To draw an analogy do you think Galileo should have kept his mouth shut about the earth being round and not square? Believe me the community didn’t want to hear that. Had he not been on good standing with the church he would have been killed for it. In the end he was put under house arrest by the church despite many letters of warning. But Galileo wanted to show the society the truth… a truth that they wished not t o hear or see. Gays only want society to see the truth that the society does not wish to hear. It’s true that there are gays and lesbians and that they have sex. This is the truth, in the same way society should know the truth.
Why should gays not be themselves in public when heterosexuals can be in the context of sexual preference? Gays ARE entitled to be public about their sexuality because heterosexuals are. Equality. It’s something society has to get use to. Welcome to the new millenium. You can fight it or you can accept it. Homosexuals are discriminated against by the simple fact that they have to hide, they can’t be themselves. People can figure out when someone is gay, the minute they do they treat them DIFFERENTLY, this difference is the exclusion a homosexual had to live with which affects their ability to get a job, make friends, lead a normal life style, etc.
You continually speak of a communities wishes. So tell me, what are the wishes of the Mississauga, Ontario, Canada community? More importantly, explain to me how you can know that. Each community will have some of it;s members for and some against homosexuality. The reform is still quite new, so many communities will have more people against homosexuality than for. But this is because they don’t understand it, they fear it, they act as though it is contagious. A prominent author Timothy F. Murphy on the topic of homosexuality has done extensive research into the topic of homosexuality, societal mentality, and even with the legislation of gay rights. He has found that gays have actually raised children up to be healthy, smart, developed, and…straight.
It’s as though we are justified as a community in doing whatever we want, if we don’t like something we can get rid of it without hesitation. Haven’t we progressed further than merely working on first impressions and gut instincts?
Lastly, within the context you speak in there is the erroneous theme that homosexuals are somehow apart from the community. You speak of gays respecting the wishes of the community, but the homosexuals are the community. As are straights. Your argument could be turned on its head by saying that straights should be the ones abiding by the homosexuals view since homosexuals are not infringing on straights ability to express their sexual preference in public, it’s the straights that are infringing on homosexuals ability to express their sexual preference in public. But you cannot do away with homosexuality, so it is up to heterosexuals to come to terms with it.
If Galileo went to church services with a tee-shirt saying "Don't be a Flat-head" or held a "Roundness Pride" parade through the middle of Vatican city, then I would say he was violating his obligations. Discussing his views in an environment intended for such discussions, though, is perfectly acceptable. The Church's reaction is an example of an instituion violating their obligation to the individual.
This all has very little to do with views themselves, and very much to do with appropriate and innapropriate ways to express and demonstrate them.
Point of note, what gays are advocating is an ethical, and therefore subjective, point of view. They are not right in the sense that Galileo was right, even if their view does gain dominance.
Gays, Straights, and everybody else have moral obligations that vary slightly depending on their community, for no reason other than ethics are so tied up in inter-human relations. It happens to be that homosexuality is found to be repulsive in a majority of Western communities. There are always going to be groups and practices that society doesn't want to hear about.
Why does society 'have to' get used to something? If I invent a completely new thing...say, covering myself with skunk-stink and walking around reeking, how many people do I have to get to do it with me before I'm suddenly entitled to do it in public and society has to put up with me?
Because the majority of people believe homosexuality is a immoral, disgusting thing. This will affect people’s behavior, there’s nothing to be done about that. As I said, there will always be practices that society thinks are immoral and disgusting. What I haven’t seen is any good reason why homosexuality shouldn’t be one of them, other than they happen to be the most vocal right now.
I’m sure I don’t care. The community will have wishes, though, things they consider acceptable and not-acceptable, and people are obligated to honor those wishes until they go through the proper channels to change them.
The Mississauguans sound like a ignorant, fearful lot. Fortunately, most people in my area who object to homosexuality aren’t like that. We’re intelligent, thoughtful people just like you who have different ideas of ethics. One thing I’ve learned is that saying “People who disagree with me about issue X just think that way because Y” is never ever true.
No, society hasn't and society never will. The pro-gay movement, just like every political movement, isn't seeking to educate people, it's seeking to replace current gut-reactions with a new set of gut-reactions.
