Those Ker-rrazzeee Christians are back

[Yaya]

Could you be any more f***ed in the head?

Yes, I know, I'm such a monster for taking the feelings of others, whether they are few or many, into consideration.

Didn't realize you were the standard of sanity. Forgive me for not agreeing with you.

"

I choose to consider the needs of the fattys and Mr Wheelchair by not demonstrating the thing i know they could never possibly have - love. Thsi is my gift to them"

You have this uncanny ability to take my words and put your own little spin to them. Yes, I do choose to consider the needs of overweight and disfigured people. Because guess what. We are not a world of unfeeling robots.

Most do not feel some sort of vicarious joy at seeing couples hug and kiss. If you do, good for you. That's respectable, as it is not the usual response.

how do you know this? Done a survey? Or just... applied your own feelings on the matter to faceles masses as usual?

Went to med school. Studied psychology, psychiatry, and sociopathic behavior. However, would that be even necessary? It's common sense, really. We live in a society where physical features are of paramount importance. This is propogated by big businesses who make a fortune selling things like makeup, clothes, fashion magazines, etc. Can you deny that many men come to value a woman by her looks and nothing more? Maybe in the UK, things are different. But talk to the teenibopper here, and you will come to know how serious a problem this is.

That's just me.

Maybe you should speak for just you then?

[composite word including 'f*ck'] man, I just said that. What part of "That's just me?" don't you understand?

[The Last Autobot]

Im catholic and find very interesting the notion that is so much discrimination and bad attitude toward people that act/feel/think different. Mostly because we should try to live in harmony and not act against it.

I think If Jesus ran a B&B he wouldnt say you are not allowed for the reasons quoted in past posts -and in the review.

[Denyer]

You have this uncanny ability to take my words and put your own little spin to them. Yes, I do choose to consider the needs of overweight and disfigured people.

What do you consider "extra kind" to entail, then? I can't think of any way of taking this that wouldn't, in the position of someone receiving this "extra kind" approach, leave me feeling worse for having been patronised.

Overweight... I don't automatically assume that it's through choice, but if it is I have as much sympathy for anyone choosing to put their health at risk in that way as I do for snowboarders. (Or alcoholics -- damage caused by genuine obesity, rather than love handles, is similar to the addiction/high cycle and affects organs in a similar way.) Not to say I can't be helpful, particularly if people are pleasant, they're just not going to get any extra sympathy.

Disfigured... well, I can think of people with port wine birthmarks on their faces, and some with impressive scars. Physical disability, though, merits at most a casual "wanna hand?" if someone appears stuck, rather than assuming interference is wanted. Which is exactly what anyone else would also get. People from all walks of life like independence.

Can you deny that many men come to value a woman by her looks and nothing more?

The majority of all people, of either gender, are twats. They're also essentially well-meaning, whilst often being stupid, ignorant and/or only well-meaning insofar as it doesn't impact their own comfort zone. Often it's the same people.

And it's quite hard to have a relationship that goes further than quick sex and not regard other people as more than the sum of their face and squishy bits. School doesn't last forever... into the thirties for some people, but eventually most gain enough experience to make them basically decent in this regard.

[Yaya]

What do you consider "extra kind" to entail, then?

Just a smile and a nod of acknowledgement. Maybe a few kindly words. May not seem like much, but sadly, in todays world, it means a lot. I don't underestimate the impact of a friendly demeanor, and a simple gesture as that to someone who is considered repulsive or somehow lesser of a person because of their appearance goes a long way.

Regarding the overweight thing, I feel as you do that if someone is responsible for their being overweight, they have no one to blame but themselves. However, there are those less common people whose weight problem stems from a pathologic condition. Most commonly, depression.

Is there a way to discern one from the other without knowing the person? Therefore, I would rather err on the side of caution and think that this poor person has a physical or emotional problem rather than a voracious out-of-control appetite.

Disfigured... well, I can think of people with port wine birthmarks on their faces, and some with impressive scars. Physical disability, though, merits at most a casual "wanna hand?" if someone appears stuck, rather than assuming interference is wanted. Which is exactly what anyone else would also get. People from all walks of life like independence.

