More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
While some copyright maximalists are still insisting that copyright is never used to censor anyone, it seems that every day we see more cases of it in action. The latest, as sent in by just about everyone, is that a group in the UK, called Straight Pride UK, who ridiculously go around claiming that homosexuals and their supporters are trying to silence heterosexuals, did an interview with a student named Oliver Hotham. He emailed them, telling them he was a freelance journalist with a list of questions. They responded by sending a document that included the answers to the question, and the document was entitled "press release." Hotham explains what happened next:About a week later they responded with an attached document with the title “press release”. I went through the questions, corrected the horrendous grammar, and organised it so it coherently answered the questions I’d posed. I also noted that two rather pointed questions I’d asked, regarding the problem of the bullying of LGBTI youth and the nature of other “pride” movements, had not been answered. I sent them an email about this, saying that I’d give them the opportunity to respond but, if they didn’t, I’d “make it clear in the article” that they avoided the questions. They didn’t get back to me for 2 days, which I thought ample time to write two sentences.And, apparently having realized that they look like the "arses they are," the group did what any sniveling censorious jerks would do, and sent a completely bogus DMCA takedown. At least they first warned Hotham that they were going to take this ridiculous step:
Fully satisfied that my journalism had made them look like the arses they are, I hit the publish button, and sat back, feeling all together really pleased with myself. I called the article “It’s great to be straight… yeah”, too, which I thought acutely summed up their philosophy and referenced a mid-90s dance album I rather like.
“It has been brought to my attention that you have published the email that I sent you to, you did not state this in your email request, nor you did have consent to do this.And then they did, in fact, send the DMCA takedown to Wordpress parent company Automattic, who took it down. There's been some anger at Automattic, but having dealt with Automattic a few times in the past, I know that they take this stuff very seriously (perhaps more seriously than almost every other company out there) and work extra hard to weed through the bogus DMCA takedowns. But, it's a really difficult task, especially when you're inundated with DMCA takedowns. Once the story got attention, Wordpress admitted that it was a mistake and agreed that this was a clear case of censorship via the DMCA.
I therefore request that you take down the article that you have placed on your blog.
You have 7 days in which to do this, failing this I shall submit a DMCA to WordPress to have it removed.
Of course, the good news is that all of this censorious activity quickly drew much more attention to the article -- in fact, lots of sites reposted it and called extra attention to what a ridiculous bunch of people "Straight Pride UK" really are.
Still, this has people wondering, given how often we see censorship attempts like this fail, and end up getting more attention via the Streisand Effect, why does it still happen so often. And, one troubling possibility is that this sort of censorship-by-copyright actually works much of the time, and it's only a small portion of the cases that generate so much attention. That's definitely a possibility. For obvious reasons, a lot of these types of stories get submitted to us, and we only have time to cover a small fraction of them. So there are definitely cases of bogus takedowns that just don't get attention. But, in some cases it's worse than that. That's because the only ones that do get attention are the cases where the person who is censored knows enough to speak out. Many people who don't understand copyright law will get censored with bogus DMCA takedown notices and, because of the threats, the legal language and the big numbers (statutory damages!), will just shut up and be censored rather than risk anything. And from a personal liability standpoint, for many people, that's probably a perfectly logical -- if horrifically damaging to free speech -- position.
This is why the DMCA takedown process needs to have real teeth behind punishment for bogus takedowns. It seems fairly clear to some of us that the current DMCA takedown process itself is a clear First Amendment violation, in that it effectively requires content to be restrained prior to any adversarial hearing or review. A much more reasonable and non-censorious system would be a "notice and notice" system, in which the target of a DMCA notice is given a time period in which to respond before the content is removed. Combine that with real punishment for a bogus DMCA takedown notice, and you might finally be able to minimize the risk of the DMCA being used to censor.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, free speech, notice and takedown, oliver hotham, punishment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Can't you kids comment ON TOPIC and without mentioning me? -- I've made a new tagline generator, and your egregious advance notice merits it (after this notice, wlll be just):
For Violation of TOS (Truly Overweening Stupidity)
ANKLE-BITER: Argument Not Kept Logically Engaged, Baring Its Teeth Enraged & Rabid
Snarky Necessary Against Random Kids Yapping; self-defense by out_of_the_blue, fighting yapping with innovation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, I got this.