I think you're viewing community as "Everybody everywhere", which isn't what I mean to say. A community could be a city, a country, a cafe full of people, or four children in a car. Whatever group of people you're affecting, and are affecting you in turn, regarding the issue in question. There's a town a few miles from where I live, called Crouseville, where the church is the biggest building in town, the only other public building is a post office, and there's only 2 streets. It's a very conservative community. If a group of homosexuals went there to protest at the Church, the only thing they would accomplish is angering adults, scaring children, and generally messing with otherwise simple lives (some people would probably get a laugh from it, too). Those townsfolk aren't hurting anybody, there's nothing to be gained by attacking their political views in an unwanted way. This is hypothetical (and unlikely) example of an immoral violation of community standards.
By the same token, if I went into a gay bar holding a placard listing a selection of Bible verses condemning homosexuality, I may make some people angry, others depressed or uncomfortable (some people would probably get a laugh from it, too). The people weren't hurting anybody, and no good came from my action. This is another example of an immoral violation of community standards.
So for your ethics is right to give a different treatment to people who don’t like the same thing that you do?
Uccisore
So you can’t use your ethics outside you community.
Uccisore
Right… I live in London and I work in the middle of a Muslim community. Most women are covered up. I don’t like it, I think it is oppressive. Considering that England is not a Muslim country, I suppose I have then the right to tell them to hide their costumes, and pretend they are not Muslims because it is my right to not be offended by people. Same goes to those odd freaks who wear baggy clothes, and those with dyed hair… Oh! And those with lipsticks… just the red ones… and the pinks ones… other are fine by me.
Uccisore
Have you thought that maybe gays find you disgusting and offensive for being heterosexual?
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world where we get only what we like of it, and noticing that and adapting to it is part of growing up. So I find you statement very childish.
Uccisore
You have the obligation to accept differences… don’t you?
I remember a guy who didn’t like differences… he was born in Austria and came to power in 1933… you know how he sorted his problem with differences out? He killed them.
Magius
Still… what is they were choosing to be gays? It doesn’t change anything. Socialists don’t born socialists, but they were also repressed for many years… still are. Even choosing to be, doesn’t change the fact that you can show what you believe and what you are.
Magius
Actually, at least in the country I am from, many slaves didn’t want to be freed because they had no place to go, a house to leave, food to eat… so their freedom just meant a new kind of imprisonment.
Uccisore
If you feel offended by gays, then you are the problem, not them. They aren’t preaching or wishing you to be homosexual. They aren’t doing anything to YOU… you are feeling it yourself, it’s not their fault.
Uccisore
Only because the church said so. It all depends on what sort of thing is immoral. For me it’s to tread people differently and to repress them. For the church it’s the opposite. For Nazis everyone that wasn’t catholic and German were immoral. For many countries in Africa not circumcised women is immoral. For Muslims not covering yourself (women) is immoral. For Jews, eating pork and working on Sabbath is immoral…
Uccisore
If a Alien came to eath and said that in their planet kicking children is moral, doesn’t give them the right to come and kick our children. So if you can’t live in a world of differences, you can’t leave your community, can you?
Uccisore
Gays don’t go to churches holding flags saying they are gay and the heterosexuals are wrong. Do they? It’s your ‘sacred’ place, like the gay bar is their sacred place… but, a normal pub can have hetero, homos, muslims (having a glass of water), jews, catholics, atheists… right? That’s the world we live in… we created it. The church created it, the heteros, the cultures… You and your community, won’t change the fact that there are differences in the world, whatever they are… of sexual nature, cultural, religious… Now, you have the change of feeling offended and suffer your whole life… cos it won’t change… or you can do like the Austrian man, become powerful and kill all the people you don’t find it goes with your ethics and morals… or you can accept it and let people be different. You decided…
Would you like someone telling you that you can’t be what you are and what you wanna be? So don’t do it to others… you are not better than anyone else for the rules to apply to others and not to you.
You're assuming your position, that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable thing. The above sentence could be used to defend pedophiles or incestuous relationships too.
Fine. Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too. Why do I get the idea, though, that you wouldn’t be satisfied with that?
Didn’t you say most of the people in your community dress that way? If so, they have no obligation to listen to you.
Well, if you are honestly offended or repulsed by those people- and so are the majority of folks in your community- then yes, you can bring up that they way they dress is upsetting everybody, and they have an obligation to stop it. This is verysimple, really.
