The politically incorrect thread

[The Senator]

Why Moviefan, why? Why have you continued to IGNORE this point? It has been raised numerous times in this thread, I even sent you a PM so you could answer it in private if you wished.

Yes, it would be wrong for the employer to fire that employee for being gay because there are several Christian denominations which allow homosexuals in their membership and do not view homosexuality as something which goes against Christianity. There are many non-denominational groups which follow this ideology, as well as the UCC, Lutheran, and Episcopalian denominations. So, the employer would then be firing the employee based on the employer's religious views, not taking into account the Christian views of his employee.

Do you agree with these points? Are you just too afraid to respond? Why do you believe homosexuals should be fired from Christian organizations simply because they are gay, when there are Christian denominations which allow homosexuals to be themselves?

 

[Schlosser85]

jmanspice wrote:

No, God wants people to vote for George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, because that is His plan. Or at least, that's what Bush and Palin's pastor say.

Whirlysplat wrote:

True God does, but, that's another story.

I seriously hope you're joking. Otherwise, I guess according to you, God is a member of the Republican Party. Like according to Sarah Palin, oil pipelines and wars we are misled into under false pretenses and lies are "tasks from God". Such arrogance to presume your personal projects and political affiliations have some kind of exclusive stamp of approval straight from God is downright sacriligious.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Yes, it would be wrong for the employer to fire that employee for being gay because there are several Christian denominations which allow homosexuals in their membership and do not view homosexuality as something which goes against Christianity. There are many non-denominational groups which follow this ideology, as well as the UCC, Lutheran, and Episcopalian denominations. So, the employer would then be firing the employee based on the employer's religious views, not taking into account the Christian views of his employee.

I'll be happy to answer it.

1. The employee's viewpoint, in the eyes of an employer, is irrelevant. To say that an employer must hire anybody, even if that employer doesn't want to hire a particular person violates the employers right to associate with whom he pleases.

2. IF a person has a different viewpoint then myselv, that's all fine and good, but I don't have to respect that other person's viewpoint as he doesn't have to respect mine.

It's called freedom of thoughts. If we really are free to have our thoughts, our actions need to be free as well.

 

[The Senator]

I'll be happy to answer it.

1. The employee's viewpoint, in the eyes of an employer, is irrelevant. To say that an employer must hire anybody, even if that employer doesn't want to hire a particular person violates the employers right to associate with whom he pleases.

2. IF a person has a different viewpoint then myselv, that's all fine and good, but I don't have to respect that other person's viewpoint as he doesn't have to respect mine.

It's called freedom of thoughts. If we really are free to have our thoughts, our actions need to be free as well.

Problem is, though, we have laws in this country which prevent employers from firing someone SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if it were a Christian bookstore, the owner would not be allowed to fire the employee based on his sexuality. In fact, if the employee converted to Islam, the employee would still be able to keep his job, according to these laws. An employee is not allowed to fire someone SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, political views, race, or personal creed. So you are right, employers DO NOT have to respect that person's view point-- however, he cannot fire an employee solely because he disagrees with that view point, unless it adversely affects business, to the extent of the law.

Hiring is a different story, though, at least in some states-- but thankfully we're working on that, in terms of GLBT discrimination.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Problem is, though, we have laws in this country which prevent employers from firing someone SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if it were a Christian bookstore, the owner would not be allowed to fire the employee based on his sexuality. In fact, if the employee converted to Islam, the employee would still be able to keep his job, according to these laws. An employee is not allowed to fire someone SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, political views, race, or personal creed. So you are right, employers DO NOT have to respect that person's view point-- however, he cannot fire an employee solely because he disagrees with that view point, unless it adversely affects business, to the extent of the law.

Hiring is a different story, though, at least in some states-- but thankfully we're working on that, in terms of GLBT discrimination.

That would be very unfortunate if you successfully achieved that goal, because it would be a violation of the constitution.

 

[The Senator]

That would be very unfortunate if you successfully achieved that goal, because it would be a violation of the constitution.

