Wholly irrelevant - you were fed bad reasons before, how do you know you're not being brainwashed again?

Quick tip: you are, in fact, being brainwashed again.

Okay this is literally THE comment that has made give up on trying to reason with you.

If you think Kim doesn't have WMDs just like Saddam didn't have WMDs there's no point trying to argue anything else. The quality of the rest of your post is lacking as well. I'd literally rather eat the wall than talk to you.

MatthewLee wrote:See, now because I defended Trump and expressed a Christian faith I got called racist. Now I know he was trying to establish a link between Christian ideas which differ from those of the public dialogue but what he literally did was substitute the word "Christian" with the word "Racist" and this is what we deal with every day in America. There is no middle ground. White, Christian people are automatically by default homophobic, racist bigots exercising unfair privilege. I'm going to address this presently.

There is only non-substantive rhetoric by partisan interests which will burn the whole place down to get what they want. Worst of all, none of them actually know what they want until Facebook tells them.

I think what he's trying to argue is that opposition to gay marriage is equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage, not that he thinks you're racist (just morally like one).

I'd argue that's a faulty comparison to begin with that can only be made if you think males and females are completely interchangeable like people of different races are. They are not.

The ban on interracial marriage was an unjustified and arbitrary limitation on the core of what marriage is and what has always been understood to be, a man and a woman joining together for life to form a family by creating and raising children.

Gay marriage is an expansion of marriage far beyond its original scope since 100% of gay couples are 100% infertile together - no possibility of off-spring at all. There is no real reason why the government needs to be involved in either sponsoring or prohibiting gay relationships. To me gay marriage as far as legality goes is as silly as a government registry of all friendships.

Marriage comes with legal benefits as well and I really don't see what vital service to society a gay couple produces that warrants all the benefits. You might as well give free money to two people just because they proclaim to be friends (non-sexual). And honestly, if this is all about inheritance go write a fucking will.

Some would even argue the government should stay out of marriage completely. Not sure I fully agree, but I can see their point.

Tree wrote:

Wholly irrelevant - you were fed bad reasons before, how do you know you're not being brainwashed again?

Quick tip: you are, in fact, being brainwashed again.

Okay this is literally THE comment that has made give up on trying to reason with you.

Mhmm, because it's not yet another example of Tree tossing out a complete non-sequitur assessment while also simultaneously pretending that he's the one engaging in fucking reason!

Tree wrote:If you think Kim doesn't have WMDs just like Saddam didn't have WMDs there's no point trying to argue anything else. The quality of the rest of your post is lacking as well. I'd literally rather eat the wall than talk to you.

Of course, I never said that, but of course, Tree just makes up what I say on my behalf with no regard to reality, then berates me for his terminal fucking incomprehension.

You need to learn to read what's written, not what is not written but would be useful to you if it were. You know, like the several dozen other examples of you doing exactly this.

MatthewLee wrote:he_who_is_nobody saw me defending Trump and instantly decided to let me know what a jerk I am with amazingly vitriolic rhetoric. This is my favorite part...

...

See, now because I defended Trump and expressed a Christian faith I got called racist. Now I know he was trying to establish a link between Christian ideas which differ from those of the public dialogue but what he literally did was substitute the word "Christian" with the word "Racist" and this is what we deal with every day in America. There is no middle ground. White, Christian people are automatically by default homophobic, racist bigots exercising unfair privilege. I'm going to address this presently.

Not one, not two, but three different people read what I wrote and agreed that I am not calling you a racist. Perhaps, this martyr complex you are displaying here explains all the vitriolic rhetoric you are seeing? As Sparhafoc said, "So if this is the only example you provide of your contentions of poor Conservatives being beaten and bullied in public, it seems you've rather undermined your own point."

Now, I will agree that that reductio ad absurdum was not my best work. I was in a rush (and also why I wrote won as one in that post ). However, I think my point is clear since three other people got it. As Collecemall said, "But one might wonder why the racism sticks out yet the bigotry it was derived from is tolerable to you?" In addition, the reason I used interracial marriage as interchangeable with gay marriage is because both were decided in the courts, thus both overturned state constitutions. That fact seemed to be a reason you were so upset about this, thus I thought it would be a good comparison.

Tree wrote:I'd argue that's a faulty comparison to begin with that can only be made if you think males and females are completely interchangeable like people of different races are. They are not.

Citation needed. Beyond that, if you want to talk about this topic, you can always go back to this thread you abandon. This topic was already broached there.

Tree wrote:I'd argue that's a faulty comparison to begin with that can only be made if you think males and females are completely interchangeable like people of different races are. They are not.

The ban on interracial marriage was an unjustified and arbitrary limitation on the core of what marriage is and what has always been understood to be, a man and a woman joining together for life to form a family by creating and raising children.

Gay marriage is an expansion of marriage far beyond its original scope since 100% of gay couples are 100% infertile together - no possibility of off-spring at all. There is no real reason why the government needs to be involved in either sponsoring or prohibiting gay relationships. To me gay marriage as far as legality goes is as silly as a government registry of all friendships.

Marriage comes with legal benefits as well and I really don't see what vital service to society a gay couple produces that warrants all the benefits. You might as well give free money to two people just because they proclaim to be friends (non-sexual). And honestly, if this is all about inheritance go write a fucking will.

Some would even argue the government should stay out of marriage completely. Not sure I fully agree, but I can see their point.

Sparhafoc said:

"I... are you sure that's not hyperbole?

You make it sound like a routine occurrence. Do you have a source for this contention?"

https://nypost.com/2017/07/22/i-was-att ... -maga-hat/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06/uc ... arges.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/woman ... -expected/
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/ ... story.html

In fact...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... ampus.html

I know that last one is Canada but it is happening here as well. The hats cause a problem wherever they are worn because it assumed, just as you suggested, that we elected a Nazi sympathizer. Is this true? It doesn't matter... it is ASSUMED to be true without serious corroboration. Not to assume your point of view but your comments suggested you believe this to be true as well. I apologize if I assume too much.

Whether or not it is epidemic... the point is that the DIALOGUE is not even available. You wear the hat... you are a monster, racist, or any one of a hundred other words they will throw at you. I will honestly tell you that I would not feel safe walking around with the hat because in this country you will be praised for harassing someone expressing open support for our President. Whether you like him or not this is the problem. Free speech isn't allowed anymore without consequences because the entire discussion is not about content but emotional rhetoric with no substance but "triggers" instead. There is only one kind of speech permitted in public and that's not free speech when half the dialogue is forbidden. Censoring even bad ideas is censorship. This is why Trump got elected and the point.

"Sparhafoc said
Sorry, but your examples doesn't show what you are using it to exemplify. HWIN is not calling you a racist, he's showing how well your logic works when applied to another human rights scenario - it's a form of reductio ad absurdum - and the idea, I assume, is to make you consider whether your words are worthy or not.

What he did not do, however, is call you a racist or point any form of vitriolic rhetoric in your direction.

So if this is the only example you provide of your contentions of poor Conservatives being beaten and bullied in public, it seems you've rather undermined your own point."

What he applied was a common rhetorical technique used in the debate about Same-Sex Marriage equality which falls under the heading "Gay is the New Black." This is where they try and associate the idea of perceived LGBT oppression with the struggle of African American's throughout American history. Because it is assumed that ones sexual orientation cannot be changed like the color of ones skin you are akin to a racist for even suggesting that there may be a moral question in homosexuality in the same way that it is absurd to be racist. This is a category fallacy on a grand scale but it is great rhetoric and instantly puts you on the defensive and makes you look like a bigot for simply defending a simple assertion in the Christian faith about the nature of family.

LGBT folks have never been, as a class of folks, OWNED. They never required an amendment to get the right to vote and they were never considered 3/4 of a person by law in this country. Admittedly they have been discriminated against but to try and conflate the scale of the problem under the assumption that their particular orientation is ALWAYS an immutable characteristic like one's race is patently dishonest and disrespectful to African Americans who are still fighting for even basic societal protections.

The media battle over this issue involves a lot of these techniques, it's called "Jamming"

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html

At the above link a large portion of the text of a book called "After the Ball" which is a foundation work in the LGBT public relations movement. The authors credentials are telling this case and I would refer you to the section on "Jamming" which was an interesting technique aptly demonstrated by the change in words applied to the text I had written. It is so a part of the dialogue now that no one even realizes they are being manipulated anymore. Combine this with so called "Case Shopping" by the ACLU and you have a perfect vector for making Christians the villain in the public dialogue. He wasn't calling me a racist, this is not the point of my claim. By ASSOCIATING my comments with racism he is using a well established rhetorical technique which has been taught to American's without their awareness of what was happening.

"2. JAMMING

The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involves the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the workings of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on the one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, a pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response."

From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s."
Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen

All debate is no longer permitted. Skepticism is forbidden. You accept the party line, you accept the dialogue exactly as societal orthodoxy applies or you are a bigot and there is no further discussion. We can't share evidence, we can't discuss scientific evidence in this matter, because it is ASSUMED that no possible empirical data could EVER disprove this obviously true assertion. Therefore to hold another opinion is to be tantamount to a racist by false equivalence.

Because of this the Conservatives expressed themselves in the last private place they could without fear of retribution, the voting booth.

A Christian baker is fighting for his business right now in the Supreme Court because he dared to express his opinion in his business. He didn't deny them service entirely... he refused to make art that supports something that he doesn't agree with and if he is made to do so... the next step is coerced speech becoming just fine. Free speech is at stake here. The right to disagree is fundamental to healthy public dialogue and without it the next step is tyranny. Remember that Obergefell V Hodges was only a 5/4 decision. It was not by any means accepted unilaterally and was fervently opposed by Scalia's dissenting opinion which I would encourage you to read. It tells a lot about what's happening.

"[June 26, 2015]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... sent7.html

Here is a portion of the dissent from Clarence Thomas... the African American justice.