Again, I agree with you about being overly aggressive, as it can have the opposite effect. Certainly, a good deal of tact is important when approaching disfigured or disabled persons. Avoiding displays of affection in front of such people is an example of indirectly making an effort to help such people. Before BF replies with "yeah, every disabled and disfigured person feels this way, yeah right" comment, I know that this is not the case with everyone. Some disabled or disfigured persons are much stronger than I could ever be. But some aren't. I love my wife, and not publicly displaying this affection does not make me love her any less.

The majority of all people, of either gender, are twats. They're also essentially well-meaning, whilst often being stupid, ignorant and/or only well-meaning insofar as it doesn't impact their own comfort zone. Often it's the same people.

Yes, and I don't want to be a **** (though many here think I am) nor do I want to put my personal satifaction and pleasure over the rights of others to have the same satisfaction. Not to say I want my own rights violated either, but I do believe in fairness.

And it's quite hard to have a relationship that goes further than quick sex and not regard other people as more than the sum of their face and squishy bits. School doesn't last forever... into the thirties for some people, but eventually most gain enough experience to make them basically decent in this regard.

I like women as much as the next man. I like to think I can value them for more than their physical attributes, but often times, its difficult. Still, I like to convince myself that I try.

[Denyer]

Is there a way to discern one from the other without knowing the person?

Depends a fair amount on if you're eating with them.

a good deal of tact is important when approaching disfigured or disabled persons. Avoiding displays of affection in front of such people is an example of indirectly making an effort to help such people.

No, not seeing how it "helps" the majority of individuals to cut them out of your good moods. The stereotype of disabled people (especially those with mental disabilities) not getting laid is just that -- a stereotype, more the result of people not wanting to think about it than based in fact.

As far as burn victims go, the thing that pisses most off (after people staring) is people falling silent or obviously changing their behaviour. If your normal behaviour in public doesn't include dozing on each other or hand-holding, fair enough, but it's an extremely counter-productive mindset to get into to be thinking "this adult is different, must guard behaviour."

[Bouncelot]

How about:

I do not want to provide my services to paedophiles.

I can't see many people in modern society disagreeing with the sentiment behind that statement, yet it's exactly the same as the other two.

No, it isn't the same as saying "I will not provide services to black people" or "I will not provide services to gay people".

And in seriousness, putting on the staff hat for a rare moment, anyone equating homosexuality with paedophilia is not welcome here and will cheerfully be banned. We already lost Jetstorm for racial slurs, and he was a moderator.

I wasn't intending to do that, but I was trying to make the point that saying "just replace the word with another group you disapprove of" is an argument that you really don't want to start making because there's always a group who you would want to exclude.

I'm not sure I see how one reconciles <religious groups not causing harm to others> with <religious groups allowed to discriminate at will because it is a part of their doctrine>. Discrimination does cause harm, socially and psychologically, imo. I'm also not seeing how freedom of religion, religion essentially being an opinion an individual chooses to hold, can give an individual or group impugnity to disregard laws they happen to disagree with.

Christians can either open normal B&Bs and abide by the same laws as everyone else or they can find another line of work. I don't understand why they need their own hokey little branch of the industry; laws in theory apply to everyone or not at all since exceptions for their own sake tend to make the law look rather inconsistent.

With B&Bs it does seem a little strange, but then you have religious organisations that run specifically Christian (or Jewish or Muslim or...) holidays with religious content. Should such organisations be prevented from imposing religious rules on those who want such holidays? Forcing them to compromise their principles on such matters may well be harmful to their business. And it would be a case of banning certain activities (in the cases being discussed that's extra-marital sex) in their premises rather than banning certain people.

[Kaylee]

Hm it's an interesting question. I'd have to say that until a business is abiding by the law, then whether or not its business is successful/unsuccessful is pretty much academic. I've pretty much outlined my concern which is that if one business is allowed to be exempt and run on laws contrary to those of the State then there is nothing precluding another business from doing it- in fact I'd argue what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hence laws need to apply consistently to everyone, blind to religious denomination.

Or to look on it this way-

If a right-wing Muslim group decided to organise fundamentalist Islamic holidays in which women were treated as second-class citizens and 'infidels' were actively shunned, I'd say their business was pretty illegal under most ethical business practices going. Whether or not altering their practices would be damaging to their client base is neither here nor there imo.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

there is a clause in most states (not sure about international law) that states that you can list yourself as a 'private club' and as such can exclude anyone you feel like. Not saying its right, but its a loophole.