Who's there?
Chas.
Chas who?
Chas up and answer the door!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking pride in what's perfectly natural when the supposedly different behavior/characteristic is also completely natural and normal. The disease of the contemporary ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But wait, That might offend the dogs, cats, and lemurs of the world. Let's go with Earthling Pride.
No.... that might offend someone from not of this earth....damn. This is complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
P.S.
"All change isn't growth, just as all movement isn't forward." - Ellen Anderson Glasgow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
So flail about, cry about the 'death of morality' and think wistfully back to the 'good old days' when women weren't taking jobs from me and knew their place in the family(because that's part of those 'traditional family values' you seem to cherish so much) and homosexuals didn't dare to exist in public, but time marches on, and society matures, regardless of how much you want it not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Uhm, no. 'Women knowing their place' is not part of those 'traditional family values'. That is also a lie. Seriously, if you don't know anything about what you're attacking, just stop! You're making a fool out of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
And the reason I brought up the 'woman' example is that when someone mentions 'tradition', it's natural to think they mean 'how things have been in the past', and it's only recently(very recently historically speaking) that woman have begun to have equal rights with men regarding the roles that they could take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
'Oh they have their own bathrooms/water fountains/stores/services they can use, why do we have to let them use ours?'
That logic sound familiar any, say from a history class perhaps?
In the future, might want to check your arguments first lest you find yourself using the same ones that people you do not want to be associated with have used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
This may be the single most ridiculous thing anyone's ever posted here. If you knew *anything* about this subject, you'd realize how ridiculous this statement is.
TRM, seriously, you need to go out in the world and learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Well, gee, since they get all kind of government benefits in the form of buildings and land for their own use at almost no cost, it's ALL of our business. They poisoned their own religious well when they got public benefits, now they have to play by the public's rules, and that includes not discriminating. If the Mormon Church (you know, the guys that actually head up the BSoA and made all the religious changes that didn't use to be in their guidebooks) wanted to retain their religious rights they should have kept their grubby paws off of my tax money and our government land.
"You always talk about how legacy corps and government are intruding upon private businesses, and I agree wholeheartedly (who wouldn't?). Yet as soon as it's something involving homosexuals, they're automatically right and everyone else is wrong? I think not."
Actually, what we have with the BSoA is a religious group intruding upon the public's government and dressing up what is now a religious organization with the old garb from when it wasn't, while using government land for $1, when it would cost anyone else a hell of a lot more than that.
The BSoA of bullshitters of the Mormon variety...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Do tell: should groups such as the KKK or the Black Panthers be allowed to demand that another group change its policies just for the sake of appeasing their constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Nobody -- NOBODY -- has an *inherent right* to dictate the policies of one or another group, including the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
You say they are taxpayers, and should be able to use the lands cheap because of that. Guess what though, people who don't agree with their stance on homosexuality are also taxpayers, but I guess they don't count huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
One of the recurring themes here on Techdirt is about how big businesses (i.e. copyright maximalists) and such lobby government in order to make demands of other businesses by crafting dangerous laws and treaties, forcing internet services to protect the former's interests. The result: websites being blocked/seized all over the world, government forcing companies such as Lavabit to choose between either making unreasonable compromises or shutting down in protest, rampant censorship, and so much more onerous stuff happens with alarming frequency. Techdirt is always there telling them that it's wrong, that if someone manages to find a successful business model, the answer isn't for big business to force others to cave in and meet their demands, the answer is to come up with a better business model themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Shocking: a group who has been systematically discriminated against and had its rights trampled on *speaks out* against a group that presents itself as being about creating leaders of tomorrow for encouraging similar discrimination. Why wouldn't it be their business to speak out against discrimination?
Yet as soon as it's something involving homosexuals, they're automatically right and everyone else is wrong? I think not.