"[June 26, 2015]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... sent6.html

This is not a minority opinion only held by crazy bigots. Unless you think Clarence Thomas could be tantamount to a racist for disagreeing.

I am stuck trying to peck out replies on a tablet so my replies will be short and lack both depth and quotes. I will in this instance stand up a bit for Mathew. To start anyway. He isnt using complete hyperbole. There have been some confrontations with MAGA hats. However, I think you can lay some of the blame at Trumps feet. When he actively encouraged violence at his ralies on those who desent he opened up the door for that to be mirrored right back. I dont condone violence but i will keep repeating something I have had to say to a number of people "if you dont want to be labeled a racist, bigot, or sexist then quit aligning yourself with someone who is racist, bigoted, and sexist. Or also doing things yourself that are racist, bigoted, and sexist". Right or wrong, and I think its closer to right than wrong, to large number of people MAGA equates to "all you non white, non christian, gay, or women folk need to step back into the hole we had you in so we can cover you back up. Things were so much better when we could treat you as we pleased". Basically 1950 but with internet. People have fought toth and nail to get even minor changes in our society socialy. In a matter of months Trump did more to undermine that than anyone I can think of in modern history. So when the pussy grabber in chief in the same week both tells Nazis there are good people on their side and refers to black men peacefully kneeling in protest as "sons of bitches" dont be shocked when people greet support of that person with strong emotions up to and including violence.

MatthewLee wrote:

Sparhafoc said:

"I... are you sure that's not hyperbole?

You make it sound like a routine occurrence. Do you have a source for this contention?"

https://nypost.com/2017/07/22/i-was-att ... -maga-hat/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/06/uc ... arges.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/woman ... -expected/
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/ ... story.html

Thanks for taking the time to share links, Matthew! Not very nice behavior in those stories at all.

While I am certainly not about to condone any violence therein, the stories are not quite as simple as they appear.

The first is where a guy gets his hat stomped on by a girl and when he responded to that, he got hit by the girl's boyfriend with a bottle. While the behavior from that bottling guy is obviously disgusting, I am not sure it quite matches the title of the article. Surely the reason he got hit with the bottle is because he touched the bottling guy's girlfriend? While that kind of macho behavior is absurd, it still means the reason is machismo, not politics.

The second and fourth are the same story which involves a hat being snatched and then verbal abuse. Not really pleasant behavior, but it doesn't go towards supporting the original idea you presented about being assaulted. To me, that conjured up images of physical violence.

The third video is kind of weird. I work in TV, so I have a bit of an unusual angle on this... but there's some very selective editing, and some very fortuitous camera angles. I personally find this one suspect - it looks set up for channel hits to me. I might be wrong, but something doesn't seem quite square there.

So yeah, I think these all include unpleasant behavior, and I might even accept that this is partially the charged political partisan atmosphere in the US, but I would still say that your claim regarding a routine level of assault being perpetrated against public Donald Trump supporters is, as far as I can see, still hyperbolic. If it was as routine as you suggested, then there'd be ample sources to support that claim rather than this set which don't really quite seem to.

MatthewLee wrote:In fact...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... ampus.html

It's a story about a whiny self-entitled young lady whinging at someone about a hat. Not quite in the 'assault' ballpark, is it?

MatthewLee wrote:I know that last one is Canada but it is happening here as well.

It's silliness, but it's not criminal or violent.

MatthewLee wrote: The hats cause a problem wherever they are worn because it assumed, just as you suggested, that we elected a Nazi sympathizer. Is this true? It doesn't matter... it is ASSUMED to be true without serious corroboration. Not to assume your point of view but your comments suggested you believe this to be true as well. I apologize if I assume too much.

I think there's some short-hand going on in this dialogue and in many dialogues in your nation at the moment. I think people don't usually take the time to explain themselves when they speak and instead use soundbites. I am not a soundbitey type person, which is why I frequent a discussion board. I'd rather set out in detail what I think that toss out a label that fudges what I really think.

So no, I don't think Trump is a Nazi sympathizer, but then, I don't think Trump really has much of a grasp of history, politics and the likes. He reacts to things that affect him, and he surrounds himself with questionable sources, and he knee-jerks into positions.

The point is that ethnic-nationalists may have a lot of similarities with Nazis, but it's lazy to call them all Nazis.

I think he is certainly racist in the old sense, like grandparents who disapprove of those funny foreigners and their strange ways, and I think that antiquated sense of an identity linked to a race still exists in his reactions. But I don't think he's ever sat down and contemplated what it is he believes, so it's not ideology, it's ignorance.

I'd say his latent sympathy is to white Americans, but I don't think that consumes him and informs all his actions. It does however influence how he responds to some of the nations' challenges because his entire shtick is about blaming the other - listening to Trump, one might think the USA was a failing pool of refuse due to how poorly it has been treated by the world, whereas it is still one of the richest nations albeit with huge societal problems and a tragically disproportionate income gap between the rich and poor.

I don't think there's any depth to him at all, no over-arching political substance whatsoever. The fact he spent years donating to the Democrat party might make you wonder how deep his conservatism goes.

Really, what Trump cares about are things that affect him personally, affect what he does and who he is. He's not cutting taxes because he wants the economy to grow or other nebulous concepts, he's cutting taxes because it benefits him and his economic peers. He's not doing this because he loves America, he's doing it because that's where he lives and it's where he makes his money.

There's no component in any of his policies that would actually make America great again - all his policies make the USA smaller, more provincial, less of a world actor. Some of them might just make him richer though, and just being there is all manner of self-inflation.

MatthewLee wrote:Whether or not it is epidemic... the point is that the DIALOGUE is not even available. You wear the hat... you are a monster, racist, or any one of a hundred other words they will throw at you. I will honestly tell you that I would not feel safe walking around with the hat because in this country you will be praised for harassing someone expressing open support for our President. Whether you like him or not this is the problem. Free speech isn't allowed anymore without consequences because the entire discussion is not about content but emotional rhetoric with no substance but "triggers" instead. There is only one kind of speech permitted in public and that's not free speech when half the dialogue is forbidden. Censoring even bad ideas is censorship. This is why Trump got elected and the point.

For clarity here, you need to be clear what you're talking about when it comes to discussing free speech. The entire concept is about the government not being able to limit your speech, not about the behavior of some asshole on the street shouting you down. In every single instance, an American citizen can wear any hat they so choose (the government should have no say in the matter at all) and the government should and would prosecute any person who committed a crime against you to try and force you to stop wearing the hat. Ergo, this isn't about freedom of speech, it's about the deep intolerance through extreme polarised partisanship that exists in the US. It's an intolerance of the other side that is all bluster and no substance.

And of course, this is very much a strand of Donald Trump's candidacy - he actively courted this kind of behavior, lauding people who would get violent with those who protested Trump's conventions for example. This is the bed Trump has made, but it would be unfair to say he caused of all this intolerance, only to say he's unthinkingly pushed it into the stratisphere using the platform of the president of the United States of America to drag discourse down to its brutest level. You're in big trouble because the damage he's done is hard to reverse.

MatthewLee wrote:

"Sparhafoc said
Sorry, but your examples doesn't show what you are using it to exemplify. HWIN is not calling you a racist, he's showing how well your logic works when applied to another human rights scenario - it's a form of reductio ad absurdum - and the idea, I assume, is to make you consider whether your words are worthy or not.

What he did not do, however, is call you a racist or point any form of vitriolic rhetoric in your direction.

So if this is the only example you provide of your contentions of poor Conservatives being beaten and bullied in public, it seems you've rather undermined your own point."

What he applied was a common rhetorical technique used in the debate about Same-Sex Marriage equality which falls under the heading "Gay is the New Black." This is where they try and associate the idea of perceived LGBT oppression with the struggle of African American's throughout American history.

No, I told you what he did. He used a reductio ad absurdum where he replaced your comments about one human right struggle with the vocabulary from another human right struggle and thereby gave you (explicitly YOU) a way to double-check the logic going on your posts to see whether you thought it held up. Do you think your logic holds up in HWIN's alternate scenario? If you see any discrepancies, it may be worth reflecting on whether your own statements' logic might be similarly flawed. It's actually a very useful technique one should employ to test the merit of their thoughts.

MatthewLee wrote: Because it is assumed that ones sexual orientation cannot be changed like the color of ones skin...

This is a little convoluted for me - could you unpack? Are you saying that sexual orientation can be changed unlike the permanency of the colour of one's skin?

MatthewLee wrote:... you are akin to a racist for even suggesting that there may be a moral question in homosexuality in the same way that it is absurd to be racist.

I can't really argue with your rendition of someone else's argument who isn't here and I can't imagine you can really provide much in the way of material support for this supposed position , but I can respond to the words you are saying.

For me, I wouldn't be arguing about whether being homosexual is akin to being black - the two aren't immediately relatable, but I could see a fair comparison to the way people with black skin were treated by society and the way homosexuals are treated by society; I don't think one needs to look beyond sexuality for a more immediate comparison...

So... a moral question in homosexuality? What does that mean exactly? Is there a moral question in heterosexuality?

MatthewLee wrote: This is a category fallacy on a grand scale...

Well, as I've just said, if it's about a comparison between the way two groups are treated by society, then no such fallacy is being committed, but I can't argue a proxy argument you're reporting from someone unnamed.

MatthewLee wrote: but it is great rhetoric and instantly puts you on the defensive and makes you look like a bigot for simply defending a simple assertion in the Christian faith about the nature of family.

You're skipping over an awful lot of substance here.

Firstly, where did this 'defending a simple assertion in the Christian faith' come into this?
Secondly, why is the Christian faith of any relevance when talking about homosexuals' rights?
Thirdly, do you disagree with the notion that one's religious beliefs specifically prescribe or proscribe activities for the adherents of that religion, and not for those who are not within that religion?

MatthewLee wrote:LGBT folks have never been, as a class of folks, OWNED.

No, nor have they ever as a class of folks ever had an immediate ancestry in Africa, but I am not sure that either of these is relevant.

