Pope Flick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) the fact is, we are not tolerant of these things, so we have constructed a society to be specifically intolerant of certain kinds of behavior. based on this, homosexuals cannot use the "we were born this way" defense. if so, murderers could use the same defense. 1413678[/snapback] Right. So you're equating what two people do in private with the murder of another human being. That, my freind, is sick. Edited April 10, 2006 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 We're talking "hey kid, do you want to go to the zoo and get in my white, unmarked van" type of creeps. 1413679[/snapback] my point is that what you describe above is deviant. we have defined it as such and put in laws to prevent it. i'm sure if someone was having sex with a horse that was apparently consenting, we would have the cops out to haul the person away. we have classified that as deviant. we will not allow someone with multiple sex partners to create a legal bond of marriage with all of them, because we have ruled this out as deviant, unwanted behavior ... even if all adults consent. if a consenting brother and sister wanted to get married, it would be stopped. we have standards of decency and we build these into our laws. not all of them are for the protection of the innocent. my point is that all of these people could take the stance that "we were born this way." so, if this excuse is permitted for homosexuals, why not for all of these cases? why not be "tolerant" of all of this kind of behavior, because it is out of the control of the individual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I know many Christians who are accepting and supportive of gay friends and family; 1413671[/snapback] I do as well. They still think these people are sinners, but at the same time they know that we all are sinners. I think too many christians try to put the degree of sin committed in homosexuality as different than the ones they commit themselves. At least the ones that believe as this woman does. And they have a difficult time separating themselves from how they perceive this behavior morally versus how a society that is supposed to be blind to religious beliefs should view it. That's the problem with the woman's intolerance. But in a country with free speach, she should have the right to express that intolerance. Can anyone really defend that she shouldn't? Can we ever really and truly define what offensive speach is, so long as there are so many different people perceiving the speach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 sure you do. same thing with sex with multiple partners and needing to have multiple wives/husbands. so is a predisposition to group sex. all of these could be classified as "born with" natures of which we should all be tolerant. the fact is, we are not tolerant of these things, so we have constructed a society to be specifically intolerant of certain kinds of behavior. based on this, homosexuals cannot use the "we were born this way" defense. if so, murderers could use the same defense. Erm, dunno where you've been for the last 20 years, but sex with multiple partners and group sex are essentially tolerated. Swingers groups rent out hotel ballrooms and advertise these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) Seems to me the fundimental problem here is the fact that any religion teaches hate and/or judgement towards anyone just trying to live their life in whatever style they want without hurting others... If that wasn't the case, this wouldn't even be an issue. It's so freakin' stupid. Edited April 10, 2006 by TDFFFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Erm, dunno where you've been for the last 20 years, but sex with multiple partners and group sex are essentially tolerated. Swingers groups rent out hotel ballrooms and advertise these days. 1413691[/snapback] not if i want to marry all of my partners. there are people that want to do this ... don't you watch HBO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 my point is that what you describe above is deviant. we have defined it as such and put in laws to prevent it. i'm sure if someone was having sex with a horse that was apparently consenting, we would have the cops out to haul the person away. we have classified that as deviant. we will not allow someone with multiple sex partners to create a legal bond of marriage with all of them, because we have ruled this out as deviant, unwanted behavior ... even if all adults consent. if a consenting brother and sister wanted to get married, it would be stopped. we have standards of decency and we build these into our laws. not all of them are for the protection of the innocent. my point is that all of these people could take the stance that "we were born this way." so, if this excuse is permitted for homosexuals, why not for all of these cases? why not be "tolerant" of all of this kind of behavior, because it is out of the control of the individual? 1413688[/snapback] Harmless behavior versus harmful behavior. We seem to be okay with tolerating harmless, and not okay with tolerating harmful. Would you not agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 But in a country with free speach, she should have the right to express that intolerance. Can anyone really defend that she shouldn't? Can we ever really and truly define what offensive speach is, so long as there are so many different people perceiving the speach? 1413690[/snapback] That's a good point. I think she has the RIGHT to speak as she feels necessary; but by the same token, employers and such have the RIGHT to not have those views aired in their workplace, and schools have the right not to have those views presented in their classrooms. If she becomes marginalized by speaking her mind, well, that's more of a "lifestyle choice" than being gay, in my mind, and as such is her choice to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 don't you watch HBO? 1413695[/snapback] Our standard for reality is now HBO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 But in a country with free speach, she should have the right to express that intolerance. 1413690[/snapback] Bingo. That's why we crazy libs at the ACLU will fight for the right of Nazis to march and stupid intolerant biitches like this one to follow what she sees as the commands of her religion and speak out against homosexuals. Because if you take away one group's right to free speech, you can take away anyone's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 An important disticnction here is that this type of hate speech is not allowed at pubic institutions. You want to join the klan? Go right ahead. At the bottom is the summation nicely put: because the Boys Scouts discriminate against homos, public instituions are allowed to ban them from campuses. No one is arguing that a private organization has no right to choose their membership, but they need to accept their public consequences for their choices (fewer places to promote themselves). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) Harmless behavior versus harmful behavior. We seem to be okay with tolerating harmless, and not okay with tolerating harmful. Would you not agree? 1413696[/snapback] if i want to marry 2 consenting women, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to marry my mom, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to have sex with animals, i wouldn't be harming anyone. my point with these radical examples is that if you use the same arguments that homosexuality is using, then you do knock down many of the constructs that prevent these deviancies. with children, it is easy because it is directly harmful. we cannot tolerate that which is harmful to the innocent. the others are about as cut and dry as homosexuality is, and if you get one, then people should logically argue for all of these things. there should be no sacred stance on the union of a man and a woman, and we should not just have marriage laws that protect only this kind of a relationship. homosexuals are attacking this notion with essentially the same argument that any consenting sexual partners could use. i believe the union of a man and a woman is sacred and is what should be supported by our laws and it is how our Creator intended us to be (which is obvious). if we do not want to support this as a society, and we want to introduce tolerance and legal status for homosexual relationships, why draw the line on any deviant behavior, as long as the adults consent. why not argue for protected class states for all variations of sexual preferences that are not harmful? Edited April 10, 2006 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 and to the case at hand, we should all be tolerant of any type of sexual behavior being offered up and not be speaking out against it ... despite any standards of decency we may have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 if i want to marry 2 consenting women, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to marry my mom, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to have sex with animals, i wouldn't be harming anyone. I've always been very ambivalent towards polygamy/polyandry - consenting adults. Incest is forbidden due the increase in birth defects should close relatives reproduce. Bestiality is forbidden because you can't really determine level of consent so far as animals go. i believe the union of a man and a woman is sacred and is what should be supported by our laws and it is how our Creator intending us to be (which is obvious). if we do not want to support this as a society, and we want to introduce tolerance and legal status for homosexual relationships, why draw the line on any deviant behavior, as long as the adults consent. why not argue for protected class states for all variations of sexual preference that is not harmful? 1413704[/snapback] Another scaredy-cat conservo - "the homos down the street devalue my marriage" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Because if you take away one group's right to free speech, you can take away anyone's. 1413700[/snapback] Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I sort of agree, but if you want to hate a religion for hating gays you can just hate all of them. You can also hate most agnostics and athiests as the majority of them also cannot stand gays. You can basically just about hate a majority of the population on earth. 1413592[/snapback] Just because the Christian Right s the loudest does not mean they represent most Christians. They don't. These guys need to pay attention to what the Bible says. Where does Jesus condemn gays and how many times does he condemn hypocrites and adulterers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 i believe the union of a man and a woman is sacred and is what should be supported by our laws and it is how our Creator intended us to be (which is obvious). if we do not want to support this as a society, and we want to introduce tolerance and legal status for homosexual relationships, why draw the line on any deviant behavior, as long as the adults consent. why not argue for protected class states for all variations of sexual preferences that are not harmful? 1413704[/snapback] And this issue isn't necessarily even DEALING with the gay marriage debate - this is some fundo coming to the conclusion that rules mandating she keep her yap shut in public institutions are some sort of violation of her rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 if i want to marry 2 consenting women, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to marry my mom, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to have sex with animals, i wouldn't be harming anyone. my point with these radical examples is that if you use the same arguments that homosexuality is using, then you do knock down many of the constructs that prevent these deviancies. with children, it is easy because it is directly harmful. we cannot tolerate that which is harmful to the innocent. the others are about as cut and dry as homosexuality is, and if you get one, then people should logically argue for all of these things. there should be no sacred stance on the union of a man and a woman, and we should not just have marriage laws that protect only this kind of a relationship. homosexuals are attacking this notion with essentially the same argument that any consenting sexual partners could use. i believe the union of a man and a woman is sacred and is what should be supported by our laws and it is how our Creator intended us to be (which is obvious). if we do not want to support this as a society, and we want to introduce tolerance and legal status for homosexual relationships, why draw the line on any deviant behavior, as long as the adults consent. why not argue for protected class states for all variations of sexual preferences that are not harmful? 