What, homosexuals are bigoted? No, that didn’t occur to me. I would hope, if anything, they find a set of behavior offensive, not a state of being.
I have an obligation to not hurt or persecute people- including, but not limited to, those with 'differences'. I don't see what I have an obligation to 'accept' diddly-squat. As far as I know, I'm allowed to have any opinion about any behavior that I think it's reasonable to have. Right?
Wow! Are you saying that I’m going to kill people, or that I should kill people, or that people who don’t like homosexuality are guilty of genocide, or that I’m a German dictator, or that every belief that a person who commits evil acts has must be incorrect or…?
OK, if there’s no objective ethics, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I’ll try to make my agenda stick in the world, you’ll do the same, and neither of us has any special moral validation. Agreed?
No, I was confirming what you stand for, that’s all. Pedophilia is sexual abuse, incestuous relationships are, most of the time, mental or sexual abuse. If a mother wants to have sex with her adult son, is wrong, because she will be betraying her husband, the same goes to father and daughter. I have no objections in a brother and sister relationship apart from the fact that they could have problems with their offspring.
Fine. Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too. Why do I get the idea, though, that you wouldn't be satisfied with that?
Well, you can’t own a community, a piece of land, and not allow gays to step in it. What I say about keeping it to your community is that you can’t go out protesting against gays as they can’t go protesting against heterosexuals. You keep your feelings to yourself, and your community keep their feelings to themselves…
I see, so it is the majority then? The so called democracy. Right, so… if the majority of a community decide that you committed a crime, and you didn’t, but they are happy in blaming you, than that’s the right thing to do, as it pleases the majority?
I see… so, in this case, your community could be invaded by gays, so then you would have to accept them. Good to know… is a good way of sorting things out.
So, in your opinion, people should all be just like the other? Like a perfect race… with perfect morals and ethics… if am not mistaken that sort of thing happened already…
Yes, you can have any opinion you want… white people had an opinion about black people some years ago, so they enslave them.
Am I? I am saying that that was an episode in history (actually there were many) and that is the solution that some of them came up with. Does it means you will do the same? You decide it… not me.
If they kill them, yes
I commented what this sort of hatred against differences can cause… if you gonna do anything, that’s your problem.
OK, we're back to the analogy thing again. No, guilt or innocence of a crime is a matter of fact, which can be proven or disproven. Locking an innocent person is prison is a violation of social obligations.
By contract, sexual devients keeping their kinks to themselves is a matter of common courtesy, if they are in a community that they know would be made uncomfortable by them. "People should accept homosexuality" or "People should not accept homosexuality" are not statements that can be proven or disproven like a court case. They are ethical statements that will differ from individual to individual depending on certain foundation beliefs about God, humanity, and such. Since you have no objective mandate that your point of view is correct, you have no grounds on which to force your ideals on society.
In other words, a society that wants to reject homosexuality is perfectly entitled to do so, as long as they don't violate other obligations by commting violence against gays and so on.
Because you can own what it doesn’t belong to you.
Uccisore
So, imprisoning a person that hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of what? Of his freedom, right?
Why do we lock up criminals? Because they can’t live our society. Why? Because they do thing we don’t approve… oh wait… isn’t what you are suggesting then? So actually you are ‘locking up’ gays because you think they are criminals… isn’t it?
Uccisore
Don’t play the victim here. You might never do a gay any harm, but that’s you,… if you spread hatred, soon it will reach someone who will hate gays more than you do and they will committee crimes against them because they think like you do.
Once in history, black people were slaves because the white man thought they were different and didn’t like this difference. Time passed by to prove that no black people were inferior than white (actually they are biologically stronger), but they still have to fight for the right of being… black? Do people NEED to fight for the right to be what they are? Depending on people like you, yes… some still fight for the right to BE. So i am afraid i will have to pick on you till you either give up or change your mind.
You can’t violate freedom because freedom doesn’t dictate anything to violate. Freedom is just the space between obligations. Locking someone up who didn’t do anything wrong is a violation of how we’re obligated to treat people.
Yeah, if you say so.
Uh-huh. I don’t know where you got the idea that “Some people who agree with you do terrible things, therefore you must be wrong” is rational, but it’s certainly been well ingrained.