MatthewLee wrote: They never required an amendment to get the right to vote and they were never considered 3/4 of a person by law in this country.

Again, no, but then again, why is this relevant?

MatthewLee wrote: Admittedly they have been discriminated against...

So you acknowledge then that there's potentially a valid comparison between the discrimination homosexuals face and the discrimination that black people face? It doesn't have to map one to one for there to be potentially some utility in that comparison.

MatthewLee wrote:...but to try and conflate the scale of the problem under the assumption that their particular orientation is ALWAYS an immutable characteristic like one's race is patently dishonest and disrespectful to African Americans who are still fighting for even basic societal protections.

There's an interesting addition to your rendition - now you're also talking about 'scale' as if that's part of the argument.

I think it's probably best for all if you make your arguments, and let other people make their arguments, because I am not sure that your rendition is anything more than a foil you're using rhetorically.

MatthewLee wrote:The media battle over this issue involves a lot of these techniques, it's called "Jamming"

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html

At the above link a large portion of the text of a book called "After the Ball" which is a foundation work in the LGBT public relations movement. The authors credentials are telling this case and I would refer you to the section on "Jamming" which was an interesting technique aptly demonstrated by the change in words applied to the text I had written. It is so a part of the dialogue now that no one even realizes they are being manipulated anymore. Combine this with so called "Case Shopping" by the ACLU and you have a perfect vector for making Christians the villain in the public dialogue. He wasn't calling me a racist, this is not the point of my claim. By ASSOCIATING my comments with racism he is using a well established rhetorical technique which has been taught to American's without their awareness of what was happening.

This is a conspiracy website?

For clarity, a brief scan of that web link you've forwarded makes me question the legitimacy of your statement rather than offering tangible support. It looks like a crackpot site to me.

MatthewLee wrote:

"2. JAMMING

The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involves the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the workings of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on the one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, a pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response."

From "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s."
Penguin Books, 1989 pp. 147-157.
by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen

I am interested to know how you'd reply if I said that I thought this was all delusional hogwash?

MatthewLee wrote:All debate is no longer permitted. Skepticism is forbidden.

Um... no... it's not?

That's a bizarre claim to make when it directly contradicts itself - what exactly are you doing if you're not debating it now and expressing skepticism of something?

Isn't think just more of the typical bollocks of crackpot websites like the above about how they're being 'expelled' when the reality is just that no one is listening to them yammer because they've got nothing worth listening to?

MatthewLee wrote: You accept the party line, you accept the dialogue exactly as societal orthodoxy applies or you are a bigot and there is no further discussion.

I really think you need to phrase your arguments rather than making an entire post on a reported argument by someone you haven't mentioned and whom you seem able to speak for so confidently.

Exactly why am I to believe that you are rendering any actual argument other than an argument you conceived and used as a rhetorical foil?

Wouldn't it be better, for example, to respond to the arguments made by people who are actually here and arguing?

MatthewLee wrote: We can't share evidence, we can't discuss scientific evidence in this matter, because it is ASSUMED that no possible empirical data could EVER disprove this obviously true assertion. Therefore to hold another opinion is to be tantamount to a racist by false equivalence.

What 'obviously true assertion'? Who can't discuss scientific evidence? I'm a palaeoanthropologist - I discuss scientific evidence on human biology on a regular basis, and I cannot think what it is you are talking about when it comes to race?

My guess is that you don't really know much about the science of this topic, but that it's another iteration of 'Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed' where you make the claim that you are being censored even when it's manifestly not the case.

I think you should actually state your point rather than talking about how someone unnamed allegedly argued against your position.

MatthewLee wrote:Because of this the Conservatives expressed themselves in the last private place they could without fear of retribution, the voting booth.

Say what now? Conservatives couldn't talk about scientific evidence about race, therefore they voted for Trump. That's not remotely credible - it's just a nonsensical assertion, and Tree's already in this thread so you can leave those to him.

MatthewLee wrote:A Christian baker is fighting for his business right now in the Supreme Court because he dared to express his opinion in his business.

Because he dared to express his opinion?

Do you have a source for him being taken to the Supreme Court for 'daring to express his opinion'?

MatthewLee wrote: He didn't deny them service entirely...

Oh wait, you said he is in the Supreme Court because he dared to express his opinion, and now you're talking about selective denial of service. Clearly, that's a rather abrupt movement of the goalposts.

MatthewLee wrote:... he refused to make art that supports something that he doesn't agree with and if he is made to do so...

Drawing 'Happily Married' in cream doesn't really amount to 'art' now, does it? It's a craft, and if he wants to sell his craft in society, then strange as it may sound to some people, he's obliged to follow the laws of that society.

MatthewLee wrote:... the next step is coerced speech becoming just fine.

Hold on, I didn't even see a slippery slope yet, let alone realized we were plummeting to the bottom of it. Is there any chance you could try filling in all the gaps between your apparently random proclamations?

MatthewLee wrote: Free speech is at stake here.

Where is free speech at stake? In the case of a baker? So is the state taking him to court?

MatthewLee wrote: The right to disagree is fundamental to healthy public dialogue and without it the next step is tyranny.

You're not making much sense. What is a 'right to disagree', and what has this to do with the other stuff you've been talking about?

MatthewLee wrote: Remember that Obergefell V Hodges was only a 5/4 decision. It was not by any means accepted unilaterally and was fervently opposed by Scalia's dissenting opinion which I would encourage you to read. It tells a lot about what's happening.

Ok, I will try, but to be honest your words over the last 2 paragraphs have jumped about like a hyperactive rabbit on a trampoline, so I am completely lost as to what topic you're talking about, let alone what point it is you are trying to make about that topic.

MatthewLee wrote:

"[June 26, 2015]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... sent7.html

For me, that sounds a lot like a policeman giving a speech on how not all crime is bad.

MatthewLee wrote: Here is a portion of the dissent from Clarence Thomas... the African American justice.

"[June 26, 2015]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... sent6.html

This is not a minority opinion only held by crazy bigots. Unless you think Clarence Thomas could be tantamount to a racist for disagreeing.

I don't even know what this has to do with your point in the slightest. Was this all about homosexuals getting married? You were talking about bakers and crackpot websites for a while, now you're talking about governmental processes.

Can you perhaps just strip it back and state what position it is you want to maintain so that we can talk about that, not about your prepared defense against someone unnamed critiquing your position in advance?

Let me simplify this because we're going far afield and I find myself defending inconsequential points.

I don't care about Trump, he got elected because of the discussion we are having and its intractability. The fact that we have already gone so far afield is demonstrating that. I am not trying to prove anything to you but that. The Democrats were seen to support one agenda and that agenda silences debate. If there is no threat of violence then why are they charging conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro 15,000 'security' fees to speak at Berkeley? It's because the Antifa at the campus will start fires if they let him speak. I don't know that I can prove this to you in a way you would acknowledge is indisputably true but in American life it is a fact we live with. The animus at Trump rallies is no better than rampaging antifa on a campus. They are both violent and dismissive of each others perspective. We weren't offered a middle ground or a compromise because both sides didn't allow for that. Both sides are an all or nothing proposition right now. I went to college in this environment and whether you believe me or not the campuses tell the story. Free speech is not permitted on college campuses right now and will be punished.

The quote from the book I cited you is from a book, not a website writer. The website quoted a book which outlines a very clear and direct set of methods designed to shape the public dialogue in a way that is positive to a specific partisan effort. Whether you agree or not the text is in the book and you can read it for yourself if you like and find out that there are people on both sides who will do anything to get what they want. Having studied the LGBT movement from "Closer to the Knives" to "After the Ball" one can see a progression of shaping the public dialogue with rhetoric using the technique I described which was employed exactly as I described it in the alteration to my statement. My statement SUPPORTED same sex marriage equality. My premise was that religion cannot be used as a tool to make law in a secular society and that due process would have fixed this. It was turned into a comparison of Christian moral convictions and racism. If you believe that Christian religious convictions are as absurd as racism then we have nothing left to discuss on this matter because neither of us find any common ground.

Matthew 19
"4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 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?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The Christian attitude towards marriage is unambiguous and clear and if you believe that this quote from Jesus himself is somehow homophobic or equivalent to racism then you are not alone... and there we are. Trump.

If all he used was a reductio ad absurdium then show me how his argument demonstrated that mine led to a ridiculous, absurd or impractical conclusion. My premise was that if you let the process work the way the Constitution says it should it would have resulted in the same outcome without disenfranchising 32 states worth of voters from their right to due process through representative government. Scalia and Thomas both say as much in their dissents. Scalia specifically cited the importance of "who rules me." Read them and realize this ins't about validation of anyone's lifestyle or orientation and isn't supposed to be. It was about due process which is being stomped on for partisan interests.

Regardless of the details about the Supreme Court Cases the point is that they used flowery language and processes which were deemed Unconstitutional by four out of five of the judges to slam through legislation that made a lot of people very, very angry.

Those angry people elected the only person who was perceived to be able to halt what they saw as the hijacking of their government by unfriendly ideologies and there we are...

The cake baker didn't deny them service. You should read the case...

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was denied a wedding cake by Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips. The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs."

"At the heart of the baker’s case, his lawyers argue, is a battle over expression: not religious, per se, but artistic.

“Phillips is willing to serve any and all customers. He objects only to expressing certain messages through his custom art,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a statement. “Jack should have that basic freedom.”

Any law that would otherwise compel him is bad for artists, said ADF’s Kristen Waggoner. Such “laws are being used not only to silence, not only to punish, but to ruin creative professionals that don’t agree with the government’s ideology on marriage.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 30b112d7c5

It's about coerced speech enforced by the government which is the problem that finds us where we are now... with a President who tweets about the size of his button.

MatthewLee wrote:Let me simplify this because we're going far afield and I find myself defending inconsequential points.