I understand you are ignorant of a lot of issues, so I shouldn't be surprised that you are no Constitutional expert either

There is NOTHING in our Constitution which says that employers have a RIGHT to fire people because they disagree with them. But there is something in the Constitution-- we call it the First Amendment, here in the States -- which allows people to express themselves as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Me being a homosexual does not infringe upon the rights of my employer to express himself; but he firing me SOLELY because I am gay infringes upon my rights as defined not only by the First Amendment, but by precedents established in the U.S. court system, as well as laws established by state and federal governments.

You are not allowed to fire someone because he or she is gay. Just like you are not allowed to fire someone because he or she is black, atheistic, or prefers classical music to your country-western.

Again, I hope that there will come a day when members of the GLBT community are hired based on QUALIFICATIONS [after all, shouldn't we be hiring the most qualified individuals ] instead of orientation/ gender identity in every single state in the country.

 

[Rando]

jmanspice.

you are awesome.

that is all.

 

[Shedhut]

jmanspice.

you are awesome.

that is all.

yup, agreed. Sometimes posts are more than just posts on the Hype^^

People who practice homosexuality are living in ways that are blatantly against God's plan for their lives. God designed sex to bond a man and woman together in the covenant of marriage; that was (and still is) His original intent. But mankind has selfishly perverted it into something He never intended it to be, and God does not take that lightly. He loves the people themselves, but He's also both saddened and angry towards the way they are living.

All sin, regardless of specifics, serves one purpose at its core: rebellion against God. In that way, all sin is the same. There are differences, of course...but those differences don't make any sin less wrong in the eyes of God.

Homosexuality, while not any more or less wrong, is different from other sins like murder or stealing, because it entails living each day in a specific manner that goes against God. Scripture even says, "all other sins are outside the body, but sexual sin is a sin against your own body." I don't consider homosexual people my enemy, but I do consider the act and practice itself to be 100% wrong.


-moviefan2k4

thanks for your response, although you carried away from the actual question.

Also, you make it sound like homosexual tension is something everybody has to resist actively in his life. Like it would be a equally hard time for everyone resisting the sin. A little gay man inside controlled by the will to obey god.
Now apparently there are people who don't have to resist due to heterosexuality. But how can a heterosexual being tell the homosexual that he/she acts the wrong way when obviously your good would feel bad to them/you have no idea how they feel?


PS: mind my sigt: I hope my point is clear.

 

[UA-Archangel]

I understand you are ignorant of a lot of issues, so I shouldn't be surprised that you are no Constitutional expert either

There is NOTHING in our Constitution which says that employers have a RIGHT to fire people because they disagree with them. But there is something in the Constitution-- we call it the First Amendment, here in the States -- which allows people to express themselves as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Me being a homosexual does not infringe upon the rights of my employer to express himself; but he firing me SOLELY because I am gay infringes upon my rights as defined not only by the First Amendment, but by precedents established in the U.S. court system, as well as laws established by state and federal governments.

You are not allowed to fire someone because he or she is gay. Just like you are not allowed to fire someone because he or she is black, atheistic, or prefers classical music to your country-western.

Again, I hope that there will come a day when members of the GLBT community are hired based on QUALIFICATIONS [after all, shouldn't we be hiring the most qualified individuals ] instead of orientation/ gender identity in every single state in the country.

I believe in absolute freedoms to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want. Let businesses narrow their focus on whom they want and let them pay the price in the market place, if their priority isn't hiring the best candidates.

 

[The Senator]

I believe in absolute freedoms to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want. Let businesses narrow their focus on whom they want and let them pay the price in the market place, if their priority isn't hiring the best candidates.

Sorry, but you don't control the law, especially the law in the United States.

We believe in laws which protect the ability of our citizens to find employment on the basis of their qualifications, instead of their sexuality, race, gender, or other silly component of one's personality.

The ability to do a job, as well one's qualifications, should trump anything else. That is guaranteed by the U.S. court system and federal/ state legislation.

Thankfully, you live in Canada, so we won't have to worry about you being able to have any say in how our government works.