Showing me how ignorant and irrational your point of view is isn't going to make me change my mind. You can be as dogged as you want, but comparing me to Hitler, accusing me of things I haven't done, and making horrible analogies to make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not isn't making me agree with you, or even get frustrated with my point of view.
I'm sure you've seen the tactics you're using work quite often, but they're generally used to humilate the 'other side' for the benefit of a [i]third party[/i]. In other words, shrieking "You're Hitler! You're Hitler" until I get bored with you and stop replying may convince another person that I am, in fact, evil or whatever. But you and I will always know that you just didn't have anything credible to say.
Right… because you live in a place doesn’t mean you own it…the land was there before you and, like anyone else, shouldn’t consider it as you property.
If you think they are criminals, what else can I say, but that you are wrong. Having gay sex isn’t a crime. Is proved that in nature there are many species who have homosexual relations. You religious ‘morals’ make it a crime, it doesn’t mean it is a natural crime.
As you admitted, you think they are criminals, so why don’t you like when I compare this situation to the Nazis? It’s the same line on thought… in many places people are killed because they are criminals… is that what you suggest? So everyone that doesn’t live the way Uccisore likes, is wrong. Aren’t you playing God there? Judging who should do what, and how?
You came to that conclusion, not me.
Is a person go out preaching hatred, doesn’t mean they will or already committed any crime, but they might influence others to do so.
Oh please…. You are the one who hate gays for no reason, you are the one who wants to ban other people from your community, you are the one judging others, you who havent give me a good reason to believe gay people deserve to be banned, that they are worse than you. As far as I can see, you are the ignorant, irrational, sexist and probably racist (following your line of thoughts). You just told me gays are criminals… how irrational can this be?
Haha… I have to laugh not to cry on such absurd argument. I compared your line of thought to the Nazi only because, in case you don’t know, didn’t accept the differences we have in our world… just like you. LINE OF THOUGHT. I haven’t ACCUSE you of anything… I said AGAIN that this line of thought can case wars. I don’t know where you come from, but if you don’t read the news, the tragedy with the twin towers was because of hate, because some Muslims think they have the right to kill who is not Muslim. Is a line of thought again… if you can’t understand that, then you should argue about it.
I do. I am frustrated that there are people in the world claiming to be religious and still carry much judgment and hate in their hearts. I am actually very sad that you have such opinion about other human being and I can’t believe that for you to be a better person you must prove how ‘awful’ other people are. Are you afraid that for accepting gays into your community that you won’t be close to God anymore? Seems so… so why don’t you just be good yourself and stop judging… free will, remember?
For f**k sake mate! Go back to my posts and find where I said ‘You are Hitler’! Where have I humiliated you? I thought we were discussing about you not liking gays. As I think they are no different from me, I will stand up to this. I do fight for gay rights, as I fight for women right, immigrant rights, refugee’s rights… etc. I only want you to understand that they deserve the same rights as you do and is not because they aren’t perfect to your eyes doesn’t mean they are less than you are. If that’s humiliation for you, which isnt,… then you shouldn’t have started the arguing.
I didn’t say you were evil, I don’t even know you to say such thing. What I know about you is your view on gay rights, and that’s what we are discussing. If you think they are criminals, I don’t, and we will discuss it till you change your mind of give up, because I can’t accept you labeling and generalizing all gay people as criminals… it’s absurd… this is a misunderstanding of the nature of gays. You are obviously allowed not to like them, and to reject them in your home… but you can’t alienated them from a community, a society or the world, is just not fair.
If you come to a forum to argue about your thoughts on it, you have to be opened to other opinions… and to people like me who will defend gay rights and their freedom to be gay.
If anyone comes to the forum ranting black people, I will do the same… So don’t take it as a personal thing, remember, I don’t even know you to be personal… I only know what you have showed me.
Well… you should read the posts again, all you can say is that you have the right to ban gays because they are criminals. That’s far from being credible. Is pure prejudice and fear. If you want to ignore everything I said, then do it, I can’t do nothing but keep being frustrated by people with this sort of hatred against another human being.
I will put in a short note about this matter as well.