I don't care about Trump, he got elected because of the discussion we are having and its intractability. The fact that we have already gone so far afield is demonstrating that. I am not trying to prove anything to you but that. The Democrats were seen to support one agenda and that agenda silences debate. If there is no threat of violence then why are they charging conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro 15,000 'security' fees to speak at Berkeley? It's because the Antifa at the campus will start fires if they let him speak. I don't know that I can prove this to you in a way you would acknowledge is indisputably true but in American life it is a fact we live with. The animus at Trump rallies is no better than rampaging antifa on a campus. They are both violent and dismissive of each others perspective. We weren't offered a middle ground or a compromise because both sides didn't allow for that. Both sides are an all or nothing proposition right now. I went to college in this environment and whether you believe me or not the campuses tell the story. Free speech is not permitted on college campuses right now and will be punished.

With respect, if you want to make such claims, then you must needs be prepared to defend them because, to me at least, they look like Fox News wibble, not reality.

As for the last point, you didn't go to university in recent years, did you? Similarly, you are once again making a sweeping claim that is probably only true of a very slim minority. Also, it revolves around a terminal misapprehension of free speech as I've already explained to you.

MatthewLee wrote:The quote from the book I cited you is from a book, not a website writer.

Either way, it reads like crackpottery to me.

MatthewLee wrote: The website quoted a book which outlines a very clear and direct set of methods designed to shape the public dialogue in a way that is positive to a specific partisan effort. Whether you agree or not the text is in the book and you can read it for yourself if you like and find out that there are people on both sides who will do anything to get what they want. Having studied the LGBT movement from "Closer to the Knives" to "After the Ball" one can see a progression of shaping the public dialogue with rhetoric...

Which I reject as fictitious.

MatthewLee wrote:... using the technique I described which was employed exactly as I described it in the alteration to my statement. My statement SUPPORTED same sex marriage equality.

Matthew, you simply misread it - no one else shares your opinion on HWIN's post, and HWIN has even explicitly told you his motive in writing it. Ergo, your analysis is in error.

MatthewLee wrote:My premise was that religion cannot be used as a tool to make law in a secular society and that due process would have fixed this. It was turned into a comparison of Christian moral convictions and racism.

But that didn't happen except in your imagination.

MatthewLee wrote:If you believe that Christian religious convictions are as absurd as racism then we have nothing left to discuss on this matter because neither of us find any common ground.

It depends on the content of those religious convictions; sadly, Christian dogma was central to the justification of centuries of slavery, so it's perhaps not as simple as you are attempting to portray.

Matthew 19
"4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 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?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Yeah, Iron Age. We're not in the Iron Age anymore and consequently Iron Age preferences aren't really going to take precedent, and it's manifestly factual that God did not create humans, but rather they evolved.

You are, of course, wholly welcome to believe it, and you are wholly welcome in your identity as a Christian to follow Christian precepts as you see them, but it's quite another thing if you were (not saying you are) to use those beliefs to deny other people equality.

MatthewLee wrote:The Christian attitude towards marriage is unambiguous and clear and if you believe that this quote from Jesus himself is somehow homophobic or equivalent to racism then you are not alone... and there we are. Trump.

Unambiguous, clear, and outdated by centuries.

Of course, I don't judge the words of writers from Classical Antiquity with the preferences and penchants of the modern world - it took us centuries of slowly expanding tolerance to see others as fundamentally equals where slavery was the norm during that period, similarly, women are vastly freer today than then when they were little more than chattel, so consequently I see the dogma of the Bible as having no value whatsoever in helping us to decide how our societies should be governed today.

MatthewLee wrote:If all he used was a reductio ad absurdium then show me how his argument demonstrated that mine led to a ridiculous, absurd or impractical conclusion.

Yes, that's exactly what he did. That's exactly how reductio ad absurdum works. You are, of course, not obliged to contemplate the merit of your argument in light of that comparison, but you can't simply assert it was not so when it is still right there to be read now.

MatthewLee wrote: My premise was that if you let the process work the way the Constitution says it should it would have resulted in the same outcome without disenfranchising 32 states worth of voters from their right to due process through representative government. Scalia and Thomas both say as much in their dissents. Scalia specifically cited the importance of "who rules me." Read them and realize this ins't about validation of anyone's lifestyle or orientation and isn't supposed to be. It was about due process which is being stomped on for partisan interests.

I've read them and I disagree wholly. Next.

MatthewLee wrote:Regardless of the details about the Supreme Court Cases the point is that they used flowery language and processes which were deemed Unconstitutional by four out of five of the judges to slam through legislation that made a lot of people very, very angry.

Either something is or it isn't unconstitutional - if it's unconstitutional, then let the courts show that to be the case. In reality, it is, of course, not unconstitutional at all.

MatthewLee wrote:Those angry people elected the only person who was perceived to be able to halt what they saw as the hijacking of their government by unfriendly ideologies and there we are...

Again, sorry Matthew but your repeated assertions don't become more convincing through repetition. You've now confidently told me half a dozen mutually contradictory but somehow equally certain reasons why Trump was voted for.

My response is far simpler: protest vote of dislike for Hilary Clinton, obviously fueled by the partisan media with their cult-like followers.

MatthewLee wrote:The cake baker didn't deny them service. You should read the case...

/shrug

Just responding to your words - you said the baker didn't deny them service 'entirely' which suggests even at a complete naive reading that the baker did deny them service to some degree, ergo your consequent claim that the baker didn't is confusing and/or confused. Either which way, it looks to me like it's not as simple as you're trying to paint it.

MatthewLee wrote:

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was denied a wedding cake by Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips. The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs."

"At the heart of the baker’s case, his lawyers argue, is a battle over expression: not religious, per se, but artistic.

“Phillips is willing to serve any and all customers. He objects only to expressing certain messages through his custom art,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a statement. “Jack should have that basic freedom.”

Any law that would otherwise compel him is bad for artists, said ADF’s Kristen Waggoner. Such “laws are being used not only to silence, not only to punish, but to ruin creative professionals that don’t agree with the government’s ideology on marriage.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 30b112d7c5

They're getting married so they need a wedding cake, not another cake. If he denies them service based on their sexual preference, then tough titties - he deserves what he gets.

If you want to dispute this with me Matthew, and you want to use a religious angle, then the solitary method you could potentially employ that would convince me that Christian belief hinges on not furnishing goods to homosexuals would be to cite scripture expressly showing where a baker can deny service because he doesn't agree with their sexuality.

Of course, no such verse exists - all you've got are the 'abomination' bits which are really a damn sight more indicative of the regressive quality of Christianity than they are of homosexuality. It's quite simple: you want to do business in a nation and profit from it? Then you follow the laws of that nation. Your religious beliefs do not supersede what you render unto Caesar, and if you think they do then you are on the path towards theocracy.

MatthewLee wrote:It's about coerced speech enforced by the government which is the problem that finds us where we are now... with a President who tweets about the size of his button.

[/quote]

It's not about coerced speech because there is no evidence at all of it. You've claimed it's a necessary result of something you can't even actually show is happening. It's a faith position.

But nice try at blaming Trump on those who fundamentally oppose Trump.

Sparhafoc wrote:
As for the last point, you didn't go to university in recent years, did you? Similarly, you are once again making a sweeping claim that is probably only true of a very slim minority. Also, it revolves around a terminal misapprehension of free speech as I've already explained to you.

Do you believe Ben Shapiro to be a racist or a homophobe?

thenexttodie wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:
As for the last point, you didn't go to university in recent years, did you? Similarly, you are once again making a sweeping claim that is probably only true of a very slim minority. Also, it revolves around a terminal misapprehension of free speech as I've already explained to you.

Do you believe Ben Shapiro to be a racist or a homophobe?

I don't know Ben Shapiro from Adam so I couldn't possibly tell you.

With respect, if you want to make such claims, then you must needs be prepared to defend them because, to me at least, they look like Fox News wibble, not reality.
As for the last point, you didn't go to university in recent years, did you? Similarly, you are once again making a sweeping claim that is probably only true of a very slim minority. Also, it revolves around a terminal misapprehension of free speech as I've already explained to you.

I graduated last year. I have a degree in religious studies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... e55d588fd8

Here is more evidence and even more targeted to the point I made. When Milo attempted to speak at Berkeley they had to evacuate the building because it turned very, very violent.

Free speech is just that… FREE speech. Censoring speech in any way makes that no longer free speech and even outside of the first amendment context. Free speech is the law AND a value of our society. It’s part of being American. If we agree with free speech then we have to tolerate speech we find abhorrent. That’s why we call it free… as in… not constrained. Your explanation of free speech is not sufficient. It does not take into account the American traditional perspective which is what we’re talking about here. We allow Nazi’s to march because they have the same right to free speech as a Gay Pride parade does. In fact, the police will protect them to honor this. It’s called free speech and American’s believe in it. It was what our founding fathers thought important enough to specifically protect in the Constitution.

Free speech is being threatened by violence in the public space in a way it has not before. If you don't know who Ben Shapiro is... then I understand why you don't understand what I'm talking about. I wish you had just said that before.

MatthewLee wrote:
The website quoted a book which outlines a very clear and direct set of methods designed to shape the public dialogue in a way that is positive to a specific partisan effort. Whether you agree or not the text is in the book and you can read it for yourself if you like and find out that there are people on both sides who will do anything to get what they want. Having studied the LGBT movement from "Closer to the Knives" to "After the Ball" one can see a progression of shaping the public dialogue with rhetoric...
Which I reject as fictitious.

OK so here, buy it on Amazon and assess my claim…

https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-Ameri ... 0452264987

then read a book which outlines what I’m talking about in the form of a review of the material, its application and the success with which the techniques have been applied.

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Con ... 269ABPH47C

It’s description reads as follows…
“Supreme Court and lower court hearings regarding gay marriage bring focus to the reality that in just two decades homosexual behavior in America has gone from criminal offense to protected right, a paradigm shift worth considering in the form of a book review—a look back to 1989 when "After the Ball," a watershed publication, gave homosexuals in America the traction needed to bring about the gay revolution.”

I know you’ll probably say Amazon is a crackpot conspiracy site though.