 

[Whirlysplat]

But contract killers are not considered a part of the military, they are a private operation which was hired by the United States government to do what our military is not legally allowed to do, according to precedents established by past treaties. We are only legally allowed, according to international law, to use our soldiers in military affairs. As a result, the fact that we hired Blackwater does mean that the United States has sponsored murder in Iraq. Essentially, we have hired glorified hit men to take out those who get in our way.

This is the sole reason, in my opinion, why George W. Bush should be impeached. As commander-in-chief of our military, he should know better.

You still miss the point jman. Murder is a legal label. Someone is only a murderer if they are tried and found guilty of Murder. you may believe what you have read is truth, it may indeed be truth, but you are only making an acusation of murder, and an acusation does not make someone a murder unless they are found guilty. An example; you may think O.J. is a murderer. In the eyes of the law he was found not guilty and therefore was allowed to go free. You see the difference.

War is not murder. Again you are arguing something different. Mercenary may kill, they may have done it illegally, unless that is proven they, have murdered no one.

 

[The Senator]

You still miss the point jman. Murder is a legal label. Someone is only a murderer if they are tried and found guilty of Murder. you may believe what you have read is truth, it may indeed be truth, but you are only making an acusation of murder, and an acusation does not make someone a murder unless they are found guilty. An example; you may think O.J. is a murderer. In the eyes of the law he was found not guilty and therefore was allowed to go free. You see the difference.

War is not murder. Again you are arguing something different. Mercenary may kill, they may have done it illegally, unless that is proven they, have murdered no one.

But the real argument that I'm making against that silly ol' Moviefan was that for someone who is against murder [as defined by God, mind you], he certainly has no problem supporting the war in Iraq.

Of course, since the war has been reduced to Christians vs. Muslims by several prominent preachers, it is no wonder why many Christofascists support it.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Also, you make it sound like homosexual tension is something everybody has to resist actively in his life.

What kind of tension are you referring to? Tension with others over their views of the subject...or tension with one's self in fighting against those impulses?

Like it would be a equally hard time for everyone resisting the sin.

Resisting sinful tendencies is different for everyone; some find it easier, others don't. Also, I suppose it depends on the sin in question. For example, most people would probably agree that resisting murder is usually rather easy. But how many of those same people would find it difficult to resist lying?

A little gay man inside controlled by the will to obey god.

It's not like that; it's more like a person's spirit vs. their flesh. The human spirit will do anything God tells it to, without question. The flesh, on the other hand, resists at any given oppritunity. That's why Scripture tells us to renew our minds, and crucify our flesh by submitting ourelves to God through faith.

Now apparently there are people who don't have to resist due to heterosexuality.

You might be surprised; I'd say most (if not all) heterosexuals are confronted by at least one homosexual thought at some point in their lives. It may be nothing more than a passing moment...or if allowed to develop, it can result in disastrous life choices.

But how can a heterosexual being tell the homosexual that he/she acts the wrong way when obviously your good would feel bad to them/you have no idea how they feel?

In my opinion, some (but not all) homosexuals believe that being gay is part of their identity; as such, they see any conflict with it as a personal insult. But in truth, no one is "born gay", and no one can honestly claim "God made me this way". They may try and rationalize it in their mind, but the truth of the matter rests with God. He says flat-out in His Word that the act and practice of homosexuality is an abombination...and He wouldn't say that unless He knew it was inherently harmful to us.

It's like the old adage of a parent telling their child, "Don't touch the stove, because it's hot." Some kids choose to disobey, and they recieve the painful consequence. Others choose to heed the warning, and trust their parent knows best. God asks us to make the same kinds of choices, on a daily basis. We can either choose to trust Him, or reject Him in favor of ourselves.

 

[The Senator]

In my opinion, some (but not all) homosexuals believe that being gay is part of their identity; as such, they see any conflict with it as a personal insult. But in truth, no one is "born gay", and no one can honestly claim "God made me this way". They may try and rationalize it in their mind, but the truth of the matter rests with God. He says flat-out in His Word that the act and practice of homosexuality is an abombination...and He wouldn't say that unless He knew it was inherently harmful to us.

