you hold. The word "spin" is very apt. But it's not me who's applying it. It's you.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact you find it objectionable just proves my point. You have ZERO business even RAISING an objection since the couple in question will NEVER interact with you personally or sexually. It is a matter between the two and should NEVER be a matter for law or church.
I would say, perhaps if a gay couple wants to get married and one of them would get a sex change operation, then it might not be so objectionable, because then they would be of the opposite sex as it is defined in marriage.
Their friendship, sexual relationship, orientation is and always will be none of your business and those who make it their business is violating the civil rights of the couple involved.
You will come up with bogus arguments that just muddies the waters and injects deliberate doubt into the issue when in simple fact it is nobody's frigging business what two people do with each other, providing they are over 18 and consenting adults. This is a discrimination issue and nothing more.