MatthewLee wrote:
... using the technique I described which was employed exactly as I described it in the alteration to my statement. My statement SUPPORTED same sex marriage equality.
Matthew, you simply misread it - no one else shares your opinion on HWIN's post, and HWIN has even explicitly told you his motive in writing it. Ergo, your analysis is in error.

Tree said ” I think what he's trying to argue is that opposition to gay marriage is equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage, not that he thinks you're racist (just morally like one).”

He said what I’m trying to say. The allusion, regardless of the logical attempt to show my argument was fallacious… the allusion was just that… that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racism as being an arbitrary prejudice based on immutable characteristics. Read that again. Religious objections to same sex marriage are not arbitrary prejudices unless you can prove that in fact, with empirical evidence not from partisan sources, that same sex orientations are in fact immutable characteristics. Bill Nye said on his show… had an expert say on his show… that there is no gay gene. If sexual orientation is not immutable and genetically predisposed then we are talking about choice and that makes this a matter for ethical discussion rather than an arbitrary prejudice.

You don’t choose to be African American, or become African American from experience and environment. You are born African American. You use the technique of rhetorically associating the paradigm of racism with Christian objections to same-sex marriage to step over this objection and directly call Christian objections arbitrary and bigoted and prejudicial. His argument… whether you appeal to this small minorities opinion fallaciously or not.. was exactly as I have described and perhaps I can give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that wasn’t his intention but it was the result.

MatthewLee wrote:
If you believe that Christian religious convictions are as absurd as racism then we have nothing left to discuss on this matter because neither of us find any common ground.
It depends on the content of those religious convictions; sadly, Christian dogma was central to the justification of centuries of slavery, so it's perhaps not as simple as you are attempting to portray.

Catholics and Protestants are quite different. You mean Catholic dogma. Protestant Christians hold the Bible as their central authority and Catholics do not. The Bible cannot ever be said to support slavery as it was practiced in the colonies and it was enabled at first by Papal Bull, not Biblical writ. The abolitionist movement was a largely Protestant movement if not entirely.
In the Bull below… Look for the phrase “Apostolic Authority.” That’s the phrase that means the Pope can do whatever he wants because the Bible isn’t his authority rather authority was passed to him directly from the Apostles and Christ. This is one of the reasons Protestantism happened at all. Sola Scriptura.

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude
Bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas V
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
Matthew 19

Catholics give the Pope authority over the Bible, apostolic succession. Protestants led the charge in the abolitionist movement. The Bible does not say we may take slaves as Christians. The Pope said that.

MatthewLee wrote:
The Christian attitude towards marriage is unambiguous and clear and if you believe that this quote from Jesus himself is somehow homophobic or equivalent to racism then you are not alone... and there we are. Trump.
Unambiguous, clear, and outdated by centuries

Of course, I don't judge the words of writers from Classical Antiquity with the preferences and penchants of the modern world - it took us centuries of slowly expanding tolerance to see others as fundamentally equals where slavery was the norm during that period, similarly, women are vastly freer today than then when they were little more than chattel, so consequently I see the dogma of the Bible as having no value whatsoever in helping us to decide how our societies should be governed today..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogniti ... _in_China#"First"_same-sex_marriage

China, a nation which is self-declared atheist… does not recognize same-sex marriage nor civil unions. Why would a nation with no overwhelming Christian sentiment.. a nation older than Western Civilization as we know it and with a largely logical atheist communist party find this not in the interest of the state for over a billion people? Outdated by centuries? There are secular arguments to be made, obviously. Christian boogeymen have nothing to do with China.

https://www.indy100.com/article/same-se ... al-7768516

Look at how many nations don’t agree with you or your 'modern' ideas. I would have you notice that the largest portion of the nations that legalized same sex marriage are CHRISTIAN MAJORITIES. Read that again because it’s important. Christian majority nations are the ones leading the charge for freedom. Islamic countries would arrest you for this very argument in favor. Islam is entirely theocratic. Biblical Christianity sees a division between the state and the religion. These civilizations that resist the change are older than ours. Are you saying all of their rejection of things we accept is solely because we are just more evolved and more intelligent or could it be that there is a case to be made on either side? Japan, a secular nation with largely ambiguous attitudes towards religion and certainly no Christian majority… still doesn’t recognize same sex marriage rights. Think about that. Christian majority nations allow same sex marriage overwhelmingly and non-Christian nations want nothing to do with them. Correlation is not causation but it give one pause, eh?

China, the atheist nation, has absolutely no tolerance for LGBT issues and rights. They don’t exist. Can you blame that on iron age writings and Christian bigotry?

MatthewLee wrote:
Regardless of the details about the Supreme Court Cases the point is that they used flowery language and processes which were deemed Unconstitutional by four out of five of the judges to slam through legislation that made a lot of people very, very angry.
Either something is or it isn't unconstitutional - if it's unconstitutional, then let the courts show that to be the case. In reality, it is, of course, not unconstitutional at all.

I’m sorry, what knowledge of the US Constitution do you make this claim on? What can you specifically refute from the dissents? The Constitution made no provision for this nor for marriage rights in general. The right to marriage is not IN the Constitution. Can you disagree with Richard Kelsey of George Mason University School of Law on a substantive basis with exposition on anything other than your knowledge or paleo-anthropology?

“The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.”
http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/ric ... rriage.php

MatthewLee wrote:
Those angry people elected the only person who was perceived to be able to halt what they saw as the hijacking of their government by unfriendly ideologies and there we are...
Again, sorry Matthew but your repeated assertions don't become more convincing through repetition. You've now confidently told me half a dozen mutually contradictory but somehow equally certain reasons why Trump was voted for.
My response is far simpler: protest vote of dislike for Hilary Clinton, obviously fueled by the partisan media with their cult-like followers.

This would suggest absurdity. I am sure some of the votes may have been protest votes but Trump won because people wanted Trump. Go and look for why people voted for him and you’ll hear the same thing again and again… No good Democrat would have voted for Trump because of protest. That would be like a Christian voting for Lawrence Krauss because they didn’t like Romney. It is an absurd idea that a protest vote carried the win. The states that voted for him supported him. They did so for the reasons I said. There can be disagreement but don’t be so stonewall that you can’t even acknowledge that Trump told them what they wanted to hear so they pulled the lever.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... rs-explain

MatthewLee wrote:
The cake baker didn't deny them service. You should read the case...


/shrug
Just responding to your words - you said the baker didn't deny them service 'entirely' which suggests even at a complete naive reading that the baker did deny them service to some degree, ergo your consequent claim that the baker didn't is confusing and/or confused. Either which way, it looks to me like it's not as simple as you're trying to paint it.

Of course it’s not simple or it wouldn’t be at the Supreme Court but read this..

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s the first amendment. The free exercise of Christian religion includes, for some, a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Where in this amendment does it make concessions or specify what this means? It says “the free exercise thereof” and that means without constraint. It doesn’t say, free expression thereof except for in such and such circumstances. This is what is at stake when you start adding stuff. Free speech, even abhorrent speech, must be protected and free religion… even when abhorrent, must be protected.

To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief. As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is… and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service? Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs. I am actually listening to the oral arguments opening the Supreme Court case right now and they are a lot of these kind of questions. It’s not simple, but it involves the phrase “compelled speech” and that’s what they are arguing. If they can compel speech against religious conviction once and set a Supreme Court precedent, then we aren’t at the top of the slippery slope anymore. At this point we’re about halfway down.

MatthewLee wrote:
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was denied a wedding cake by Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips. The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs."

"At the heart of the baker’s case, his lawyers argue, is a battle over expression: not religious, per se, but artistic.

“Phillips is willing to serve any and all customers. He objects only to expressing certain messages through his custom art,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a statement. “Jack should have that basic freedom.”

Any law that would otherwise compel him is bad for artists, said ADF’s Kristen Waggoner. Such “laws are being used not only to silence, not only to punish, but to ruin creative professionals that don’t agree with the government’s ideology on marriage.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 30b112d7c5


They're getting married so they need a wedding cake, not another cake. If he denies them service based on their sexual preference, then tough titties - he deserves what he gets. If you want to dispute this with me Matthew, and you want to use a religious angle, then the solitary method you could potentially employ that would convince me that Christian belief hinges on not furnishing goods to homosexuals would be to cite scripture expressly showing where a baker can deny service because he doesn't agree with their sexuality. Of course, no such verse exists - all you've got are the 'abomination' bits which are really a damn sight more indicative of the regressive quality of Christianity than they are of homosexuality. It's quite simple: you want to do business in a nation and profit from it? Then you follow the laws of that nation. Your religious beliefs do not supersede what you render unto Caesar, and if you think they do then you are on the path towards theocracy.

Did you miss the part I cited where Jesus specifically says that marriage is a man and a woman? It was pretty clear why Christians feel this way and it’s obviously a part of Christian faith if CHRIST SAID IT. It isn’t about theocracy and if you reread my former statement I said as much before it was altered. I said theocracy is a great evil. However, Christians must be able to have free practice of religion. The right to not be forced to make art which supports things you don’t believe in is a fundamental part of freedom of speech… not being forced into compelled speech. He would have sold them a wedding cake had they bought it off the shelf. He simply wouldn’t make a custom piece of art which represented something he disagreed with. The same freedom that protects my religion protects the rights of atheists, as well, by the way.

MatthewLee wrote:
It's about coerced speech enforced by the government which is the problem that finds us where we are now... with a President who tweets about the size of his button.

It's not about coerced speech because there is no evidence at all of it. You've claimed it's a necessary result of something you can't even actually show is happening. It's a faith position.[/quote]

Compelled speech was the phrase they used. Sorry for the misstatement. Coerce and compel are synonyms so it is a lateral error. Here is a .pdf of the transcript of the arguments before the Supreme Court. Look at how many times the phrase “compelled speech” is used and in what context. There is ample evidence as to what this is about contained in the transcript of the arguments made to the Supreme Court about what this is about. It’s good reading and something to consider. If the Supreme Court case transcript for the opening arguments is not enough evidence about what the Supreme Court case is about… then I don’t know what else would convince you.