It’s not wrong or evil being gay. It’s nature (or Gods will if you prefer) that have created this variation, so in those cases it’s not up to the individuals to decide if they should be gay or not. In some cases people that are not born homosexual are being brought up this way. It’s also popular today in some groups to be gay, and just because of this people act as homosexuals. In those cases I think it’s wrong. A person should follow his/her biological nature. A successful psychotherapy will sort out those that act as homosexuals from those that have this natural. It’s not right to try to convert a true homosexual in to heterosexuality. This will not create a whole and happy individ, but an individ that goes against his/her nature.
It’s possible that homosexual people are superior to heterosexual people from one standpoint: Nature always try new ways to find successful solutions; and homosexuals might be the first step towards a new human. Androgyny would be superior to the human as we see him/her today, and homosexuality might be the first step. So it’s not up to us to judge if homosexuality is wrong or not, the future will tell if this is a successful solution.
Homophobia however is not based on the fact if homosexuality is right or wrong. It’s a mental illness that resides in the judger, and blown out of proportions. I’ve seen this come from Christians a lot, and it’s understandable because most Christians (that I know) are very dogmatic.
Ah, I see. I think we can agree, though, that various societies have different rules, and that the bounds of a society is pretty typically defined geographically. Gay rights aside, communities of people in a certain area have always made rules to live by that apply to that area. Whether or not homosexuality is accepted would be one.
Sorry. I won’t use confusing things like “Yeah, if you say so” anymore. What I should have said was “The idea that I think gays are criminals is so wrong and so irrelevant that there’s no good reason for you to have brought it up. Therefore, I will dismiss it and hope you said something more rational further down the post”. Sorry for leading you astray.
First, I never said or implied that I hate gays. Second, I never said or implied that I wanted to ban anybody from any community. That, of course, would be why I haven't given a good reason for it. Third, I overestimated you when I figured you would realize "Yeah, if you say so" wasn't an endorsement of gays being criminals so much as me saying "You seem determined to characterize me a certain way regardless of the truth, so I'll let it go".
OK, and what’s the purpose of the comparison? Did the fingers just type away for no particular reason? To what conclusion was I supposed to be lead when you talked about my similarities with Nazis?
OK…it’s getting obvious that you say all this same stuff to anybody who disagrees with you about homosexuality, because you clearly haven’t been reading what I’ve said in the least. If you had been paying attention, you’d realize that my view has nothing to do with hate, nothing to with religion, nothing to do with any of the above. My point is simply that when a person enters a community, they are obliged to abide by that communities customs of acceptable public behavior. What the heck does that have to do with hating or banning anybody?
Well, you thought wrong. We’re not discussing what I like or dislike at all. Or, at least, I’m not.
Well, certainly. But then, I'm not the one who feels an obligation to force someone to either change there mind or be silent. I'm not the one who repeatedly makes analogies between the views of the people I'm talking to, and the views of what most would consider the most evil human being in recent history. How open to my opinion are you?
Yes, they always have rules… like immigration. In Saudi Arabia few years ago, no one was allowed in without and invitation. Doesn’t mean it’s right. I think all countries and communities that possess a peace of the world and claim their land, is wrong. As I said, we don’t own lands, we use it… we borrow it from nature, from the world… from God, if you want to see it that way. So it’s everything that lives should be able to move around the face of the earth as they pleased. But that’s in a large scale… still, there are rules in the free countries that allow free coming and going. You can’t own a street, it belongs to the government, which means it belongs to everyone in the country. So, even if your community dislikes gays, they can’t ban gays from it, because the land is free to anyone who wants to walk on it. You, then, have you privacy in your home,… if you don’t like them, you are free not to let them in.
If you want to ban someone’s freedom to come and go, if you (and you community) want to ban someone from your society is because the person doesn’t fit the ‘rules’ of your society. That’s what we do with criminal.
You didn’t said YOU wanted to ban them, but you suggested:
‘In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye if they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.’… ’ Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too’… ‘society that wants to reject homosexuality is perfectly entitled to do so’
Maybe you are using the wrong word there… cos rejection means to throw away, cast away.
True. You just think they are wrong.
You shouldn’t overestimate people.
Line of thought… prejudice against what is different from you, non acceptance of other ‘cultures’
Of course I say the same thing… if a person has prejudice against gays I does disappoint me, so I would say the same, why would i say differently if that’s what i feel?
