The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

See, the whole 'face trials, pull through, die, go to heaven' thing was the plan from the beginning. But it had to be a choice. If God had put humanity down here and said 'btw, I've made this planet the suckiest thing around (which has an atmosphere you can breathe), enjoy! See y'all in 70 years!', that would've been vastly, horrifyingly unfair.

So instead, God makes a paradise world which ol' Eve and Mr. Eve can enjoy for as long as they want. Then, when they make the choice to take the fruit of Sucks To Be You, the original plan can kick into action.

O'course, certain meddling snakes may have started things rather sooner than expected, but make no mistake, Eve knew exactly what she was doing when she opted for 'experience life' over 'fruit cocktails forever'.

And, uh, I guess we all experienced the Garden vicariously through their DNA or something. I dunno, it's not my theology any more.

hS, accurately-if-flippantly explaining why LDS theo-cosmology is still the most consistent

Poor Charlotte being exploded like that... good to see that she'll be okay.

I've even replied to the concrit, so I don't know what you want from me.

One more way we can prove our devotion to him. See, God likes to set tests for his people. The very first one was the Tree in the Garden of Eden. There was no bloody reason for that tree to exist except for God to say "Oh, and don't touch that one, because I said so."

My Jehovah's Witness friends explained it to me in terms of a father telling his kid not to touch the stovetop, because it's hot and no loving father wants his kid to get burned. However, I can't buy it, because the oven has an actual reason to exist in the house. One arbitrary tree that only exists not to be touched? Not so much. It's just a test, and by its very existence, humanity was set up for the possibility of failure.

Now, I do get the argument that only by giving us chances to disobey God are we given the ability to exercise free will. If God created us with absolutely no way to ever do anything he didn't intend for us, we'd be no more than automatons, doing what we were programmed to do.

That said, I don't get why God still gets to punish us for doing that free will thing we were set up to do. The system seems pretty well rigged against us, really.

At least the Witnesses don't believe in eternal damnation. By them, everybody gets a chance to repent and get back into the Kingdom after Armageddon. I still don't buy into it, but I can at least sometimes appreciate why someone might want to.

~Neshomeh

True, it is hard to produce evidence to prove "somebody said a thing." It would almost necessarily have to get into establishing character, which is a pretty murky business. EAIUO could probably elaborate. Maybe if the baker got the request in writing first...

But, that's veering off into a purely hypothetical situation that has less and less to do with the discussion at hand, so never mind. {= )

~Neshomeh

Ah'd be moore than up fer reprisin' Mike My- er, Scottish!Inuyasha. Cannae wait fer Sunday.

... no true Christian bakery will make a wedding cake for someone who's infertile.

Right? ... right?

(Side-note: in LDS/Mormon doctrine, 'reproduction' is explicitly the theological reason - because LDS cosmology assigns a continuing role to reproduction after death. The argument remains riddled with holes, but at least there is an argument.)

hS

Why do many denominations see contraceptives as a sin? Or abortions? It's because sex is an activity done for the purpose of having children. To raise many children is to do the Lord's work. You have to keep in mind, this was a budding religion, rising from under extreme oppression, adopting the struggles of the Jews before them and of a new cult causing the local power trouble. To spread their influence and gain power, they need followers, and the easiest way of doing that is to out-breed the competition. It is a concept used throughout history by many rising cultures. So, now you can see the problem. Homosexuals can't really have any children. Ergo, it's a sin.

Now, why have you not heard that answer before? Because, if I remember right, and please correct me SoH if I'm wrong, the Bible never states that directly. The answer I gave was cultural, historical, but not strictly theological. That, and we Americans are still very shy about the subject of sex. To even discuss such things in proper context with others is inappropriate. Far more appropriate to say, "because God said it was so," than it is to swallow their fear and mention sex itself directly.

Remember, we are cultural capitalists. To an extreme fault. The fact that there is any situation at any time that people have to be given a reason to be fired, you can thank the unions fighting those battles.

There are many on the right that think we restrict the employers right to terminate too much. You know those pesky laws and regulations they keep wanting to repeal? Those workers rights laws are on that list. It ain't just the environment they want to screw over. Laissez-faire economics, ladies and gentlemen. I just don't get it.

-- hang on a second, let me check something.