Again.. I don’t care about Trump, I’m just stating one side of the argument as to possible reasons why we find ourselves in a situation like this and how a man like him came to be President. The same reason we are debating. The fundamental inability to recognize the validity of other people’s narrative. People are afraid to speak in America and that’s a problem. A problem which they solved by speaking in the only place they knew they’d be safe and anonymous and that’s why the polls all lied.

Now, none of this has anything to with North Korea. We are obviously very divided in our opinions and that is fine. I respect your right to disagree with me but this discussion has nowhere else to go so I’ll just rest on that most of this group seems to agree that diplomacy without concessions from a position of strength may be the only option we have left. If that is not the position of agreement it is my position and thank you for a very stimulating discussion.

Here is the transcript:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 1_f314.pdf

MatthewLee wrote:To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief. As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is… and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service? Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs. I am actually listening to the oral arguments opening the Supreme Court case right now and they are a lot of these kind of questions. It’s not simple, but it involves the phrase “compelled speech” and that’s what they are arguing. If they can compel speech against religious conviction once and set a Supreme Court precedent, then we aren’t at the top of the slippery slope anymore. At this point we’re about halfway down.

Let me just zero in on that highlighted sentence for a moment.

Tell me, sir, what exactly is a "gay wedding cake"?

A cake that says "Happily Married" on it is not a "gay wedding cake". It's just a fucking wedding cake! It doesn't suddenly become a "gay wedding cake" because the couple who wants it is a gay one. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. I don't think there is such a thing as a "gay wedding cake" any more than there is such a thing as a "straight wedding cake".

Akamia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief. As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is… and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service? Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs. I am actually listening to the oral arguments opening the Supreme Court case right now and they are a lot of these kind of questions. It’s not simple, but it involves the phrase “compelled speech” and that’s what they are arguing. If they can compel speech against religious conviction once and set a Supreme Court precedent, then we aren’t at the top of the slippery slope anymore. At this point we’re about halfway down.

Let me just zero in on that highlighted sentence for a moment.

Tell me, sir, what exactly is a "gay wedding cake"?

A cake that says "Happily Married" on it is not a "gay wedding cake". It's just a fucking wedding cake! It doesn't suddenly become a "gay wedding cake" because the couple who wants it is a gay one. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. I don't think there is such a thing as a "gay wedding cake" any more than there is such a thing as a "straight wedding cake".

Imagine two men walk into a Muslim bakery. They say to the baker
“We’re getting married. Will you design a custom cake for us with these designs?”
“You’re marrying eachother?” The baker asks.
“Ummm yes.. we’re gay. Duh.” Says one of the men, surprised at having to explain himself.
Now it’s a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It’s a cake for a gay wedding. A cake for a wedding between two gay men. A gay wedding cake. It’s a definition. To a practitioner of Islam it is a very important distinction and therefore it is necessary to specify. They would expect you mean a man and a woman because their faith does not permit marriage between same sex couples.

A wedding cake for two same sex partners is defined as so because either two same sex partners ask for it or it has writing or some other indication on it that indicates two people of the same sex will be using it as their wedding cake. If a wedding was just a wedding this wouldn’t still be in the Supreme Court. This is a matter of some debate.

MatthewLee wrote:Imagine two men walk into a Muslim bakery. They say to the baker
“We’re getting married. Will you design a custom cake for us with these designs?”
“You’re marrying eachother?” The baker asks.
“Ummm yes.. we’re gay. Duh.” Says one of the men, surprised at having to explain himself.
Now it’s a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It’s a cake for a gay wedding. A cake for a wedding between two gay men. A gay wedding cake. It’s a definition. To a practitioner of Islam it is a very important distinction and therefore it is necessary to specify. They would expect you mean a man and a woman because their faith does not permit marriage between same sex couples.

A wedding cake for two same sex partners is defined as so because either two same sex partners ask for it or it has writing or some other indication on it that indicates two people of the same sex will be using it as their wedding cake. If a wedding was just a wedding this wouldn’t still be in the Supreme Court. This is a matter of some debate.

I'll respond to your longer post later, but I have to ask if you're joking in this one?

Is a wedding cake for a wedding between 2 African Americans a 'Black Cake'

Is a wedding cake for a wedding between a man and a woman a 'Heterosexual Cake'?

See? Reductio ad absurdums are specifically intended to show you the error of your reasoning.

Akamia wrote:

MatthewLee wrote:To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief. As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is… and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service? Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs. I am actually listening to the oral arguments opening the Supreme Court case right now and they are a lot of these kind of questions. It’s not simple, but it involves the phrase “compelled speech” and that’s what they are arguing. If they can compel speech against religious conviction once and set a Supreme Court precedent, then we aren’t at the top of the slippery slope anymore. At this point we’re about halfway down.

Let me just zero in on that highlighted sentence for a moment.

Tell me, sir, what exactly is a "gay wedding cake"?

A cake that says "Happily Married" on it is not a "gay wedding cake". It's just a fucking wedding cake! It doesn't suddenly become a "gay wedding cake" because the couple who wants it is a gay one. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. I don't think there is such a thing as a "gay wedding cake" any more than there is such a thing as a "straight wedding cake".

Well, to be fair, there has been a story about a supposedly Christian bakery denying making a cake to a gay couple, so apparently, there are instances where it's been discovered somehow.

And some wedding cakes have those mini-people standing at the top. I guess if they requested two men standing on top of it, that would technically make it a "gay cake".

Mod note:

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

MatthewLee wrote:I graduated last year. I have a degree in religious studies.

Oh my mistake - shows how easy it is to arrive at wrong notions in the absence of evidence!

Congratulations.

MatthewLee wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.abe55d588fd8

Here is more evidence and even more targeted to the point I made. When Milo attempted to speak at Berkeley they had to evacuate the building because it turned very, very violent.

Yes, it's a sorry situation.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think any university is obliged to invite or give a platform to any individual (particularly not someone of Milo's non-existence calibre), but they shouldn't be physically threatened into their choice of speakers.

MatthewLee wrote:Free speech is just that… FREE speech.

No, free speech is a concept related to the government/state, and it's about the state not using their consummate power to stamp out spoken dissent. If a guy in the street shouts you down while you're expressing your opinion, he's not undermining your free speech, he's just being an ass.

MatthewLee wrote: Censoring speech in any way makes that no longer free speech and even outside of the first amendment context. Free speech is the law AND a value of our society. It’s part of being American. If we agree with free speech then we have to tolerate speech we find abhorrent. That’s why we call it free… as in… not constrained. Your explanation of free speech is not sufficient. It does not take into account the American traditional perspective which is what we’re talking about here. We allow Nazi’s to march because they have the same right to free speech as a Gay Pride parade does. In fact, the police will protect them to honor this. It’s called free speech and American’s believe in it. It was what our founding fathers thought important enough to specifically protect in the Constitution.

Yes, you're labouring under a series of misconceptions, please read what I've written. The state will, of course, protect your right to assembly (which is what you're talking about there), and incidentally, little of this is expressly or specifically American as it exists in some form or other in the majority of the West.

MatthewLee wrote:Free speech is being threatened by violence in the public space in a way it has not before.

Hyperbole. Where was the freedom of speech for African Americans for a couple of centuries? Where was the freedom of speech for communists last century? Disliked groups have always been publicly threatened, and in the past the state was less inclined to protect them. Today, on the other hand, the police will as you say even protect Nazis spouting their hate-speech.

MatthewLee wrote: If you don't know who Ben Shapiro is... then I understand why you don't understand what I'm talking about. I wish you had just said that before.

How would I have said before that I don't know who Ben Shapiro is when I don't know who he is?

As soon as you mentioned the name, I told you I don't know who he is.

MatthewLee wrote:OK so here, buy it on Amazon and assess my claim…

https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-Ameri ... 0452264987

You mean the book's claim?

MatthewLee wrote:then read a book which outlines what I’m talking about in the form of a review of the material, its application and the success with which the techniques have been applied.

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Con ... 269ABPH47C

Woah there, I am a fanatical reader but I don't usually get ordered to buy books to grasp someone's point. Can you not summarize whatever it is you find compelling and argue it here?

MatthewLee wrote:It’s description reads as follows…
“Supreme Court and lower court hearings regarding gay marriage bring focus to the reality that in just two decades homosexual behavior in America has gone from criminal offense to protected right, a paradigm shift worth considering in the form of a book review—a look back to 1989 when "After the Ball," a watershed publication, gave homosexuals in America the traction needed to bring about the gay revolution.”

I know you’ll probably say Amazon is a crackpot conspiracy site though.

Um? Why would I say that? Amazon is a site selling books (among other things) and makes no claims whatsoever about the validity or verity of the contents of the books it sells.

What an obscure non-sequitur, Matthew!

MatthewLee wrote:He said what I’m trying to say. The allusion, regardless of the logical attempt to show my argument was fallacious… the allusion was just that… that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racism as being an arbitrary prejudice based on immutable characteristics. Read that again.

No, sorry Matthew but you're beginning to make yourself look like an idiot. You've been told by several people what the intent of HWIN's post was, even by HWIN himself - you made an erroneous assumption which is fine, but continually digging when you've found yourself in a hole doesn't look sensible.

MatthewLee wrote: Religious objections to same sex marriage are not arbitrary prejudices unless you can prove that in fact, with empirical evidence not from partisan sources, that same sex orientations are in fact immutable characteristics. Bill Nye said on his show… had an expert say on his show… that there is no gay gene. If sexual orientation is not immutable and genetically predisposed then we are talking about choice and that makes this a matter for ethical discussion rather than an arbitrary prejudice.

That doesn't even amount to specious reasoning, Matthew. Just because there's no 'gay gene' (which an elementary understanding of genetics would furnish you with anyway) that doesn't make homosexuality a choice any more than the lack of a 'heterosexual gene' makes heterosexuality a choice.