We are talking about gays in a community that rejects them. You think they have the right to reject them, I think they haven’t go this right. I think that the community who rejects gays is because they have religious morals which implies that gays are wrong and they should hide it a pretend they are not to please the society. If you allow a society grow up thinking gays are wrong and they are disgusting and should hide themselves from other, they will soon bring homophobia to their houses and soon hatred and crimes against gays. To believe that this can’t happen in ignore history and all the things we see today, even in societies that have gays from long time. Like in britain.
Not allowing gays to say or just be gay in public is censorship and violation of their right to free expression. They are harming no one kissing other males on the street, as its not a harm to a heterosexual to kiss on the streets.
I am against your point of view that a community should have the right to reject them. The hatred and banning come as a consequence of this right.
True. This is a very important subject to me, and I mislead the discussion when I said that. But I made my point above of what we are discussing.
I do feel the need to change peopels mind about gay prejudice and rights. I don’t think it is a bad thing to feel this need, as it’s not a bad thing to change our minds either.
Again… I said line of thought. I never compared you, as a person, to Hitler or the Nazis, I compared the line of thought. Prejudice leads to hatred, and (as I said before) you might not be the person who will committee anything against gays, but someone who will agree with your that a community has the right to reject gays, will committee a crime against them if they think that ‘that gay couple over there is kissing in public and they are not supposed to. Which is what happen with the Nazis. Not all German was against Jews, but the ones who were against them were free to treat them badly after they were told they were allowed to.
You aren’t bringing to me any new opinion or point of view. I heard all this ‘right to reject gays’ before, so I have an opinion about that already.
Is not right to censor a people because of their sexuality, is not right to reject them or ban they freedom of expression, as it would be right censor or reject other cultures and people from other origins if they aren’t casing you any harm.
The argument that you feel OFFENDED is not good enough, the problem there is within the person, not with gays or whoever they are repressing.
Now, I apologize for saying you hate gays, you didn’t say that, however it doesn’t dismiss the rest of my arguments. And as I said, I am not against you, I am against what you said in this subject. The same things I said to you, the same comparison with your line of thought and the Nazi line of thought, I say to parents and my brother and to anyone who think gays are not allowed to the same things as heterosexuals.
No actually, I don't. I say a community can place limitations on public behavior, in the defense of their tastes and beliefs. Related to gays, a community can state 'We don't want people to engage in same-sex public displays of affection, or wear clothes bearing slogans with pro-homosexuality messages', and newcomers to that community are obligated to abide by those rules. It's the exact same reason why I wouldn't go to a country where cows are worshipped, and walk down the street eating a steak sandwich. Do I think eating beef is morally wrong? Not at all.
I would say it depends on the size of the community. Can I throw a party in my apartment where only white, male, 30 year olds are allowed to show up? Sure I can. I would think I could even have a large club or small business that held to limitations like that. However, if my 'community' was large enough that those restrictions were making it hard for some people to be employed or have housing, then I would say the limitations violate fair-treatment obligations to blacks, women, etc.
It goes without saying that I also think a group can legitimately formed that excludes men, whites, the middle-aged, and so on.
Good question.
For the sake of this discussion, I would say a community is any group of people that when considered together, have controlling interest over the place/organization in question. Therefore, the community of my apartment would be me and my roomate, the community of my town would be everybody living and paying taxes there, the community of a club would be everybody paying dues (or whatever else is required for legitimate membership) and so on.
Also, communities can influence larger communities, and their actions must be judged in the context of the larger community they affect. In other words, the community of my apartment doesn’t have sole rights to decide how loud I can play my music at 3 a.m., as this has serious impact on the larger community of “People who live in the same building”. A community of people living in an apartment building across town need not be involved, though (unless I get a lot more money to invest in a sound system, that is).
Certainly. However, unless you establish an objective mandate of ethics, any attempt you make to force Saudi arabia to open it's borders is no more right than any attempt they make to keep them closed. With that kind of subjectivity, the only relevant question is "Who gets to make the decision", and the only answer can be "Each particular community".
I would agree with this, but I think this raises the question of “What’s so special about a home, and how precisley is it defined?” I can keep purple people out of my home, sure. Can I keep them off my yard? Can a series of families living next to each other decide to keep purple people off their street? I don’t see any definite distinction.
