Is homosexuality "normal"?

​

 

Nobody is forcing you to listen to the preacher that comes to your door. Close the door, put up a "no soliciting" sign. If you listen, that's your choice. And even if you listen, you don't have to accept their religion - its your choice.

But gays are forcing business owners and employees and suppliers and customers to endorse the gay lifestyle. We've been through this many times already. The gays identify a business that does not - or employs a person who does not - endorse the gay lifestyle and the gays target the employees, owners, customers, suppliers.

The gays - now they have expanded their agenda to LGBT - have already brought up the tax exempt status of religion. If a religion preaches homosexuality is a sin, won't do a gay marriage, or crosses the LGBT hordes, then the LGBT's want the church's tax exempt status removed.

So you are wrong. I don't care if people are religious or not, or slam the door in the preachers face when they come to talk. But that doesn't go the other way - if a Christian says homosexuality is a sin then they get targeted for destruction. The gays are imposing and are required to back up their reason for imposing. And of course the reason is simply hatred.

 

Well it certainly is not hegemonic. At least. Thus it has to be considered an anomaly. Thus, just like my least liked anthropologist in Mary Douglas, has noted; anomalies are "place out of matter" and have to be given a meanig by appyling a limited set of strategies. Certainly for the "Western" parts of the world it is the one of "stigmatization". Although I, as a straight man, feel this is changing. At least where I live.

If we want to leave cultural anthropology aside and instead turn to natural sciences and biology it is not normal at all. Since the purpose of every creature is the will to ensure the ingroup does not die out. By this sense homosexuality is "suicide". Anyways I find the argument of "it's natural" rather invalid to justify behvaiors. Basically with the same logic rape, eating ones own children or even eat oneself should be done too as "it's natural". My personal stance on homosexuality is that I could not care less what consenting adults decide to do in their bedrooms or whom they fall in love in with. Why would that even be any of my business?

To sum it up:
Biologically unnormal
Socially anomalious
Emically(homosexuals perspective) completely normal
Subjectively apathic

 

No, they are not. Those business owners are free to with hold their approval. What he thinks in his own mind or says in his own home is entirely up to him.

But it's different when he brings those opinions into the space we share. The business owner is free to close his door and to choose to stop soliciting the community for business — but he's not free to divide the community we share. To say he'll only let one half of the community sit at the lunch counter the community may let him build on main street. He doesn't get to do that.

And it's not some gay person who made a requirement that the business owner doesn't get to cut up the community that way. That decision was made by the community.




​

 

Trust me, its not much of a hurdle. I am a gay man with three kids. You just close your eyes, fantasize about the man of your dreams and voila! Child support and diapers and sleepless nights. I have three straight brothers and collectively they only produced two.

 

But they have the right to just like gay people and Satanism and so forth. You don't have to listen to them, they don't come to your door so all you have to do is turn off the tv.

I am going to ask the same question you have consistently avoided.

Which gays?

Yes and you constantly place your tail between your legs and shook off when I ask.

Which gays?

You may have made that asinine accusation a thousand times, it means nothing. You could accuse the Martians, or the free masons, it would mean just as much.

Basically put, battle3 your claims are bologna.

The gays rig the Oscars, the gays control the government the gays wet my pants waa waa waa.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Which gays?

 

Think about whats in red.

A person pays for his education and training so he has the skills to be productive, buys land, builds a brick and mortar store or accepts a debt for a mortgage, uses his own money to buy inventory, pays the taxes and gets the permits. That is not your space, or the governments space, its the business owners space. You do not own any portion of that space, you are not accountable or liable for what happens in that space. If that "space" fails you don't pay the debt for the failed business, its not your house with the second mortgage that is at risk.

The owner invites you into his space, the owner is offering to allow the customer to enter his space.. If a person does not want to enter, then he does not have to enter.

What you want to do is steal the owners property. Its that simple.

 

Unless everything around the place is the owners personal property, you're wrong. He used city streets, sidewalks. Public utilities to heat and light the place. He uses public communication, phone, internet, etc to promote said business. So, he/she must conform to the laws that allowed said business to use the public spectrum to place those bricks and mortar. Or forget about placing those bricks and mortar.

What you want the owner to do is use all those public services to discriminate and tear apart the community in which the person wants to operate the business. You want him to break the law.

 

Now you are being melodramatic and exaggerating. Ask Brendan Eich and the owners of Memories Pizza and all the other people terrorized by the gay mob if its all just in their minds. We've been through this before, you are intentionally turning a blind eye to all aspects of gay hatred and intolerance.

 

He paid for those services, he pays utility bills, gas taxes, transportation taxes, his phone bill, internet bill. And he pays business and personal local, state, and federal taxes. Nothing you listed is free, each person pays the price for the services.

And based on your argument, anyone can move into your house and eat your food and use your car and your computer and phone because you use electricity, water, the streets, etc. Do you literally open your door and make all your possessions available to all your neighbors?

Do you leave your car running in public so the next person who needs transportation can just hop in and go? Its not really your car, you use the streets and put "public" gas in it.

How does it sound when you have to meet the same rules you want to impose on others? Ready to live in a commune?

 

LOL. Look at your post. Talk about melodramatic.
You point to 2 or 3 cases in the entire USA. And blame it on every gay in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. And he paid for the business license to operate the business per the laws of the state. And you think it's ok if the owner(s) break the law. No. They can't break the law they signed up for when they purchased their license.
If I open my house to the public for service then yes, they can come in and do business as the law requires. IF I make it a bed and breakfast, I can't tell you to leave because you hate gays and claim christian. If you sued, I'd lose.
It sounds to me, if you operate a business, purchase the license, you follow the laws that allow you to have said license. Or close up shop.