MatthewLee wrote:You don’t choose to be African American, or become African American from experience and environment.

i) you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be heterosexual
ii) being African American is more than just having a particular skin colour and facial anatomical structure - it consists of a whole suite of environmental factors.

MatthewLee wrote: You are born African American.

Irrelevant unless you are also born heterosexual. As reality contradicts your notion, then it might suggest you haven't given this enough thought. Children are not sexual, they are not heterosexual or homosexual at birth any more than they are 6 feet tall at birth. Biology is about development, not about arbitrary moments in that development. Rather, when sexuality begins to develop around puberty, some teenagers find that they are attracted to people of the same sex. It's not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice - it's something we discover within ourselves.

MatthewLee wrote: You use the technique of rhetorically associating the paradigm of racism with Christian objections to same-sex marriage to step over this objection and directly call Christian objections arbitrary and bigoted and prejudicial.

That's not what happened, as you've been informed, but as you seem so desperate to repeat this ad nauseum, fuck it - I'll bite. We know from historical records that many of the justifications used to enslave Africans and make them work for the economic betterment of their white masters was derived wholly from Christian doctrine - so why, given that fact, should anyone give two hoots about the scriptural content of Christian justification for opposing same-sex marriage? Your ideological ancestors were wildly wrong, callous and inhumane before in exactly the same manner in which you use your doctrine to suppress homosexuals today.

You seem intent on framing everyone else's arguments for them. Have the decency to let people make their own arguments, please.

MatthewLee wrote: His argument… whether you appeal to this small minorities opinion fallaciously or not.. was exactly as I have described and perhaps I can give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that wasn’t his intention but it was the result.

No, the actual result of your misapprehension was that you trotted out a precanned argument against a position that wasn't espoused.

MatthewLee wrote:Catholics and Protestants are quite different. You mean Catholic dogma.

No, I assuredly do not mean Catholic dogma - I mean Christian dogma, which is why I said 'Christian dogma'.

MatthewLee wrote: Protestant Christians hold the Bible as their central authority and Catholics do not.

Irrelevant, this is a red herring.

MatthewLee wrote: The Bible cannot ever be said to support slavery as it was practiced in the colonies and it was enabled at first by Papal Bull, not Biblical writ.

Counterfactual. In reality, there are hundreds of documents showing Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, using the Bible to justify slavery.

MatthewLee wrote: The abolitionist movement was a largely Protestant movement if not entirely.

And slave-owners in the US were largely Protestant, if not entirely.

MatthewLee wrote:In the Bull below… Look for the phrase “Apostolic Authority.” That’s the phrase that means the Pope can do whatever he wants because the Bible isn’t his authority rather authority was passed to him directly from the Apostles and Christ. This is one of the reasons Protestantism happened at all. Sola Scriptura.

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude
Bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas V

Yes, and then there's all those references to slavery in the actual Bible, including God's explicit approval of the institution.

You know, Genesis 9:24-27, Genesis 21:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-8, Ephesians. 5:22, Titus: 2:9,1 Timothy 2:11–15... and so on and so on.

Trying to pretend that slavery was a Catholic phenomenon is just historical revisionism. Worse for your attempt to do so, there are plenty of records left by Protestant slave-owners explicitly stating that their justification for slavery was wholly derived from the Bible, and therefore of God not man.

MatthewLee wrote:Catholics give the Pope authority over the Bible, apostolic succession. Protestants led the charge in the abolitionist movement. The Bible does not say we may take slaves as Christians. The Pope said that.

Lies or ignorance?

Exodus 21

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.

Numbers 31:17-18

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Sex slaves, no less.

MatthewLee wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogniti ... _in_China#"First"_same-sex_marriage

China, a nation which is self-declared atheist… does not recognize same-sex marriage nor civil unions. Why would a nation with no overwhelming Christian sentiment.. a nation older than Western Civilization as we know it and with a largely logical atheist communist party find this not in the interest of the state for over a billion people? Outdated by centuries? There are secular arguments to be made, obviously. Christian boogeymen have nothing to do with China.

I am not sure what this red herring has to do with anything? Atheism? You think that Chinese are atheists? Really?

As for why a hokey nation fueled by bizarre political arguments doesn't engage in human rights? I am not sure that's really an argument that supports your position.

Regardless, it's a red herring.

https://www.indy100.com/article/same-sex-marriage-lgbt-gay-equality-where-can-i-marry-equal-rights-illegal-7768516

Look at how many nations don’t agree with you or your 'modern' ideas.

Yes, that's certainly part of the reason why we don't conceive of them as modern.

MatthewLee wrote: I would have you notice that the largest portion of the nations that legalized same sex marriage are CHRISTIAN MAJORITIES.

Otherwise known as 'formerly Christian nations'.

MatthewLee wrote: Read that again because it’s important. Christian majority nations are the ones leading the charge for freedom. Islamic countries would arrest you for this very argument in favor. Islam is entirely theocratic.

Why are we doing red herrings here?

MatthewLee wrote: Biblical Christianity sees a division between the state and the religion.

Perhaps, but many Christians don't which is why they seek to have the secular state they live in enact their scriptural preferences such as blocking marriage equality.

MatthewLee wrote: These civilizations that resist the change are older than ours.

What does this have to do with anything?

MatthewLee wrote: Are you saying all of their rejection of things we accept is solely because we are just more evolved and more intelligent or could it be that there is a case to be made on either side?

What? No of course I am not saying something I didn't say, but that you wrote. What is it with these bizarre and contrived red herrings? Stop trying rhetoric on me, Matthew and engage me honestly, please.

MatthewLee wrote: Japan, a secular nation with largely ambiguous attitudes towards religion and certainly no Christian majority… still doesn’t recognize same sex marriage rights. Think about that.

Eh? What does it have to do with anything? You have made a series of points where you seem to want me to produce the argument that makes these points coherent. Currently, my only response to this entire paragraph is... yes and...?

MatthewLee wrote: Christian majority nations allow same sex marriage overwhelmingly and non-Christian nations want nothing to do with them. Correlation is not causation but it give one pause, eh?

So you're trying to argue that Christianity is pro same-sex marriage? It would help if you made an argument then supported it with points, rather than making a series of points with no overarching argument to them.

MatthewLee wrote:China, the atheist nation, has absolutely no tolerance for LGBT issues and rights. They don’t exist. Can you blame that on iron age writings and Christian bigotry?

Atheist nation? You mean that the Chinese Government is officially atheist, right? Because the people have all manner of religious beliefs - somewhere in the 75% region practice some form of traditional Chinese folk religion, although that is often at least partly 'cultural folk religion'.

Still, this doesn't amount to anything other than a diversion? What does this have to do with any arguments?

MatthewLee wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Either something is or it isn't unconstitutional - if it's unconstitutional, then let the courts show that to be the case. In reality, it is, of course, not unconstitutional at all.

I’m sorry, what knowledge of the US Constitution do you make this claim on?

Well, logic for one. Either something is or it isn't constitutional - it can't be both.

MatthewLee wrote:What can you specifically refute from the dissents?

I don't need to refute the dissents, not least because I already said I think this is a red herring. The dissents are to do with the manner in which legislation was made, not about the content of the legislation.

MatthewLee wrote: The Constitution made no provision for this nor for marriage rights in general. The right to marriage is not IN the Constitution. Can you disagree with Richard Kelsey of George Mason University School of Law on a substantive basis with exposition on anything other than your knowledge or paleo-anthropology?

“The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.”
http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/ric ... rriage.php

I find your arguments very bizarre, Matthew. What there disagrees with anything I've said?

MatthewLee wrote:This would suggest absurdity.

Yes, absurdity.

MatthewLee wrote: I am sure some of the votes may have been protest votes but Trump won because people wanted Trump.

No. They didn't want Hilary.

MatthewLee wrote: Go and look for why people voted for him and you’ll hear the same thing again and again…

Because soundbites. The majority of interviews I listened to prior to election repeatedly pointed out their extreme dislike of Clinton.

MatthewLee wrote: No good Democrat would have voted for Trump because of protest.

Err yes, actually, they would - that's exactly what a protest vote means.

MatthewLee wrote: That would be like a Christian voting for Lawrence Krauss because they didn’t like Romney.

And undoubtedly that could indeed happen, not least because many Christians are more strongly against Mormons than they are against scientific atheists.

MatthewLee wrote: It is an absurd idea that a protest vote carried the win.

Absurd indeed, but apparently true all the same.

MatthewLee wrote: The states that voted for him supported him.

I disagree because there was nothing to support - no policies, no content, no substance. Just walls and immigration.

MatthewLee wrote: They did so for the reasons I said.

I don't accept your claims.

MatthewLee wrote: There can be disagreement but don’t be so stonewall that you can’t even acknowledge that Trump told them what they wanted to hear so they pulled the lever.

With respect, you're not offering anything other than assertions which is why you're receiving them in reply.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/why-did-people-vote-for-donald-trump-us-voters-explain

You cite an article to disprove my argument which contains, as its first point, a paragraph entitled:

‘I don’t want the Clinton legacy continued in the White House’

And of course, there are other people in the same article saying the same thing:

‘Trump is exactly what you get, with Hillary you can’t know what’s real’

And...

The first woman president should have integrity and that historic moment should not be tainted by someone like Hillary Clinton

So, of the article you cited to disprove my contention that Trump's victory was largely due to an extreme dislike of Hilary Clinton, 3 out of the 4 peoples' comments reported explicitly make it clear that this is very much part of the reason.

Um, thanks for making my point, I guess!

MatthewLee wrote:Of course it’s not simple or it wouldn’t be at the Supreme Court but read this..

What I mean is that you tried to simplify it but contradicted yourself. This suggests that you weren't being... shall we say... wholly truthful in at least one of your contradictory claims?

MatthewLee wrote:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You're citing the first amendment at me to 'read'. Um thanks, buddy.

