@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I didn't say anything about marriage; I only asked you whether you think people should be tolerant of those who are atypical. Your answer seems to be, "Gays shouldn't be tolerated because they advocate for marriage equality, and I think gay marriage undermines Nature and threatens society."

I have a question for you about Nature: Women ovulate once a month, the human gestation time is 9 months, and pregnant women do not ovulate. Men produce new sperm every day. Although a pregnant woman can't get pregnant, the man who impregnated her can still impregnate other women. Moreover, women are born with all the eggs they'll ever have. Each time they experience a period, they lose a potential human being.

If "obeying Nature" means maximizing likelihood of producing a new generation, and if our cultural and law are supposed to "encourage Nature," then why don't we have laws that encourage men to marry as many women as possible? Why not lower the age of consent to the time of first ovulation/ejaculation? This way, we could ensure that we "waste" relatively few eggs!

Also, this type of system would be totally consistent with the Old Testament, and also current practice in Saudi Arabia. So why not?

By boycoting they are puting Moms and Dads out of work.

They are Causing children to go hungry.

They are causing familys to lose their homes and become homeless.

They are causeing people to go to jail because they cant pay their bills.

They are causing pain and suffering on purpose.

They claim this is GODs will.

Is this what the Lord told us to do.

Will he tell them "well done my good and faithful servant".

I think not.

They have done their fathers will; and their father is not GOD.

They have made people Hate GOD.

JC Penney rarely has cute clothes, anyway

ChaplainPaden - Merely preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ causes people to hate pastors....does this mean, too, that God will cast out pastors who preach the truth of the Bible?  Christians boycotted Ford when they dabbled with giving homosexuals special status and special rights, and since they've backed off of that move, Ford has not only rebounded and become America's best car sellers and makers, they also walked out when President Obama offered a bailout and took not a dime from the government as Chrysler and GM did.  Did people lose their jobs?  likely.  Did children go hungry?  Probably.  Did Ford Motor Comany come out in the end in the black, rehire those laid off, and help those hungry children get fed?  Definitely.  Do people hate Christians and the Gospel anyway?  Yes.  Sorry to say so, but your analogy falls a bit rather flat.

It's about clothes not a lifestyle. It's about marketing clothes and who buys them and like it or not, the homosexuals buy clothes from the same places you do, they just don't have "gay" stitched in the labels or across the apparel as a brand. I think the uproar is ridiculous by the Christian community at large especially because they can't afford to produce their own clothing lines that they can afford to buy by themselves. -- This coming for a Christian who doesn't advocate homosexuality whatsoever, however, I don't treat them like they have cooties either. Sin is sin, bottom line. I'm not perfect either and they don't treat me like I have cooties. Agree to disagree and let God judge. Enough said. -- And don't hand me a stack of B.S. about what scripture has to say about it because we all know what it says. When you actually vote it in democratically in this republic as concrete set in stone, then you can get al up in arms about it. But it hasn't been set in stone for awhile and guess what? The bible says it won't... !!! It says homosexuality will be an accepted lifestyle before the return of Christ. So deal with it or don't, but you better deal with yourselves. This is just ridiculous. I'm still shopping JCP. So dumb. LOL

@JandJinJapan@xanga - There is no federal law that protects from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only about half the states have such protections. So, people like Mississippi corrections officer Andre Cooley can be fired for being gay, despite being a fantastic employee. The proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (popularly referred to as ENDA) would prohibit this type of discrimination by civilian, non-religious employers, but has died in Congress year after year since 1994.

As for marriage being a privilege rather than a right, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that marriage is indeed a right. Paraphrasing that link a bit, in Loving v Virginia (1967), the Court ruled that prohibiting interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment by interfering with the "fundamental freedom" to marry.  In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court upheld a prisoners' "right to marry."

So, in addition to being denied federal non-discrimination protections, the right to marry is another right that is being denied to gay people. (Often, people say, "No! Gay people can get married... to a person of the opposite sex! They have the same rights as I do!" But this is nonsense; imagine an argument in support of same-race marriage that goes, "Black people can get married... to a person of the same race!" Ridiculous, right? The point is that gays don't have the right to marry the person they love.)

Whether or not the US government can and/or should deny that right is the question. But marriage is indeed a right; that is a fact.

jim_the_american@xanga - That's pretty much bogus, the source you cite is overruled by the Hate Crimes Legislation and Hate Crimes Laws. The way I've read the law, especially the national Hate Crimes Legislation, such firings are not only unlawful under such conditions but punishable under penalty of fines, jail time, or both.  Further, we have freedom to drive a car, but it isn't a right simply because not everyone can drive a car.  Again, ditto that for marriage.  The case you cite concerns interracial (race not being a choice, living a homosexual lifestyle being a choice) marriage and was not and is not a definition of marriage being a right in and of itself.  It does not define marriage as a right, but a privilege.

@jim_the_american@xanga - Your response was to post a comment isn't  in the spirit of a productive, mutually respectful conversation.

I'm sorry, but the truth about homosexuality must be told. You people are doing everything you can to white wash it and make discussing it off limits.

How dare you try to limit my speech and then accuse me of being uncivil. Your sort of Bolshevik trashing of reality is the true affront to civility.

When a Bolshevik demands "mutually respectful conversation" what they are actually demanding is total capitulation to their world view and a silencing of the truth.

No way, Jose.