I didn't say that. Seriously, lying about what I said doesn't help your argument. I said your argument that the LGBT community isn't having its rights attacked is ridiculous. It's ignorant and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
They are a private institution and have every right to decide who they want to associate with. That's the core issue at stake. In every walk of life, in every institute and social construct, there exists certain forms of discrimination, most of which are predicated on action, such as social stature (i.e. wealth), occupation, degree of education, et al., not merely race or gender, much less sexual attraction which is a state of living. Indeed, what makes each of us 'individuals' is measured in our differences, and we have the free will to determine with whom we want to associate with. It's ludicrous to expect that all actions are equal and that we should not form judgements in that regard. That said, I don't agree with discrimination based on race or gender, but regardless of how I *personally* feel, my rights don't extend so far as to infringe upon others' to the point where I can affect their policies, their rules of conduct, their business model, etc. Whether it be the BSoA or any other organization, they have every right to choose how they operate their business without anyone else's imput. If people don't like it, they can walk away and go start their own scouts club. That's what freedom is about, as opposed to "I don't like your policies and therefore will lobby the government in an effort to force the change *I* want."
"I didn't say that. Seriously, lying about what I said doesn't help your argument. I said your argument that the LGBT community isn't having its rights attacked is ridiculous. It's ignorant and wrong."
We're all human beings and we all deserve equal rights, however, what the LGBT activists and lobbyists are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with equality and everything to do with forcing others to cater to their every demand. Nobody has an inherent right to infringe upon another person or group's right to choose who they want to associate with nor how they conduct their business. How many times have I watched some gay person be applauded for "coming out of the closet," then read about how someone just got censored, expelled, reprimanded or fired simply for expressing their religious beliefs? It's ok to be gay but it's somehow NOT ok to be religious? How does that work? Homosexual groups want for people to respect and 'tolerate' them -- fair enough. But they've shown a complete lack of respect and tolerance for others' views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Read my above reply to Phoenix77 as to why I brought up the woman's rights example, I was trying to show that just because something is 'traditional', it does not automatically follow that it is to be desired.
As for the 'teaching children about sodomy', I'd check your sources, that has the sounds of not-even-close-to-truth scaremongering, when I'd bet it's at most just including that subject alongside normal sex-ed classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
No, I'm not mistaken about what they're teaching children. They have all kinds of lewd videos, storybooks and other things which try to portray homosexuality in a positive light. The state is working in tandem with gay rights activists to propagate homosexuality in the classroom, using the tax dollars of the general public, most of whom don't want their children subjected to such material. They know that they're not going to change most adults' minds on the subject, so they're attempting to brainwash the youth.
Then again, this is coming from the same public school system which routinely ask children if they've ever been spanked or hit at home (because the state wants an excuse to rip children away from their families), stages faux-terror drills on children in schools and on schoolbuses without even informing their parents, takes funding from private businesses in order to use children as guinea pigs for retina scans, et al. Such is the sorry state of our public "education" system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Thrash about as you must, deny it as loudly as you can, but your hatred and disgust of the idea that homosexuals should have equal rights as heterosexuals have is no different than someone hating the idea that blacks, or women, should be treated equally under the law.
The only difference is that while you would almost certainly object to someone spouting racist views, or sexist views, you've convinced yourself, in complete opposition to the evidence at hand, that homosexuality is a choice, that's it's something people choose to be, and thereby justifying your hatred/disgust as 'different' from racism or sexism or any other kind of bigotry.
No, I'm not mistaken about what they're teaching children. They have all kinds of lewd videos, storybooks and other things which try to portray homosexuality in a positive light.
Well gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with trying to counter the decades, if not centuries of teaching children that homosexuality is this horrible disease, and that those ' choosing to suffer' from it are degenerates and perverts of the worst sort at best.
Seriously, if you stepped back and were honest with yourself you'd see that the arguments you are putting forth against teaching children that homosexuality is not this horrible thing that turns people into monsters are the exact same ones that those who opposed racial equality brought up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
That said for those that 'turn gay' as adults, did you ever consider that they might have spent their entire early lives being told that being gay was bad, and made you a horrible person, and it was only when they grew up, moved out, and started thinking for themselves without outside pressures that they were able to admit to their sexuality and face up to it?