First of all, your "truth" is nothing more than a matter of YOUR opinion. Every year, there seems to be more and more scientific evidence emerging which supports the idea that it homosexuality is NOT a choice. That it is genetic, not something someone chooses.

Second, why wouldn't homosexuals declare their sexuality as a part of their identity? Who you are attracted to is as much a part of your identity as which country you were born in, which state you are from, which language you speak, which deity you believe in, etc.. It is a core component of who we are.

I mean, after all, people try to convert us because we're gay, people brutally beat us because we're gay, people shun us and refuse to hire us because we're gay... why shouldn't we embrace this identity?

Oh, wait-- silly me, I know why, it is because the majority looks down upon homosexuals, they don't approve of issues such as gay marriage or gay adoption because God MUST HAVE told them from birth that such a lifestyle was "wrong." It's right in his word, the Bible, that flawlessly inconsistent doctrine of his which also condones slavery and believes that a woman should be stoned to death if her virginity is taken from her before marriage.

Yep, that's it, people beat us, rape us, murder us-- us queers should learn a thing or two about being gay, since the majority of society HATES us. After all, if they HATE us, it must mean we're doing something wrong. That explains why slavery was justified two hundred years ago: not only did the Bible condone it, but society HATED black people and thought they were worthless. It all makes sense.

Third, I can point to several analysts of that ONE line in Leviticus which claims homosexuality is abomination... which actually claims that the "abomination" in question isn't God's laws, it is the laws presented by the government at which those people have been living under. There are other interpretations of that one phrase... which is hella-interesting to me, considering that PROVES how imperfect God's word is, because wouldn't these "faithful Christians" only be able to interpret that phrase in one way and one way only?

So... what then? Does that mean you know better than every other Christian? Or are the Christians who disagree with you simply "misguided"?

Why are your interpretations more valid than anyone else's? Why do you believe that YOUR religious views should trump every other Christian's view? Why should Christian bookstore owners be able to fire their employees for "going against God's word," when there are at least three Christian denominations which accept homosexuals in their parish?

Did God instill in you the power of sight, the ability to see things no one else can? Are you a modern-day prophet?

Yeah, Moviefan, you're a real Eli Sunday.

 

[Schlosser85]

You might be surprised; I'd say most (if not all) heterosexuals are confronted by at least one homosexual thought at some point in their lives. It may be nothing more than a passing moment...or if allowed to develop, it can result in disastrous life choices.

I agree with the first sentence. But I'm curious about the "disastrous life choices". Do you realize that not every homosexual ends up dying of AIDS or being murdered by homophobes, and many people actually have long successful lives and careers in monogamous long-lasting relationships? Exactly what "disaster" befalls such people?

In my opinion, some (but not all) homosexuals believe that being gay is part of their identity; as such, they see any conflict with it as a personal insult.

Everyone's sexual orientation is part of who they are. And when gays are singled out and oppressed for it, of course they identify more with the part of their identity that society places inordinate emphasis on. It's the same way that African-Americans tend to think of themselves as African-Americans more than whites usually think of themselves as Caucasian-Americans. When you are attacked incessantly for it, there is a degree of defensive righteuousness that develops as a natural reaction which can sometimes be taken overboard, I will grant you.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Do you realize that not every homosexual ends up dying of AIDS or being murdered by homophobes, and many people actually have long successful lives and careers in monogamous long-lasting relationships?

I'm not in favor of any person being singled out for a hate crime, no matter the situation. I think such crimes have happened largely because of fear. God never told anyone to fear or hate homosexuals; he simply commanded us to stand against the sin itself, while simultaneously treating the people themselves with love and respect.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. My cousin once had an acquaintance, who for the sake of discussion I'll call "Kaylie". This woman was gay, and apparently made no apologies for it. As a Christian, I found myself at an impasse upon speaking to her, because while I knew in my heart homosexuality was wrong, I was still learning to "separate the sin from the sinner" in my mind. So, I told "Kaylie" only once, "You should know that I am a Christian, and I do not hate you in any way. I will not agree with or endorse your choice, but I won't hold it over your head either." To my surprise, she agreed with that, and appeared to respect me for it.