Perhaps I was. I think between by the time you get to this point in this post, you’ll understand what I was really trying to say.
I do think homosexuality is morally wrong, yes. But that’s based on religious beliefs that not everybody shares. I don’t think there’s any particular obligation to stop people from performing homosexual acts in private.
Because the same old thing won’t nessicarily apply to every argument for a position. For example, my argument is totally independant of the question “Is homosexuality ethical?”, and has very little to do with predjudice, so 90% of what you’ve said so far in the conversation hasn’t been as relevant as it could have been.
If I can teach that homosexuality is wrong and/or disgusting, and have that impact the next generation in the way you describe, why can I not also teach that crimes against gays (or anyone else) are wrong and/or disgusting, and have that stick just as well?
I think rights are a farce, so I don’t really have anything more to say about this.
I also, don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to change people’s minds. The problem is, when some people try to change minds, they’re accused of being intolerant or ‘forcing their views on people’ or whatever, and when other people try to change minds, they’re sainted for it.
And, as I said, ‘I’m not the one who repeatedly makes analogies between the views of the people I’m talking to, and the views of what most would consider the most evil human being in recent history.’ While I’m certainly glad that you didn’t say I was an evil person, I think comparing my views to Hitler’s doesn’t say anything meaningful about them. It feels like you’re trying to give a reason to dismiss my views without due consideration.
That doesn’t make my view wrong. Someone could read the words you’ve said in other threads about religion, and go burn down a synagogue full of old ladies because of it. And that doesn’t make your views wrong.
I think we covered a lot of ground with this most recent exchange.
OOps, also needed to address some things that Uccisore said (or rather his whole message)
I accept everything you have said Uccisore. It’s good to finally hear that someone believes in banning public displays of homosexuality.
In order for there to be peace about ANY subject it must be kept behind closed doors. Although I haven’t seen too many diplays of public homosexuality (here in Michigan), the TV more than makes up for it.
With show such as Queer as Folk on HBO making mega bucks off the whole gay “scene” it show that gay people are starting to turn down the same road as blacks and “american” indians.
I say this because black people often complain SO much about being treated wrong, yet they choose not to get out of their environments or do something to change it. They risk their life to sell drugs, instead of risk their lives to stop it.
As for native americans, they should count themselves lucky. When I applied for college near my home here in Michigan, I soon found out right from the college handbook that Native Americans get FREE tuition. That’s not the only thing, they don’t even have to pay other bills either and some times even get free food. I want to know why I have to pay for an education and Native Americans get to be freeloaders! I want to know why gays and lezbos get to whine all day and why everyone is telling me to be quite! SOMEONE ANSWER ME THAT!
To end this message, I’d like to say that no matter what happens I will never believe that children in schools should be taught how to be gay. My statement may sound a bit “over the edge”, but I beleive that right now in a school somewhere, a little girl or boy is being asked over and over if he or she “likes” someone from their same sex. When a preteen or teen is pumped full of this force to be gay, they have to react to it somehow. Mostly the weak-minded go along with what society tells them to do, like when they tell them to be gay. In fact if you search, you will find that most people who are gay are mostly weak-minded individuals with many issues that never got them far in life.
Give me one example of a gay person who made an invention or taught something moral to people or a gay person who tried to make peace with people?
Not to say that gay people were “weak-minded” before they were told they were gay, I beleive everyone is straight until pushed to be gay and that’s all there is to it.
Hi, Mr.Lee. Good to have another point of view on board.
You mean by cashing in on the negative sterotypes about them, while at the same time condemning anybody who believes the sterotypes are true? Absolutely.
I would say that probably happens sometimes- maybe even most of the time. I personally have watched friends of mine 'decide' they were gay well into their late teens, for no reason other than they couldn't get a girlfriend, and they were in an environment were guys were coming on to them regularly.
On the other hand, I do think there are people that are gay because of something going on genetically. There's a whole bunch of psycho-sexual disorders, of which homosexuality was considered one of until about 30 yeras ago, and these are a lot more complex than being 'pushed into it'.
Uccisores argument against public displays of homosexuality is based on obligation towards a community that chooses to not accept it, not that there is actually anything wrong with homosexuals (as far as I understand it). According to this logic, since you agree with it, you shouldn’t be saying anything cause this community right here doesn’t accept the way you articulate yourself. But hey, to each his own.