For those that go the other way, it could be something as simple as a person thinking that they were entirely homosexual, trying it out, and finding out that they didn't place as far towards that end of the scale as they previously thought. Bisexuality is a thing you know, and again, human sexuality is not nearly as simple as some people like to portray it as.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Again, when did you "CHOOSE" to be heterosexual, and what factors did you use to make that choice?
And, out of curiosity, if homosexuality is so awful and unnatural, why would anyone choose it?
If it WEREN'T, there wouldn't be adults who suddenly came to the *realization* that they were in fact gay, nor would there be gay individuals who suddenly turned straight.
You really ought to get out into the world a bit more. Your ignorance is astounding.
they're rights aren't being violated
This is just incredibly ignorant and wrong. Learn at least *SOMETHING* about the history of persecution against homosexuals, so you don't look like an ignorant, homophobic hayseed.
Seriously: you don't know what you're talking about and the more you dig in, the worse you look. It's clear that you don't like homosexuality, and that's fine and is your right. But, spewing pure ignorance and insisting that it's absolute truth is just really silly. Get out in the world and learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Attraction to the opposite sex was a natural realization at a young age, 4 or 5 years-old maybe. In order for me to go after someone of the same sex, it would require a *conscious decision* to do so.
"And, out of curiosity, if homosexuality is so awful and unnatural, why would anyone choose it?"
There are plenty of unnatural things which people choose to do, for a multitude of reasons. I don't need to patronize you; you're an adult, you've got it figured out.
"You really ought to get out into the world a bit more. Your ignorance is astounding."
Not much of an argument. Then again, what's there to argue? It's the truth: some people's sexual preference shifts during adulthood, disqualifying biological trait.
"This is just incredibly ignorant and wrong. Learn at least *SOMETHING* about the history of persecution against homosexuals, so you don't look like an ignorant, homophobic hayseed."
"Homophobic," a contrived slander. If I really were homo-PHOBIC then I would fear them, yet I don't. As for persecution, look, every single denomination of people have been attacked or denied equal opportunities at some point, including Christians and your own Jewish race, both of the latter on a FAR worse scale than homosexuals ever had to endure. Nevertheless, nowhere do I say that I condone persecution and violence towards anyone.
"Seriously: you don't know what you're talking about and the more you dig in, the worse you look. It's clear that you don't like homosexuality, and that's fine and is your right. But, spewing pure ignorance and insisting that it's absolute truth is just really silly. Get out in the world and learn something."
I don't know what I'm talking about, huh? Ok, if that's what you want to believe so be it, but I'm not ignorant to what's really happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Yes. For you. A heterosexual. But what about those who are homosexual or bisexual who had the "natural realization" at around the same age that they preferred the same sex? Though, seriously, most studies have shown that people don't make that realization until they're slightly older, so, frankly, your claim of realizing it at 4 or 5 is tough to believe.
Either way, you admit that it was a natural realization. For you. Why do you attack people who had a different natural reaction.
It's the truth: some people's sexual preference shifts during adulthood, disqualifying biological trait.
You don't think that perhaps public attacks and discrimination meant that people actually hid their true self until later? Sorry, but there's no evidence that someone's sexual interest suddenly "changes" in adulthood.
"Homophobic," a contrived slander.
No. It's not. You're a homophobe. Seriously. Just read your descriptions of homosexual sex. Most people who don't find it appealing personally (myself included) just don't think about it. If two people love each other, what do I care what they do in their bedrooms? But you seem unnaturally fixated on what two people do in privacy. Why? Because for some reason you feel a need to push back against a form of love that you can't fathom. Because you're homophobic.
As for persecution, look, every single denomination of people have been attacked or denied equal opportunities at some point, including Christians and your own Jewish race, both of the latter on a FAR worse scale than homosexuals ever had to endure.
I'd say equal. Not "far worse." And, we've recognized that such persecution was wrong, but you still support it for others because you don't like who they love and what they do for fun?