[Kaylee]

You're right, I think we have a similar thing in the UK, however private club membership isn't the same as denying business services/products to certain groups.

[Yaya]

No, not seeing how it "helps" the majority of individuals to cut them out of your good moods. "

What I'm saying is, haven't you known just from personal experience and your acquaintances throughout your life of some people who have complained to you that they "don't have anybody"?

We all have. How rare a thing it is to find a person like this who wouldn't feel a yearning for that which couples have. Granted, most people eventually find someone to be their significant other

[Optimus Prime Rib]

No, not seeing how it "helps" the majority of individuals to cut them out of your good moods. "

What I'm saying is, haven't you known just from personal experience and your acquaintances throughout your life of some people who have complained to you that they "don't have anybody"?

We all have. How rare a thing it is to find a person like this who wouldn't feel a yearning for that which couples have. Granted, most people eventually find someone to be their significant other.

or in my case, someone to be bitched at ALOT by lol

damn pregnancy.. any day now

[Denyer]

What I'm saying is, haven't you known just from personal experience and your acquaintances throughout your life of some people who have complained to you that they "don't have anybody"?

If I know I'm specifically pissing someone off, and assuming I bear no antipathy towards them, I'll generally try to not do so. It's an opt-out situation rather than weighing up "I don't know this person, mustn't show signs of affection towards woman whilst around them."

How rare a thing it is to find a person like this who wouldn't feel a yearning for that which couples have.

It's not actually that rare for people to be thoroughly disillusioned with the idea of getting together with someone. Which brings me back to the whole "just carry on as normal by default" thing -- it's preferable to demonstrate by example that relationships can work, and aren't all cooing or all arguments.

"just replace the word with another group you disapprove of" is an argument that you really don't want to start making because there's always a group who you would want to exclude.

Sex, predisposition towards Tourette's syndrome, skin colour, colour blindness and attraction towards particular genitalia, etc. have a biological component, the latter in addition being backed up by anthropology -- when one of the most right-wing newspapers in this country (Daily Mail) publishes a photo spread of same-sex play in the rest of the animal kingdom, things are a little beyond denying.

Frankly, I don't see why convicted fraudsters, paedophiles, murderers, etc. who've served their sentences should be denied hospitality that claims to stem from Christian values either. I seem to recall whole sections about forgiveness and loving sinners in the Bible, although doubtless there's an opt-out in the form of other passages that can be read by true believers to indicate such things are unnecessary when not feeling particularly motivated to do them.

[sprunkner]

I just wanna say three things:

Paul, I'm eating tuna fish RIGHT NOW. Hahahaha.

No matter what laws they make, what happens on Emvee's couch stays on Emvee's couch.

And if Jesus ran a bed and breakfast, he would save some serious dinero on his food bills.

Oh, and we aren't a world full of unfeeling robots... but who hasn't wished for it? Seriously, are we Transformer fans or aren't we?

That was four. Oh well. It's late.

[Best First]

**** man, I just said that. What part of "That's just me?" don't you understand?

the part where you cliam to know how your actions make strangers feel on a highly subjective subject, maybe? eh?

Where's sadie, she would love this...

What do you consider "extra kind" to entail, then?

Just a smile and a nod of acknowledgement. Maybe a few kindly words

Hey Fatty!

[Yaya]

Oh, and we aren't a world full of unfeeling robots... .

You sure bout that? I'm pretty sure if you cracked BF's skull, you would find a Pentium XIIII processor.

And a flux capacitor instead of a heart.

[Legion]

you would find a Pentium XIIII processor

woah, woah... you mean 386SX surely, right?

[Best First]

Oh, and we aren't a world full of unfeeling robots... .

You sure bout that? I'm pretty sure if you cracked BF's skull, you would find a Pentium XIIII processor.

And a flux capacitor instead of a heart.

mmm, because i don't like the way you choose to patronise people i am unfeeling on unempathic. Its all so logical...

what?

oh.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Its all so logical...

what?

oh.

Uh Oh, now Besty will be showing us HIS version of ol "One Eye"

[Impactor returns 2.0]

trouser snake?