Lee stated:
Do you realize the consequences of what you say? Do you realize how obtuse the above is? The presumption being that all subjects are to be behind closed doors, cause otherwise we will have no peace. It’s not possible even if all 6 billion people were to concur with your statement.
Lee stated:
What the hell you complaining for? You shouldn’t communicate such information and views cause you are informing others of your opinion and that means you are opening the doors to your views, but we have to keep things behind closed doors in order to have peace. Or is your sole purpose to come here, be puerile and cause plight in the lives of others?
Lee stated:
You know it’s people like you that elate themselves by going through life complaining and demeaning everything but themselves. You would sooner look to your neighbours backyard and complain that they have a mess before you would look to your own backyard to see if it was a mess. Metaphorically speaking ofcourse. So here’s my version of your above statement “As for Mr. Lee, he should count himself lucky. When I first came on the board and found Mr. Lee shooting his mouth off I found out that anyone can go around shooting their mouth off without consideration for anyone. I want to know why I have to put up with Mr. Lee because his views are confounded, he is rude, pretentious, and is puerile in his views of homosexuality, amongst other things. I want to know why Mr. Lee gets to demean others and tell them that they have to hide what they are and I get him telling me rude and demeaning things!”
Mr. Lee stated:
People aren’t taught how to be gay! Even if all of us wanted to teach others to be gay, how would we do it? We aren’t even taught how to be straight in school. We are taught the body parts, but teachers don’t go around saying “now boys and girls make sure you keep inserting those penis’ into the verginas”. No one would agree to children being taught how to be gay in school. Wow Mr. Lee you have actually figured something out for yourself, congrats. Now how about getting back to the topic, which is “why shouldn’t homosexuals be allowed to act as a hetersexual couple in public?” By which I mean, the majority don’t take issue with seeing a young heterosexual couple kissing on a park bench. So why shouldn’t homosexuals be extended the same courtesy?
Mr. Lee stated:
Out of all seriousness, Mr. Lee, why do you believe that in a school somewhere a little girl or boy is being asked if they like someone of the same sex? Who are they being asked by? And what does being asked if you like someone of the same sex have to do with schools teaching kids how to be gay?
Mr. Lee stated:
Mr. Lee, are you afraid you might be gay? What makes you think that the weak-minded go along with what society tells them to do? If that is true, and you agreed with Uccisore then you should realize that the majority of people are against homosexuality, so if the weak minded go along with what society tells them to do then everyone should be against homsexuality, like yourself. But that is changing, and that is what scares you. So if the majority of society is against homosexuals, and there is a turn happening, wouldn’t that suggest that people are getting stronger minded? Able to comprehend and accept homsexuality for what it is cause they can see the future implications and know that it doesn’t affect heterosexuals. Ie. If you go back to one of my first posts to you, you will find that I told you of an article that stated how homosexuals have raised kids on their own and their kids grew up to be healthy members of the society, and guess what…they were straight! I have never heard from society, in any way, shape or form that I should be gay. Where did you get that absurdity from? Furthermore, when you say that a teen is pumped full of this force of being gay, what force are you talking about?
Mr. Lee stated:
Mr. Lee, if you had researched homosexuality, your statements wouldn’t be so obtuse and would be much more in-depth. If you want to base your argument on research, then source it and I will source mine. Let me know…
Persons of debated sexual orientation…
Alexander the Great
Solon, Greek statesman
Susan B. Anthony, US feminist and womens’ suffrage activist
Aristotle, Greek philosopher
Socrates, Greek philosopher
Any questions?
Mr. Lee stated:
If that’s all there is to it, then there is no point in talking to you about it, cause it means you are not willing to be rational. Most religious people give me a similar line when they begin to see that I have a strong argument against them “It doesn’t matter what you tell me, I’m still going to believe in God”. Well then how can we blame anyone for doing anything? We should respect all those we might hate, like mass murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc - cause if we tell them they are wrong, they will be justified in saying (according to your logic) “No matter what you tell me, I know I did the right thing”.
What’s your take?
Oh wait, sorry Mr. Lee, people like you almost make me forget my manners. Welcome back