I don't know what I'm talking about, huh?
You don't. I'm just suggesting that you get out of your closeted world and maybe actually go out in the world a little. Life is too short to worry about how other people love each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Either way, you admit that it was a natural realization. For you. Why do you attack people who had a different natural reaction."
Maybe I should be asking that question, because in all honestly I don't care what gays do in their personal lives. However, I most certainly DO care when they attempt to force their lifestyle on others. The world doesn't revolve around their insecurities.
"You don't think that perhaps public attacks and discrimination meant that people actually hid their true self until later? Sorry, but there's no evidence that someone's sexual interest suddenly 'changes' in adulthood."
There's just as much evidence for that as there is for someone being born a homosexual. IOW, it's subjective.
"No. It's not. You're a homophobe. Seriously. Just read your descriptions of homosexual sex. Most people who don't find it appealing personally (myself included) just don't think about it. If two people love each other, what do I care what they do in their bedrooms? But you seem unnaturally fixated on what two people do in privacy. Why? Because for some reason you feel a need to push back against a form of love that you can't fathom. Because you're homophobic."
Got no argument? Resort to immature name-calling and ridicule. Disagreeing with someone's action or lifestyle is not a phobia. Words have meanings and a phobia is a fear. Do you consider holding traditional beliefs to be a form of hate and intolerance? Is anyone who doesn't agree with your views on homosexuality, marriage or whatever automatically deemed a hater? Are you a traditionalphobic? You said, "If two people love each other, what do I care what they do in their bedrooms?" What you conveniently ignore is that the gay movement does everything in its power to shove their sexuality in everyone's faces, milking their minority status in order to force everyone, from private businesses and social clubs to churches and school classrooms, to cater to their demands, be sensitive to their *feelings* and promote their lifestyle. Whenever people/groups don't cave in, they engage in smear campaigns, litigation tactics and lobbying the state in order to attack other peoples' rights. It's bullying tactics masquerading as 'anti-bullying.' But hey, equal rights, right?
"I'd say equal. Not 'far worse.'"
Really? This is news to me. So gays were exterminated like Jews and Christians were? Were forced into indentured servitude? Slaved away on plantations? I think not. A few isolated hate crimes does not constitute persecution.
If you want to see persecution, look up north at what is happening in Canada, where their so-called 'human rights commissions' (double-speak) are prosecuting religious people for the "thought crime" of disagreeing with homosexuality, where the accused are presumed guilty unless *proven innocent*, whatever that entails. When did it come to pass that people were compelled by the authority of the state to agree with and cater to a certain group's lifestyle?
"And, we've recognized that such persecution was wrong, but you still support it for others because you don't like who they love and what they do for fun?"
Really now. Show me where I said that I support the persecution of gay people. You can't. Do you even know what persecution is? Here, let's make my stances perfectly clear: Do I believe gays deserve all the same Constitutional rights and protections as everyone else? Yes, absolutely. Do they deserve to vote, have an education, to have the same opportunities in life as everyone else? Yes, yes and yes. Do they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and common courtesy as everyone else? Yes.
...Do they have the right to force their sexuality upon others and make demands which compromise the rules, policies and moral beliefs of others? No. Their rights stop as soon as they intrude upon other people's rights.
"You don't. I'm just suggesting that you get out of your closeted world and maybe actually go out in the world a little. Life is too short to worry about how other people love each other."
Answered above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Russia is going through a period of anti-gay legislation at this very moment. Want to call that a "few isolated hate crimes"?
Also, you don't have to suffer extermination or slavery for it to be counted as persecution. There's lots of ways to discriminate and persecute a group of people. You can't handwave away what LGBTs have gone through simply because there was no mass extermination of them on the scale of the Jews, or enslavement on the same scale of blacks. That would be immoral to the same tune as denying the Holocaust of WW2 ever happened.
"because in all honestly I don't care what gays do in their personal lives."
This statement directly contradicts your earlier statements expressing disgust at the thought of ramming a penis up a man/woman's anus. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. You either find the thought disgusting and reprehensible, thus caring what they do in their personal lives, or you don't, thus not caring. Which is it?