MatthewLee wrote:That’s the first amendment. The free exercise of Christian religion includes, for some, a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Believe all you like, but if your beliefs motivate you to deny service to people, then we're no longer talking about beliefs but about actions. The first amendment doesn't say that just because you believe X that you are allowed to do X.

MatthewLee wrote: Where in this amendment does it make concessions or specify what this means?

No, I don't need to argue any such thing - you need to show where it says that a Christian can do what they want according to their beliefs, because it's clearly bullshit. The laws of the land supersede your conscience from a legal perspective. If your religion contains the belief that you can expose your penis and run down the street, no one can stop you believing it, but you will still be arrested if you attempt to do so, not because the laws are intended to be against your religious convictions, but because your religious convictions do not trump the law.

MatthewLee wrote: It says “the free exercise thereof” and that means without constraint.

The Bible says you can stone a child to death who speaks back. So if a Christian decided to stone their child to death, would it then be a first amendment-breaking constraint were they to be arrested and imprisoned because of their actions?

Here's the rub, and it's why you keep talking around the point rather than addressing it. The First Amendment ensures you can believe whatever you want, and practice your religious views however you want... all the way up until they inhibit someone else's freedom or break the laws of the nation.

Really, your argument if taken to the extreme would have all the various religious groups in the US running around under different laws, which is of course not tenable, not desirable, and not realistic.

Rather, the secular laws of the nation are equitable for all. Rastafarians can be wholly convinced and scripturally certain of their right to smoke copious amounts of weed, but if smoking weed is illegal, then they simply do not possess that right even though they're perfectly entitled to maintain their [b]belief.

MatthewLee wrote: It doesn’t say, free expression thereof except for in such and such circumstances.

Yeah, a silly argument - just because it doesn't say X, doesn't mean that X is untrue. Like I said, the secular laws of the nation supersede those freedoms.

MatthewLee wrote: This is what is at stake when you start adding stuff. Free speech, even abhorrent speech, must be protected and free religion… even when abhorrent, must be protected.

While I agree with the protection of free speech and have long been an ardent proponent and defendant of free speech, denying people service inequitably is not withing the logical context of free speech, but the discriminatory denial of service for whatever reason is firmly within the context of secular laws governing society.

Let's be clear about this, Matthew. If people started denying service to Christians because of their firmly held beliefs that Christians are cunts, you'd be outraged and horrified. The fact is, I'd be on your side then too because my position is consistent and logical, whereas yours is wholly ideological. You cannot deny people service just because you disagree with them - that should be more of a concern to you, someone who claims to be an advocate of free speech, than the side you are actually supporting.

MatthewLee wrote:To support other ideologies violates this deeply held belief.

What the fuck? Matthew, stop yammering for a minute and think about what you're saying. Now you're saying that Christians shouldn't provide services to Muslims, Sikhs, Buddists etc (and vice-versa) because supporting other ideologies violates ones own beliefs? That's fucking mental. That's a return to the barbarity of the medieval period and is firmly contrary to the spirit and word of the First Amendment.

MatthewLee wrote: As an atheist would you ask a Muslim to make you a cake with the Prophet Mohammed on it for a speech about how evil Islam is…

I am not an atheist, and no I wouldn't ask a Muslim to make me a cake critical of their religious views any more than I would ask a Christian to make me a cake mocking their religion. I would, however, ask either of them to make me a cake, and the simple fact that I don't share their religious views is not offensive to them and does not provide reason for them to deny me service.

MatthewLee wrote: and then sue them for refusing you service on religious grounds because they denied you this service?

If they denied me service on religious grounds, then at least in theory I could sue them. Would I? No, but not for that reason, rather because I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of it all. However, there's no question that their actions are wrong in a secular nation.

MatthewLee wrote: Try asking a Muslim bakery for a gay wedding cake and see how well you do...

What?

What a silly thing, Matthew. Firstly, I don't know any Muslim bakers, secondly I am not getting married, and thirdly I am not gay - so why would I need to perform this hoop jump for you?

Regardless, the exact same thing goes. If a Muslim wants to run a shop in one of our secular nations, they cannot discriminate against me based on religious grounds because society does not place their religious convictions above me or the law.

MatthewLee wrote:but they aren’t the ones in the crosshairs.

So it's just Christians who are being asshats?

MatthewLee wrote: I am actually listening to the oral arguments opening the Supreme Court case right now and they are a lot of these kind of questions. It’s not simple, but it involves the phrase “compelled speech” and that’s what they are arguing. If they can compel speech against religious conviction once and set a Supreme Court precedent, then we aren’t at the top of the slippery slope anymore. At this point we’re about halfway down.

Yes, as I said: I disagree. No one is compelling you to run a business for profit, but if you elect to do so, you follow the law. Simple.

MatthewLee wrote:Did you miss the part I cited where Jesus specifically says that marriage is a man and a woman?

No, I didn't miss it, you can tell that by how I responded to it already and how you ignored my response.

MatthewLee wrote:It was pretty clear why Christians feel this way and it’s obviously a part of Christian faith if CHRIST SAID IT.

Don't lie to me, Matthew. Jesus said fuck all about the provision of cakes or other services to homosexuals. You and other Christians are perfectly entitled to make up wholesale any interpretation you want, but you don't get to enact that interpretations in society and limit the freedoms of other people.

MatthewLee wrote:.... It isn’t about theocracy and if you reread my former statement I said as much before it was altered.

With respect, I don't care what you said, I am telling you what I think.

MatthewLee wrote: I said theocracy is a great evil. However, Christians must be able to have free practice of religion.

They already do, but this doesn't include denying service to homosexuals or any other group on religious grounds.

MatthewLee wrote: The right to not be forced to make art which supports things you don’t believe in is a fundamental part of freedom of speech…

It's not art, it's a craft. The quantity they're being asked to craft is 'marriage'. Marriage is seen equitably by the laws of the nation irrespective of the genders of the people involved.

I don't care how seriously a Christian baker believes in Christianity; he has no fucking right whatsoever to deny service on religious grounds. If he has ethical problems, then he should stop being a baker rather than expecting the world to revolve around him.

MatthewLee wrote:not being forced into compelled speech.

No one's forcing him to do anything. He can stop being a baker whenever he wants to. However, while he's a baker, operating a shop to earn profit, he will operate according to the laws of the nation he resides in.

MatthewLee wrote: He would have sold them a wedding cake had they bought it off the shelf.

Assertion, and one which is laughably contrary to the claims you've previously made.

MatthewLee wrote:He simply wouldn’t make a custom piece of art which represented something he disagreed with.

It's not art, it's a craft. No one's asking him to agree with it, they're just asking him to equitably offer a service.

MatthewLee wrote:The same freedom that protects my religion protects the rights of atheists, as well, by the way.

What rights of atheists? Best quickly drop the vacuous prejudice routinely employed by the religious here: I am not an atheist.

Regardless, the reason why the same laws provide the same protection is precisely my point - secular laws are equitable with respect to religious persuasion, ergo your religious persuasion presents you no privilege in society over and above mine or any other religious persuasion. If an atheist thinks that all Christians are cunts, he's welcome to do so. However, if he runs a shop and inequitably denies Christians service, no matter how ardent his belief, he still doesn't get to enact his internal fiction onto the world.

Again, my position is wholly consistent, whereas yours will depend on which tribe the alleged victim belongs to.

MatthewLee wrote:Compelled speech was the phrase they used. Sorry for the misstatement. Coerce and compel are synonyms so it is a lateral error.

Yes, I know. Again, the same argument: it's not compelled speech.

MatthewLee wrote: Here is a .pdf of the transcript of the arguments before the Supreme Court. Look at how many times the phrase “compelled speech” is used and in what context.

In the context of trying to obfuscate. No one is demanding that the baker express support for same sex marriage, only to provide a cake for a same sex marriage.

MatthewLee wrote: There is ample evidence as to what this is about contained in the transcript of the arguments made to the Supreme Court about what this is about.

Funny syntax.

MatthewLee wrote: It’s good reading and something to consider. If the Supreme Court case transcript for the opening arguments is not enough evidence about what the Supreme Court case is about… then I don’t know what else would convince you.

Let's be clear: people can make stupid arguments all they like, but I am not trying to debate with you whether or not someone made a stupid argument, I am trying to debate with you the actual argument itself. It is not compelled speech to require equitable provision of goods irrespective of religious beliefs.

People are spinning and obfuscating, yes, but in reality no one (let alone the state) has required the baker to express support for same-sex marriage, ergo it's just obfuscation.

MatthewLee wrote:Again.. I don’t care about Trump, I’m just stating one side of the argument as to possible reasons why we find ourselves in a situation like this and how a man like him came to be President. The same reason we are debating. The fundamental inability to recognize the validity of other people’s narrative. People are afraid to speak in America and that’s a problem. A problem which they solved by speaking in the only place they knew they’d be safe and anonymous and that’s why the polls all lied.

I think it's very bizarre and close-minded of you to tout the fundamental rights of the baker to deny service on religious conviction grounds while failing to acknowledge that 2 people legally getting married are being denied equitable outcomes in society in contravention to their individual freedoms.

I think this means you are not using your grey matter openly, but using it for an agenda. Personally, I actually think such arguments are going to cause more damage to religious freedom than anything else, and as much as it might surprise you, I am a strong advocate of freedom of conscience.

MatthewLee wrote:Now, none of this has anything to with North Korea. We are obviously very divided in our opinions and that is fine. I respect your right to disagree with me but this discussion has nowhere else to go...

It's a discussion board, we're not here to align and acquire the same point, but to have ideas contest each other. You're not obliged to do so if you don't want to.

MatthewLee wrote: so I’ll just rest on that most of this group seems to agree that diplomacy without concessions from a position of strength may be the only option we have left.

Which group where? Here on this forum? I don't think that's an accurate rendition.

MatthewLee wrote: If that is not the position of agreement it is my position and thank you for a very stimulating discussion.

Ciao for now.