Right. Apparently the concept of unfair dismissal is unheard of in the US, which is appalling dear Valar you live in a dystopia. I'm just going to stress this here: in my country, you can't be fired without a good reason.

Seriously. Dear Valar.

hS

This is an extreme example:

"Instead of high income taxes, let's think about universal wealth redistribution."

It works like this: 'here's an extreme thing we can all agree not to like (except Scapegrace and hS and Kaitlyn WHATEVS); the thing we're actually discussing is like it, but less so; therefore you can see why I don't like it.'

You didn't do that. I accept that you were trying to do that, but you didn't. You did something more like this:

"Instead of high-speed car racing, let's talk about stabbing people in the eyeballs."

Stabbing people in the eyeballs is not an extreme case of the same thing as racing. It's completely different - one is a dangerous activity people enjoy despite the risks, the other is grievous bodily harm.

Being gay - getting married as a gay person - doesn't hurt anybody. Even if you believe it's a vile sin, it only 'hurts' the gay people involved. Being in the KKK is not an 'extreme' equivalent - it's being part of a group that actively (per Data Junkie) promotes crime and (per history) lynching black people.

One of these things hurts other people. One does not. They are not comparable even in 'extreme examples'.

Here are some things that are actually partly analogous to 'not making wedding cakes for gays':

"I don't want to make a cake for that person with Down Syndrome (because they act weird and their face creeps me out."

"I don't want to make a cake for that blond/e couple (because blonde hair reminds me of Nazis)."

"I'm a traditionalist Mormon, and I don't want to make a cake for that black person (because dark skin is the mark of Cain)."

"I'm a Baptist, and I don't want to make a cake for that Mormon (because they say they're Christian but they're nooooooot)."

"I don't want to make a cake for that Christian-Hindu couple (because 2 Corinthians 6:14 and Deuteronomy 7:3 command that Christians shouldn't marry people of other faiths)."

"I don't want to make a cake for this guy to give to his girlfriend (because fornication is a sin)."

"I don't want to make a cake for that gay person (because my religion says it's sinful)."

None of these customers are hurting anyone. All of them are acting in accordance with their own culture and upbringing. Four of them have absolutely no choice in being what they are. You have no moral, ethical, or in most cases legal, right to refuse them because you don't like them.

---

I accept that you were trying to make an extreme example. However, what you actually did was directly compare 'being gay' and 'being racist'. Until you can accept how insulting (and frankly scary) that is, and apologise for what you actually said and for the lack of forethought that led to it, you're not going to get anywhere in this conversation.

You've shown repeatedly in the past that - unlike the vast majority of people on either side of the political spectrum - you're able to learn from people you disagree with and understand when your position is groundless and wrong. Please. Do that here.

hS

I am rather prodigiously late, but welcome back to the PPC!
Don't really know who you are - though I suspect your name has been mentioned. I dunno. Been meaning to hire a new archivist for the ol' memory banks - so your past is a bit of non-issue for me. Hope you have fun around here now that you're back.

Oh, before I forget, here's a Replica Holocron and a Steampunk hat as welcome back gifts.

I'll get to the point I really want to make in a minute, but first, this: Jesus isn't talking about homosexuality. He's talking about marriage. He's not trying to make any point about the genders of the people involved, he's using the terms set forth by the opposition. He is making a point about the permanency of marriage. Using it out of the original context strikes me as a bit of a reach.

Now, for the important part. I've got just one question for you: Why? Why would God declare homosexuality wrong? I've yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question. I've heard plenty of people tell me homosexuality is wrong because God said so, but I haven't yet heard a good reason for why He would say so. However, I don't believe He just declares things wrong because it's entertaining. He always has a reason for the things He does, so please, educate me! I'm honestly willing to hear it, because it's a question that's been weighing on my mind for a long time, and I'd love to finally get an answer.

Kindly do not talk to me again.

You just had to go there.

I don't actually care what your book says. Regardless of what your book says, homosexuality is as innate as race. When I said "largely", I meant that it is partially developmental. A brief glance at the Wikipedia page (yeah, yeah, shitty source, I don't care right now) shows no indication that social factors play any significant role. A deeper search may turn some up, and you can go digging if you want.

Furthermore, as a matter of morality, to say "homosexuality is a sin" is not the same as saying "being Black is a sin." One is taught in the Bible, the other is expressly contradicted by it.