As for "monogamous long-lasting relationships", I've yet to meet a homosexual who didn't wind up switching partners every few years.

Exactly what "disaster" befalls such people?

I was referring to a person's choice to let those thoughts fester and develop in their mind, eventually resulting in a choice to follow them. If people do not take the prospect of controlling their thoughts seriously, it can lead them down paths which could be avoided by trusting God more than their own judgment.

Everyone's sexual orientation is part of who they are.

I'm aware of that, but I've seen and heard from homosexuals who hold up that aspect of their lives as the definitive pinnacle of their identity. Also, I've come to believe that "orientation" is probably too PC of a word (after all, we are in the PC thread). It seems to suggest that homosexuality is some default part of human nature, which it's not. Sexual expressions are choices, and like other aspects in life, they must be treated with absolute integrity and accountability. Through discussions on the Hype, reports I've read and/or heard elsewhere...it just seems like many people (gay, straight, black, white, etc.) use such words as "orientation" to avoid responsibility for their own choices.

 

[Whirlysplat]

I mean, after all, people try to convert us because we're gay, people brutally beat us because we're gay, people shun us and refuse to hire us because we're gay... why shouldn't we embrace this identity?

I was always upset by the homosexual hijacking of the word gay.

 

[Schlosser85]

As for "monogamous long-lasting relationships", I've yet to meet a homosexual who didn't wind up switching partners every few years.

Well, just for a few examples, the first gay couple to marry in California were two lesbians, both in their 80s, who had been together for over fifty years (one of whom died a few months later). My acting teacher and his partner have considered themselves married for 12 years, and while I don't know I would assume they were together for a significant time before that. Actor Sir John Gielgud and his partner Martin Hensler were together from 1963 until Hensler's death from cancer in 2000 (Gielgud followed him within months).

I'm aware of that, but I've seen and heard from homosexuals who hold up that aspect of their lives as the definitive pinnacle of their identity.

As have I, and as I acknowledged earlier, it can go a bit overboard. There are plenty of things about me at least as significant or more significant to who I am than my sexual orientation.

Also, I've come to believe that "orientation" is probably too PC of a word (after all, we are in the PC thread). It seems to suggest that homosexuality is some default part of human nature, which it's not. Sexual expressions are choices, and like other aspects in life, they must be treated with absolute integrity and accountability. Through discussions on the Hype, reports I've read and/or heard elsewhere...it just seems like many people (gay, straight, black, white, etc.) use such words as "orientation" to avoid responsibility for their own choices.

Well, I never "chose" to be homosexual, so I'm not going to call it anything other than my sexual orientation.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm not in favor of any person being singled out for a hate crime, no matter the situation. I think such crimes have happened largely because of fear. God never told anyone to fear or hate homosexuals; he simply commanded us to stand against the sin itself, while simultaneously treating the people themselves with love and respect.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. My cousin once had an acquaintance, who for the sake of discussion I'll call "Kaylie". This woman was gay, and apparently made no apologies for it. As a Christian, I found myself at an impasse upon speaking to her, because while I knew in my heart homosexuality was wrong, I was still learning to "separate the sin from the sinner" in my mind. So, I told "Kaylie" only once, "You should know that I am a Christian, and I do not hate you in any way. I will not agree with or endorse your choice, but I won't hold it over your head either." To my surprise, she agreed with that, and appeared to respect me for it.

As for "monogamous long-lasting relationships", I've yet to meet a homosexual who didn't wind up switching partners every few years.

That's probably because you don't hang out with a lot of homosexuals. I have a couple friend that are now 74 and 72 respectively. They started dating in 1958.

Their names are Dilbert and William. They are flaming. They love each other.

So your experience means very little.