[Bouncelot]

"just replace the word with another group you disapprove of" is an argument that you really don't want to start making because there's always a group who you would want to exclude.

Frankly, I don't see why convicted fraudsters, paedophiles, murderers, etc. who've served their sentences should be denied hospitality that claims to stem from Christian values either. I seem to recall whole sections about forgiveness and loving sinners in the Bible, although doubtless there's an opt-out in the form of other passages that can be read by true believers to indicate such things are unnecessary when not feeling particularly motivated to do them.

There are pleny of people in the world who would want to deny services to such people, and I suspect that the general public would back them up.

In this case, Christians end up choosing between either (as they see it) condoning something they believe to be sinful but offering hospitality/their service, and not condoning it, but denying their hospitality/service. In the case of bed and breakfasts, I'd probably agree that they should err on the side of hospitality. In the case of, for example, a Retreat Centre (which offers a specifically religious holiday experience), I think they're entirely justified in taking a stance on the issue, partly because it's extremely unlikely that those disagreeing with their morality will want to stay there anyway.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

but its not sinfull - your religon is wrong.

[Kaylee]

"just replace the word with another group you disapprove of" is an argument that you really don't want to start making because there's always a group who you would want to exclude.

Frankly, I don't see why convicted fraudsters, paedophiles, murderers, etc. who've served their sentences should be denied hospitality that claims to stem from Christian values either. I seem to recall whole sections about forgiveness and loving sinners in the Bible, although doubtless there's an opt-out in the form of other passages that can be read by true believers to indicate such things are unnecessary when not feeling particularly motivated to do them.

There are pleny of people in the world who would want to deny services to such people, and I suspect that the general public would back them up.

In this case, Christians end up choosing between either (as they see it) condoning something they believe to be sinful but offering hospitality/their service, and not condoning it, but denying their hospitality/service. In the case of bed and breakfasts, I'd probably agree that they should err on the side of hospitality. In the case of, for example, a Retreat Centre (which offers a specifically religious holiday experience), I think they're entirely justified in taking a stance on the issue, partly because it's extremely unlikely that those disagreeing with their morality will want to stay there anyway.

They could always let people who they consider sinners to stay anyway and hope that, by example and by showing love and compassion, they can 'enlighten' them? Or, perhaps, that these people deserve love and hospitality whether they change or not? I seem to recall Jesus was quite big on the whole 'non-judgemental, non-shunning' lectures. Didn't quite share his Dad's love of the Fire and Brimstone talk.

Otherwise most of Jesus' teachings could be written off unless you're applying them only to other Christians because you would be 'condoning' something considered wrong?

I've never grasped why people, Christians especially as it's in theory against their teachings, are so painstakingly judgemental.

I've a lot of time for ol' Jeezy Creezy tho Nice bloke. In fact, about the only nice one in the whole Bible o.O Shame about the Easter Eggs/Son of God/Crucifixion fiasco...

One of my faveys -

Jesus Vs. Jeezus

[Denyer]

In the case of, for example, a Retreat Centre (which offers a specifically religious holiday experience), I think they're entirely justified in taking a stance on the issue

It would seem reasonable, on a similar basis to Italian restaurants employing Italian staff, or health resorts holding patrons to prearranged detox diets.

Though this isn't what the current discussion regards.

[Kaylee]

In the case of, for example, a Retreat Centre (which offers a specifically religious holiday experience), I think they're entirely justified in taking a stance on the issue

It would seem reasonable, on a similar basis to Italian restaurants employing Italian staff, or health resorts holding patrons to prearranged detox diets.

Though this isn't what the current discussion regards.

Well, as a side note, what if the peoples wanting to go to the Retreat Centre were homosexuals? I know some gay Christians and they feel very worried in case they ever get outed. I'd have thought gay Christians have just as much right to go to a Christian retreat as anybody else?

I suppose it comes down to a question of whether you can be both homosexual and Christian, or whether the two are mutually exclusive.

[sprunkner]

mmm, because i don't like the way you choose to patronise people i am unfeeling on unempathic. Its all so logical..

Sorry, Fatty.

but its not sinfull - your religon is wrong.

Impy, my friend, I'm sorry, but you sound like more of a dick than anyone else with posts like that. Nothing but blind hatred and baseless argument-- what does it accomplish? On either side?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Dont call me a friend if your going to call me a dick.