Again, I don't care about your book. What the bible says has no bearing on the analogy: "being gay is a sin" is functionally identical to "being black is a sin"; it just changes who you're being bigoted towards.

(I'll note that your more recent source suggests epigenetic changes as a solution to the twin dilemma - which is just as immutable as birth genome (that is, not totally, but not possible for humans to mess with).)

(And you know what? Race is basically skin-deep. Differences beyond skin colour and slight other slight changes in physical appearance are about as far as it goes. Homosexuality affects how the brain is wired - I'd argue that's actually less mutable than race these days.)

(I hate arguing with religious people.)

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your views so long as you understand that your views aren't more important than anyone else's.

To that, I have no argument. In fact, that is what I've been trying to say from the get-go: the conservative's view is just as worthy of consideration as the liberal's.


I will, however, say this: saying homosexuality is a sin is directly analogous to saying being black is a sin. Neither the homosexual nor the black person can help it; it's genetic.

On that front, however, I cannot but argue: you're wrong on both the moral and the scientific counts.

I'll address the scientific first.

You yourself said in your previous post, "Science is clear on this: homosexuality (and a bunch of other tangentially related things, like being transgender) is largely genetic." (emphasis added)

That adverb is quite important. Unlike race, homosexuality is not totally genetic. It is still a given that there are factors outside of genetics that can influence whether a person is homosexual or not. Take any two identical twins. If one is gay, it is not a 100% chance that the other would be, too. But if one is Black, so is the other, no variation.

So as a matter of science, it is incorrect to state that homosexuality is just as hardwired as race.

Feel free to correct me if my knowledge is out of date.


Furthermore, as a matter of morality, to say "homosexuality is a sin" is not the same as saying "being Black is a sin." One is taught in the Bible, the other is expressly contradicted by it.

Both Old Testament and New Testament roundly call homosexuality a sin.

However, neither Testament calls it a sin to be born of one race rather than another. To get to the more thorny issue first: yes, in the Old Testament, God did tell Israel to wage war against certain nations. However, it was made clear that the rationale for doing so was the sinful deeds of those nations, not because the target nations were somehow inferior people-groups. Furthermore, under the Mosaic Law, it was expressly stipulated multiple times that Israelite and foreigner were to be treated equally under the law.

And, of course, the New Testament is even more explicit. I'll just quote: "[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17.26)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:9-11) (emphasis added)

So there's no way around it: sexual orientation and race are not equivalent scientifically or Biblically.


(And before anyone tries to use the fact that I've cited to Leviticus 20:13 in an attempt to paint me as condoning violence against homosexuals, let me cut you off at the pass: you're amiss. The New Testament nowhere gives Christians the right to execute the death-penalties of the Old Testament. On the very contrary, the examples from Jesus' life show that we are not to seek the deaths of those who disagree with the Gospel.)

(And if anyone tries to discredit my NT quotes on homosexuality because they came from Paul and not Jesus, I've already addressed the argument of "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality" in an e-mail discussion with a Boarder a few years ago. I'll paste the bulk of that here:

Now we know that [Jesus] did not have a thing to say directly about homosexuality. He didn't need to; he preached to Jews! (Paul, however, preached to Gentiles, and you should know that the Greeks and Romans did practice homosexuality, so of course he would address it though Jesus did not.) However, Jesus' own words leave no doubt on what his view of the matter would be.

In Matthew 19, we have Jesus being presented with a question from the Pharisees: "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (verse 3) ... There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day on the matter. One, the school of Shammai, said that a man could divorce his wife only if the wife was sexually immoral (e.g., if she was cheating on her husband). The other school, that of Hillel, said that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. To make a long story short, what did Jesus say? He said that marriage is permanent, to be sundered only in the case of sexual immorality. But what's important for our purposes is Jesus’ justification: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6) (What a beautiful saying, and again bringing up the complementary nature of man and woman! Far from being a thing that could be tossed aside at whim, a wife is for life!)

Note that Jesus' justification is rooted in Creation: "He which made them ... male and female ... said, For this cause shall a man ... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh."

That same reasoning undergirds the condemnation of homosexuality....)

In practice… hate speech is almost never prosecuted. KKK parades tend to go unarrested and unfined, as do people talking in public about how other races are sick/dirty/evil. The baker who refused the KKK member would probably be in more hot water for it than the jerk requesting the cake, regardless of all. We do love our first amendment in this country (so long as we're on the side of those exercising it, and it doesn't involve the flag or the pledge or the anthem or a non-anthem patriotic song or celebrities doing it or people blocking traffic or in any way inconveniencing others).