You have 0, nada, nothing, as an argument.

 

That's typical of those with no argument, to claim that "not enough examples" were provided. 2 or 3 cases of gay hatred and intolerance? Don't you know how to use google?

Try Patricia Heaton, David & Jason Benham, Phil Roberts, Michelle Duggar. I just gave you 5 more without even looking it up. Do some research, get educated.

 

Put that into the percent of gays. What are you up to? 0.0005% of gays? Come on. Anecdotal evidence is able to be provided for every situation in the world.

 

Take another look at the deed, he doesn't own that land. A deed grants you limited use under the title you purchased. You are further allowed to operate a business in a community so long as you agree to it's laws. The permit you mention is one point where your owner explicitly acknowledged and agreed to those laws.

I commend an entrepreneurs industry, creativity and tenacity. But you are wrong about who owns main street. It's his business. It exists within a shared community.





​

 

If the business suffers a financial loss, who pays?
If there is fire or theft, who pays?
Who pays the insurance, the taxes, the utility bills?
Who pays the employees?
Who is risking their savings and financial future?
Who is working extra hours unpaid to make the business a success?

Not you. Not the community. None of the risks are "shared" by the community. Your "community" only wants to "share" in the benefits.

 

*shrug* Don't like the terms? Don't build the business in that space. If the community offers nothing of value, why put up with all it's rules? But if the community does provide value, you're not being honest about one guy picking up the whole bill.




​

 

Then answer my questions. Who pays in all of those case? Not you, and not the community. The community provides value in a customer base, the business provides value in providing a service some people will want. The each can benefit, but they each do not own the business.

From your position, it can also be argued that there is no personal property. At the personal level, you use the roads, utilities, etc. and so your property is actually "shared" with the community. Your neighbors have every right to eat your food, stay in your house, use your phone and computer, drive your car, as you do - by your reasoning.

 

Why would I? I don't question that the business owner pays many expenses alone. And I can make a list just as long of the things the community pays for... street cleaning, infrastructure, military protection, education... and more.

And to be clear, it's not my position. I'm stating facts. I don't particularly like nor dislike them, I certainly don't claim any ownership of those facts. There is no reasoning required to make those observations and reality isn't negotiable.

The community has a right to pass a law prohibiting denial of services. My neighbors don't have a right to eat my dinner. And if you disagree with either statement you are ignorant of the law which provide or would provide the rights you are denying or imagining.




​

 

"Prohibiting denial of services" is really requiring a person to provide services against his will. That's a "taking of property" which is not compensated. Its stealing, or as the Founders described it, its slavery.

Its no different than you cooking dinner and the govt coming in to your house and taking half your dinner.

 

No it's not. He can avoid providing services by withdrawing his offer to the public to offer services.

It's simply saying if he chooses to offer services to the public, he doesn't get to selectively renege on that offer. It's one community, he doesn't get to cut it up based on his own bias.

And yea, it's different that Obama taking my dinner. One difference is the legality of the two acts.




​

 

Ya know there are business that do all of that, and still work very hard to obey all the municipal, state and federal laws that apply, including civil rights laws. Then there are the cheater businesses that get the competitive upper hand, by cutting corners on the laws, or picking and choosing which laws are convenient and which ones are not. I just wish you conservatives would stop applauding the law-breaking and cheating entrepreneurs, over the law-abiding ones. If you can't run your bakery and obey civil rights laws, just step aside and let someone else run a run a bakery, who can! Just close up your shop and get out of the way. But PLEASE stop whining about the 'burden' of society's expectations.

 

You make the individual obey the mandates of the community, mandates that can change and are retroactively applied long after the business owner has dedicated his future to the business and has no option but to continue, and mandates that are enforced by the govt.

Under your conditions, the owner is not really "choosing to offer services", it is not realistic to say he can "withdraw his offer", he is committed. He is in debt, has obligations, and is likely well past the point of "withdrawing" without facing financial ruin.

LOL, how quickly you change your tune and hide behind "legality". Your neighbor has every right - under your reasoning - to come to your house and demand you serve him your dinner, just as much right as you claim a community member has to go into a business and demand the business owner serve him.

You bought a house, food, car, refrigerator that was delivered over the streets, you use utilities, you obey zoning rules and permitting, all subsidized by your community - exactly like the business owner. Your neighbor can walk into your house and demand you serve him your dinner while he watches your tv and uses your computer - exactly like you claim any person can walk into any business and demand services even if those services are not offered to that person (female walks into a male barbershop, for example).

 

When "society" - or at least those who make your argument - pay the mortgage and the paychecks for the business, then they have a right to put requirements on the business.

What you want is the benefits of the business, and to be able to force the business owners (the people) to live the way you want them to live, but you don't want the risk or to pay the costs. In other words, you are lazy and greedy, and probably jealous. That's personal, but after reading so many of these types of threads, its accurate of people with your perspective.

And what are you going to do when the political winds shift, and new heavy handed people take over and force businesses to "accommodate" certain tastes by closing on Sundays, not selling offensive clothing or pork, etc? Accommodation is a broad term.

 

Seriously? That is either a bad analogy or bad logic. If you have to sell a hamburger to a gay person, they still have to pay the same as a straight person. Nothing has been taken from you for which you have not received compensation.

 

I will decide if I want to continue to run a business in the town or state, or if I'd prefer to sell and do something else instead. Sometimes businessmen decide they don't like or can't afford the new zoning rules, fire code, wage laws, consumer protection statute, or whatever. They look for a buyer who thinks they can do the job and obey the local, state and federal laws. Its about meeting expectations. If you can't meet them, then you can't.