"Really now. Show me where I said that I support the persecution of gay people."
"They know that they're not going to change most adults' minds on the subject, so they're attempting to brainwash the youth."
You may not support the direct persecution of gays, but the quote directly above shows you support it indirectly, by calling for teaching acceptance a form of brainwashing - which clashes with my experience being taught in Catholic schools as a child such absurdities as it's okay to take a knife to your child's throat if the voices in your head say so (Abraham and Isaac). No counter to such a horrible action was ever raised by the teacher. I'd certainly call the advocating of child murder perhaps the most extreme form of brainwashing there is. How come you're not up in arms over things like that? Whether or not it actually happened is beside the point - you've got a religious body in a school teaching kids that your loveable huggable Big Sky Daddy will say to random parents to kill their own children, and it's a VIRTUE?!? to obey such ridiculous commands? The fact an angel supposedly stopped the killing at the last second is also beside the point - the parent didn't know that was going to happen, but did it anyway. And we're taught to revere such a monster?
Before you go around complaining about brainwashing from the LGBT camp, get your own house in order. Make sure you're not doing any brainwashing of quite frankly what are far scarier and more extreme things than just homosexual sex in your own religious schools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
"This statement directly contradicts your earlier statements expressing disgust at the thought of ramming a penis up a man/woman's anus. Both statements cannot be true at the same time."
What a way to skip over what I said. You make sound as if they go about their daily lives, having their gay relationships and don't bother anybody, when nothing could be further from the truth. They make a point of shoving it in people's faces, making an issue out of others' beliefs and attempting to force affirmation of their sexuality upon people who want nothing to do with it. Big difference. In other words, they make a point of making it everyone else's business, when in reality nobody cares who they're sleeping with.
And yes, what they're doing in public schools constitutes gay propaganda. Just because they hide behind the anti-bullying moniker doesn't change that fact. I really don't care what you think of my beliefs. At least I don't walk into your job site and force my religious beliefs on you, then attempt to sue you or have you fired just because you have a different opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Yes, because once you're told that you'll be arrested if you're a man kissing another man...I would call that persecution (and what do the Olympics have to do with it? Did the IOC demand these laws?)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english
Given that propaganda is not defined in Russia's anti-LGBT laws, anything even remotely thought of as being "pro-gay" can be taken and used to force massive fines. What if a teenager in school realizes (s)he's gay? (S)He should be able to confide in a teacher, but the teacher won't, in fear of this fine.
And no, the teaching of the lives of gay rights activists is NOT propaganda. Otherwise, you'd have to say the same for the teaching of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Carrie Chapman Catt. They were all rights activists for their respective group of people, their group of people were denigrated in wider society, refused votes, refused jobs etc, merely for being who they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More importantly, these people are suffering NOW. Slavery (as an institution in the West) mainly ended a while ago (notwithstanding the massive amounts that still go on under the radar all over the world).
And you are just as guilty of playing the 'emotional ploy' card. Since I am not American, and we abolished slavery a fair bit before you did, I'm less vulnerable to 'guilting' over it than maybe the average American is.
Frankly, I care about anyone who is deprived of liberty, health and rights, but moreso people alive now or to be born, not people from 150 years ago whose situation I cannot change.
You are the one attempting to put a 'worth' on any one person's suffering, depending on why they are put upon. Think about that for a moment, since the whole point of slavery (and the eventual emancipation) was the debate over what a person of a certain colour or nationality was 'worth' compared to other people.
Additionally, I am comparing like-for-like here. What you sound like you're saying is how dare someone complain about being beaten up or deprived of rights just because they aren't coloured or their ancestors weren't enslaved?