These issues are ethical as well as legal, and we can debate them until we're blue in the face and go nowhere.

I think we're confusing two issues. The rights of customers not to be discriminated against, and the rights of free association - basically, to what extent can people say "I don't want to be associated with this practice"? On the face of it, I would say - certainly if, say, someone walks into a bakery with a double lightning bolt on their forehead… a baker might understandably not want to serve them, but would anyway. If a customer walks into a bakery with a swastika on their forehead and says "I need a cake for my organization's annual meeting," that's closer to the equivalent situation of a wedding.

The difference, of course, is that the KKK member (or White Brotherhood, or White Nationalist, or Son of Odin, or whatever) is choosing to engage in bigotry, while the gay persons did not choose to be gay. But in the latter situation, both are choosing to purchase a good or service to celebrate the Thing Baker Doesn't Agree With. And you know what, the law is still on the side of not discriminating based on your beliefs. For both.

For the record, if you read the history of anti-miscegenation laws and discourse, religion played a massive role. People honestly did cite Christianity as the reason why interracial marriage should be banned. So you really should stop making that association. People have cited their Christian beliefs to stop the abolition of slavery, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and most recently, gay marriage. It's not a novel debate.

As to the rest… well, I'll come up with it later. But really, I do think "We'll be forced to stop teaching our kids that your relationship is hateful to God" isn't even founded. After all, Obama never even considered, not once, trying to outlaw the Westboro Baptist Church. Rahm Emanuel was castigated by the liberal sides of the press for trying to keep Chil Fil A out of Chicago. Yes, liberals would like to see LGBTQ kids not get bullied in school, and would also come down on the side of teachers not telling them they're going to hell. But… dude, no one is going to argue about what you can or can't legally say in your home, in public, or wherever. You'll just have to deal with the consequences of more and more people disagreeing with you. Which is the way it's always been. Electing republicans will not make the social pressure go away. That is the nature of a free society, dude. People express their opinions.

Again… I have a hard time squaring that as an equal concern with the politicians on the right arguing to jail, brainwash, or kill queers like me.

Here's> the fic. I'm reporting it as a badfic, since it's not on any list on the Wiki. Warnings before you click for near-rape and mind control, along with a bunch of frankly NSFW/NSFB stuff.

And another one flies right past my outstretched arms!
Drat! Bugger!

...
Got highlights?

Behold, me. Your average trans person in the good old U.S. of fracking A.

I can legally be discriminated against, for no other reason than being trans, in 30ish states. I can be refused housing. I can be fired, or passed over for a job. If I'm assaulted in those states (or another half-dozen or so), with the explicitly stated reason of my being trans, it doesn't even count as a hate crime.

So - "all citizens get civil rights, or none do" is a great mantra. America, unfortunately, is made of people, and that philosophy simply doesn't apply here. And, for the most part, the business end of the violence and hatred and disenfranchisement is pointed at people for who they are, not because of their beliefs.

Your post comparing a gay couple being denied a wedding cake with a Klansman being denied a celebratory cake of some description is a false equivalency so vast it defies human imagination.

Please cut the hyperbole. It does you no favors.

As for your claim that it is a "false equivalence"; sorry, but you're wrong. In both cases, we are talking about a service being given to help celebrate an event.

Unless you're implying that I am equating homosexuality and racism, which I am not.


Now to return to what I said, I doubt that I can make it any clearer that those racists whose vandalism you've posted do not represent me. And I believe that it has been made just as clear that they do not represent everyone who voted for Trump: there were reasons other than homophobia, xenophobia, or misogyny why people voted for him. And we'd be more than willing to denounce those evils done in his name.

So for you to basically put words in my mouth and lump me with said racists is an insult. How else am I to interpret your own words:
"Do you understand now why your argument comes across as specious apologism for a truly indefensible man? … I'm a trans woman. I'm three thousand miles away. And I'm terrified. Why the poxy hell aren't you? We both know the answer. It's just not one you like."

One can disagree without being disagreeable, as even you yourself admitted before. So no, I do not think that I am amiss in asking for an apology. However, if you still think that none is warranted, I will not continue to push for one.