I was referring to a person's choice to let those thoughts fester and develop in their mind, eventually resulting in a choice to follow them. If people do not take the prospect of controlling their thoughts seriously, it can lead them down paths which could be avoided by trusting God more than their own judgment.

I'm aware of that, but I've seen and heard from homosexuals who hold up that aspect of their lives as the definitive pinnacle of their identity. Also, I've come to believe that "orientation" is probably too PC of a word (after all, we are in the PC thread). It seems to suggest that homosexuality is some default part of human nature, which it's not. Sexual expressions are choices, and like other aspects in life, they must be treated with absolute integrity and accountability. Through discussions on the Hype, reports I've read and/or heard elsewhere...it just seems like many people (gay, straight, black, white, etc.) use such words as "orientation" to avoid responsibility for their own choices.

If homosexuality is a choice there's no reason to assume that it's wrong to choose homosexuality.

If homosexuality is not a choice then there is no reasonable way to claim it's wrong.

 

[Gilpesh]

As for "monogamous long-lasting relationships", I've yet to meet a homosexual who didn't wind up switching partners every few years.

Are you really such a f**king bigot you don't understand how stupid and idiotic that one statement you made sounds?

You had pre-marital sex with someone, are you still with them? Are you going to be with them forever? Does every god fearing christian always and forever stay with one partner for all time? Oh wait...

What's the divorce rate? 50%? More? How many of those are homosexual couples... oh wait, none of them can be cause bigots (like you) void their rights to marriage because of a fictional account of an invisible man in the sky telling a bunch of idiots who believed him that homosexuality is a 'sin' and that they 'choose' that life.




I've yet to meet a heterosexual who didn't wind up switching partners every few years... you included.



Again, sorry to be so politically incorrect again. Oh wait, that's the point of the thread... to hate on people.

 

[spit_acid]

People, people. Throw crap at me, if you like, for saying this. But you NEED to stop blaming God for the reason you are being ignorant! It is you. It is what you chose to believe. I'm not saying the God does or does not exist. But he did not come to you in your sleep and tell you to treat people like **** because they are not what he planned. People wrote this in a book called the Bible, and way too many generations have overanalyzed this book to extremity. It's words have all been twisted and blown up into such great proportions, it's not EVEN God's word any more.
Stop blaming God.
Stop it.
Seriously.

 

[Schlosser85]

Stop blaming God.
Stop it.
Seriously.

I'm not sure if I believe God exists or not (I guess I'm agnostic; a while ago I would have called myself an atheist), but I have never blamed God for homophobia. I've always thought that if an all-wise, all-knowing, benevolent being exists, He should have more important things to be concerned with than something as petty as what gender someone is attracted to.

 

[The Senator]

People, people. Throw crap at me, if you like, for saying this. But you NEED to stop blaming God for the reason you are being ignorant! It is you. It is what you chose to believe. I'm not saying the God does or does not exist. But he did not come to you in your sleep and tell you to treat people like **** because they are not what he planned. People wrote this in a book called the Bible, and way too many generations have overanalyzed this book to extremity. It's words have all been twisted and blown up into such great proportions, it's not EVEN God's word any more.
Stop blaming God.
Stop it.
Seriously.

No one is blaming God.

On the contrary, most people are blaming the posters here who act as if they are God's disciples. They're the ones who are spreading hatred while using the Bible as a shield to deflect any accountability they should be forced to own up to.

If a non-Christian said that homosexuality is immoral and wrong and it should be looked down upon because the majority of society disagrees with it, he would be slammed left and right because he's a bigot. But when the Christofascists say it, it's perfectly fine because it is a part of their religious beliefs, and we have to accept it.

What's ironic about this situation, of course, is that the tolerant people in our society must respect the intolerant people who keep holding our society back. What a crazy world we live in these days.

 

[Marx]

I see this thread still...has...life.

 

[DBella]

I've said it once, I'll say it again, Religion and Politics should never mix. Explosive combo.

Is this thread still about 'politically incorrect'? The lines have been blurred with "God" talk.