1413704[/snapback] or you could just move to Utah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 if i want to marry 2 consenting women, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to marry my mom, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to have sex with animals, i wouldn't be harming anyone. my point with these radical examples is that if you use the same arguments that homosexuality is using, then you do knock down many of the constructs that prevent these deviancies. with children, it is easy because it is directly harmful. we cannot tolerate that which is harmful to the innocent. the others are about as cut and dry as homosexuality is, and if you get one, then people should logically argue for all of these things. there should be no sacred stance on the union of a man and a woman, and we should not just have marriage laws that protect only this kind of a relationship. homosexuals are attacking this notion with essentially the same argument that any consenting sexual partners could use. i believe the union of a man and a woman is sacred and is what should be supported by our laws and it is how our Creator intended us to be (which is obvious). if we do not want to support this as a society, and we want to introduce tolerance and legal status for homosexual relationships, why draw the line on any deviant behavior, as long as the adults consent. why not argue for protected class states for all variations of sexual preferences that are not harmful? 1413704[/snapback] Yer an idiot. When did Senator Rick "Man on Dog" Sanotrum show up at the Huddle using tonorator as an alias? Children cant consent. Animals cant consent. Polygamy is not necessarily deviant (it was one norm for most of human history), but it is so socially counter-productive in terms of inheritence rights, etc., that our society has decided that a CONTRACT of that nature should not be allowed (realize, please, that polygamy goes on all over America but is not recognized legally). Incest has proven medical issues--non-starter. So, basically, tonormanondog, all yer so-called slippery slope arguments are weak asz pathetic junk because there are valid governmental and societal interests in prohibiting them. Face it, for yer own religious reasons (and possibly yer own repressed man-love), you think that two consenting American adults of opposite genders should receive legal benefits from the government that two consenting American adults of the same gender should not recieve. That is gender based bigotry. And it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That is why the kookoo bird fundies need a Constitutional amendment to outlaw ghay marriage. And that lady can spew her intolerance in her backwoods trailer snake handling "church" but not on the taxpayer dime in a public school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 That's a good point. I think she has the RIGHT to speak as she feels necessary; but by the same token, employers and such have the RIGHT to not have those views aired in their workplace, and schools have the right not to have those views presented in their classrooms. If she becomes marginalized by speaking her mind, well, that's more of a "lifestyle choice" than being gay, in my mind, and as such is her choice to make. 1413697[/snapback] I agree with the caveat that if GIT accepts state or federal subsidy or is part of the state university system, then in effect they become agents of the state and do not have the same rights as a private entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Another scaredy-cat conservo - "the homos down the street devalue my marriage" 1413708[/snapback] way off base. i'm not concerned with the value that a homosexual places on my marriage. i could care less. i'm concerned with a society that is willing to break down the protection of a man/woman relationship and what would happen to that society once we start to do that. there is nothing stopping us from polygamy if we permit gay marriage ... or any other of probably many variations of our traditional marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 if i want to marry 2 consenting women, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to marry my mom, i can't. we wouldn't be harming anyone. if i want to have sex with animals, i wouldn't be harming anyone. 1413704[/snapback] If you want to marry 2 consenting women, you can't. That is true. But many people believe you should be able to. I certainly do. If you want to marry your mom, or maybe more appropriately sister, well, the reason that laws against this exist is that in a coupling union of family members children born in that union have an extreme possibility of birth defects. That is harmful. If you want to have sex with animals, who says the animal wants to have sex with you? There's no consent there. Harmful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 way off base. i'm not concerned with the value that a homosexual places on my marriage. i could care less. i'm concerned with a society that is willing to break down the protection of a man/woman relationship and what would happen to that society once we start to do that. there is nothing stopping us from polygamy if we permit gay marriage ... or any other of probably many variations of our traditional marriage. 1413723[/snapback] Not very much - man-woman is still by FAR the dominant paradigm. Those "sky-is-falling" fears that everyone would go homo and the race would become extinct are pretty much insane paranoia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) way off base. i'm not concerned with the value that a homosexual places on my marriage. i could care less. i'm concerned with a society that is willing to break down the protection of a man/woman relationship and what would happen to that society once we start to do that. there is nothing stopping us from polygamy if we permit gay marriage ... or any other of probably many variations of our traditional marriage. 1413723[/snapback] Legally speaking, what is marriage other than a contract that establishes a union between people that allows for certain rights under the law? Can it possibly be more? Edited April 10, 2006 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 10, 2006 Author Share Posted April 10, 2006 Legally speaking, what is marriage other than a contract tat establishes a union between people that allows for certain rights under the law? Can it possibly be more? 1413732[/snapback] Obviously, a church ceremony entails MUCH more than a simple legal agreement. But to heathens such as myself, a declaration in front of friends and family that this is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with, and recognition of the state that we are indeed in this together has been MORE than sufficient for my wife and myself. I don't see any reason we shouldn't grant homosexuals the same consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.