@JandJinJapan@xanga - The case of Andre Cooley was settled, meaning that there was no judicial ruling. As a result of the case, the Forrest County Sheriff's Department was the first Mississippi department to adopt a non-discrimination policy that protects against sexual orientation--a policy that was absent beforehand.

The Matthew Shepard Act is the expansion of the federal hate-crime law that deals with sexual orientation. Hate crimes involve violence, destruction of property, verbal abuse, or hate mail. I don't think employment discrimination falls into any of these categories. I could be wrong. Do you know of any examples where hate-crime laws were applied to job discrimination?

As for the distinction between a right and a privilege, consider this example: You drive well enough to pass the road test, and you know the laws well enough to pass the written exam, but you are prohibited from driving because you are Christian. "Driving is a privilege," you're told. "Not a right. You chose to be Christian."

The point is that using your religion to prevent you from enjoying the rights and responsibilities that come along with the privilege of a drivers license clearly violates other rights--namely, your right to equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Even though the Constitution doesn't define a person's right to a drivers license, you do have a right to be treated just like other people when you apply for one. In this sense, after having passed the relevant tests, you do indeed have a right to a drivers license!

What marriage equality advocates want is to be treated equally under the law. This is why their legal arguments rely so heavily on the 14th Amendment.

ChaplainPaden -  You asked "Did Jesus ever do harm to accomplish His Fathers will", and I answered your question in the affirmative.  If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.  Jesus hurt people's busines when he did what he did in casting out the money changers out of the temple.  And yes, he did condemn their sort of business by calling them thieves indirectly.  If you can't see the truth in that, then you, sir, are the one with the blinders on, not myself.

jim_the_american@xanga - Again, the Hate Crimes Acts at the national levels override the Cooley case ans the Shepard act.  Discrimination because of race and sexual orientation is covered in the Hate Crimes Acts.

Your analogy concerning being Christian and driving  and homosexuality and marriage is apples and oranges.  Being Christian doesn't drive up car insurance....but practicing homosexuality does.  When I go to have my drivers license renewed, I don't get asked, "Did you pray and read your Bible today?" wth the understanding that an affirmative answer could jeopardize my driving status, but when I go to give blood or plasma, or apply for health insurance, I do get asked "Have you ever had sex with a man?" knowing that an affirmative answer will jeopardize my blood/plasma donation to not only greater scrutiny, but also outright rejection for fear of AIDS/HIV contamination, testing or not notwithstanding, and possibly have higher health insurance premiums to boot.  Engaging in Christian activity endangers nobody but myself.  Engaging in homosexual activity basically destroys the human body and mind, seeing that the body parts and areas used for engaging in homosexual "sex" are not made for such activity.  You, jim_the_american, can say all you want (along with those others who advocate homosexuality) that it is natural, but medical proof of the destruction of the human body by way of homosexual "sex" gives the lie to such beliefs.

I know of a couple of instances where hate crimes legislation - or the threat of enacting them - caused an employer to hire homosexuals, but they were several years ago, and non-documented.  A gentleman who applied to work at a furniture moving company and was not hired referred his denial to a local court, and after the furniture moving company realized and was served with lawsuit papers, they relented and hired him.  From what was told through the grapevine, this gentleman based his court claims of discrimination on hate crimes legislation.  A young lady later dealt with the same thing, did the same, forcing the furniture moving company to do the same thing...again.  Both were hired.  Again, both were settled quietly out-of-court, the full records sealed by our respective employer.

Again, as I asked GodlessLiberal, what rights are homosexuals being denied?  Once again, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Not everyone can get married.

@JandJinJapan@xanga - if you say so but are the answers you gave me the very answers you will give Him on that day.

@JandJinJapan@xanga - Good point about Wikipedia, JandJ. According to the FBI, a hate crime is"a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias." Hate crimes have nothing to do with employer discrimination as far as I can tell.

I feel like you're using the blood donor thing to avoid responding to my points about the distinction between a privilege and a right, and the role of the 14th Amendment in ensuring that all people are treated equally before the law.

But, I see that this is important to you, so I'll address it. There are definitely times when discrimination is okay. In general, discriminating against disability is "wrong," except we definitely don't issue drivers licenses to blind people for obvious reasons. We probably wouldn't even give them the opportunity to fail the road test because it would be too dangerous.

Similarly, the American Red Cross has determined that it's worthwhile to discriminate against gays when letting people donate blood. They feel that the risk of getting blood from an HIV+ person is too great. Even though they test all blood for HIV, they want to maximize the amount of usable blood per dollar they spend on tests.

In both cases, discrimination is happening. And in both cases, the discrimination is justified (though there are those who argue in favor of allowing gay men to donate blood).

In the case of marriage, gay people are also being discriminated against; gay couples cannot enter into the same legal arrangement as their straight counterparts. But--as you've pointed out with the blood donor scenario and I've pointed out with the blind driver scenario--sometimes discrimination is justified. The issue then become whether or not the state can justifiably discriminate against gays by prohibiting them from participating in the civil institution of marriage.

The thing I find frustrating is that proponents of traditional marriage fight so hard to "prove" that they aren't being discriminatory rather than fighting to justify their discrimination. But I guess it's reasonable to try to distance the pro-traditional marriage argument from the idea of discrimination since that idea has so much negative baggage in our culture.

Lastly, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything. I think these conversations are important to have, and I like coming to revelife to have my ideas challenged by people whose values and beliefs are different from mine. I'm not sure what you meant by your "religion, religion" comment; I don't think I've ever said or implied that your faith is off limits, or said anything disparaging about you bringing up your faith.