Baseless? - thats a hoot, beliving that homosexuality is wrong because a book written about magical fairy says so?

Baseless? - so pre-judging someone based upon thier sexuality isnt? thats the funniest thing ive ever heard.

Its not just ignorant to the extream but downright scray, and you know what? why should I even have to explain? its old hat, its yesterdays news, its not even thought correct by the majority of religons anymore, its outdated and out-mooted because its frankly just 'wrong' - plain and simple.

and whats it achive?, quite alot actually because lucky for me alot of ppl know why its wrong all ready, ministers and vicars alike are changing thier views on acceptance already.

[Professor Smooth]

If Christians could provide anything resembling evidence to support their claims, I'd be inclined to spew less venom at them. They don't. Ever.

So the idea that the world should be run according to Christian ideals holds about as much water as the idea that it should be run according to those in Grimm's Fairy Tales.

[sprunkner]

I'm sorry if I came off as offensive. I said you sounded like a dick. I don't believe you are.

For the record, I support homosexual marriage both here and in whatever afterlife exists. This is a deliberate contradiction to what I was taught growing up Mormon, which has led me to the conclusion that I cannot, in good conscience, consider myself Mormon anymore. Maybe Mormon in the sense that a reformed Jew is Jewish, but certainly not orthodox, 100%traditional belief.

So I am not arguing against your conclusion, just your methods.

Baseless argument is anything without some kind of data backing it up. You tell me that many vicars are accepting it. Who? Where? You tell me the majority of religions are accepting homosexuality. Who? Where? I would be interested to know this stuff. I think we all would.

On another subject: Many religions, especially the one I was raised in, still believe that homosexuality is "curable." Look at these:

http://www.sbministries.org/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_repar.htm

And the Mormon one: http://www.evergreeninternational.org/

So people raised in and believing strongly in these religions are left to face an impossible question: Give up faith, family and friends for what often appears to only be sex, or abandon the idea of ever having a fully committed physical and emotional relationship?

My best friend in high school went through this. I believe he made the right decision to come out and leave the Church. He did not abandon faith in God, just the institution.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Regardless of if I can provide evidence from religous ppl I shouldnt really have to as it doesnt really enforce my point thats its just 'wrong' - its like explaining racism, I shouldnt have to anymore, its just 'wrong' - i mean I could list loads of reasons and social reasons as to why its wrong wrong but ultimately its just wrong.

Im so blunt because I find it impossible to argue against those who feel that relgion is right in saying its sinfull.

for instance.

"its wrong because gods says its wrong"

How can I ever possibly argue against that? - I cant because god is always right. like you say, the only choice is to renounce your faith, and generally i cannot see that happening.

For every reaons christians feel homosexuality is wrong, I feel the opposite - its not hatred, i just feel they are deluded.

[Kaylee]

I'm sorry if I came off as offensive. I said you sounded like a dick. I don't believe you are.

For the record, I support homosexual marriage both here and in whatever afterlife exists. This is a deliberate contradiction to what I was taught growing up Mormon, which has led me to the conclusion that I cannot, in good conscience, consider myself Mormon anymore. Maybe Mormon in the sense that a reformed Jew is Jewish, but certainly not orthodox, 100%traditional belief.

So I am not arguing against your conclusion, just your methods.

Baseless argument is anything without some kind of data backing it up. You tell me that many vicars are accepting it. Who? Where? You tell me the majority of religions are accepting homosexuality. Who? Where? I would be interested to know this stuff. I think we all would.

On another subject: Many religions, especially the one I was raised in, still believe that homosexuality is "curable." Look at these:

http://www.sbministries.org/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_repar.htm

And the Mormon one: http://www.evergreeninternational.org/

So people raised in and believing strongly in these religions are left to face an impossible question: Give up faith, family and friends for what often appears to only be sex, or abandon the idea of ever having a fully committed physical and emotional relationship?

My best friend in high school went through this. I believe he made the right decision to come out and leave the Church. He did not abandon faith in God, just the institution.

The 'cures' for homosexuality are pretty scary... AFAIK one can let alone the idea of coming out heterosexual afterwards, they could tell you that you were Napoleon Bonaparte and you'd come leave believing it o.O It's terrifying