I really don't get what beef you guys have over your ancestors' mistreatment. Frankly, you don't hold a candle to the Native Americans who were actually genocided. So why not shut up until they've had proper reparations and get treated as they deserve? Or even better, get over it and come and live in the 21st Century? (And I say this as someone fiercely anti-slavery.) Because you're not engaging anyone's sympathy or making them more likely to agree with you given the blind right-wing echo points you're spewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You constantly harp on and on and on and on and on and on about all these liberties supposedly being denied to homosexuals. Last I checked they had the right to vote, to an education, to a job, to every Constitutional right as everyone else. They're not the 'oppressed people' you portray them as being. Parading down the street, dressed in speedos and flamboyant costumes, dressing as priests and nuns in order to mock Christianity (because I guess it doesn't matter when they offend anyone, only when they themselves are offended..), simulating sexual intercourse, passing out condoms and lubricants. Attempting to force private groups and businesses to change their policies, with utter contempt for their right to run their own business without intrusion. Such is the *struggle* of the homosexual movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for mocking Christianity, so what? All religions who take themselves too seriously (and are repressive) could take some mockery. Should the Wiccans complain that they are 'being made a mockery of' at Hallowe'en? And I bet you'd only too happily mock Islam... It's not like Christianity in the US is some minority religion whose followers are persecuted.
I have no especially thing about gays other than there are plenty on the American right making such a fuss attacking gays and their rights that they are a big one to push back on behalf of. I'm just as happy to push womens' or minority rights too, despite not being any of the above. All people deserve to be treated actually equally, and no one group gaining equal rights 'takes them away' from any other group, unless that group feels it has the entitlement to pick on others.
I only mention the native North Americans because they have more of a case than Blacks for persecution, and the whole point I was trying to make was that denigrating one group's suffering because 'your group suffered more' was daft, especially when the suffering was historical, as opposed to now. Wiccans who moan "oah, my ancestors were persecuted at Salem" are a bit out of the suffering loop. A Wiccan being denied a job or use of someone's business purely for their religion right now is definitely something that should be stopped.
I'm part Celt. Shall I whine on about how my people were "hounded" to the extremities of our continent and our culture 'massacred' by invading forces? Not seriously, no. I might say "bloody English!" at Braveheart, but I'm more concerned with any ongoing injustices, not long-ago ones. That is how future wars start, built on long-ago slights.
So stop with the pathetic victim complex, stop putting down others who are genuinely suffering discrimination, persecution and bigotry, and if you are a Christian, try remembering the message of the Gospels (love thy neighbour), not the Old Testament (hate thy neighbour).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckdPvVxqsTY
Russian transgender woman gets attacked, thanks to Russia's anti-LGBT legal policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's ok with you when they mock Christianity, huh? I wonder if this *courtesy* extends across the aisle, that it would be deemed fair play to mock and ridicule gays in parades and such. After all, you're an equal opportunist.
Hold up. You're telling ME to stop with the pathetic victim complex? Who's the one harping on about the suffering and persecution of the gays? Every single argument you present is an emotional ploy to garner sympathy for their *cause*. If gays are being treated unfairly in some other country such as Russia, what do you want me to do about it? I don't see you taking up cause for the women in India who are being treated like second-class citizens, or the Coptic Christians in Egypt who are being murdered, or the Tibetans, or the people starving without food or shelter all over the world, etc. etc. You think gays have it bad? Clearly you haven't seen the world for what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's called Freedom of Speech, that thing you seem to pushing for Christians but want to deny to homosexuals. I can make fun of religion all I want, and you can make fun of homosexuals all you want.
" I don't see you taking up cause for the women in India who are being treated like second-class citizens, or the Coptic Christians in Egypt who are being murdered, or the Tibetans, or the people starving without food or shelter all over the world, etc. etc. You think gays have it bad? Clearly you haven't seen the world for what it is."
Because this article is about an anti-homosexuality group. Of course everyone here on Techdirt is against the mistreatment of women in India, murders of Coptics, Tibetans and the poor. However, they were not the topic of discussion. That's you saying "Hey, I'm discriminating against gays here, I don't want them even fucking mentioned in schools but look over there! Starving people!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have homosexual friends, but it's occurred to me that gays are the modern "protected endangered species" - say anything that might even look like it might be offensive to them and you can expect hell to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say "I have homosexual friends". I think you are fibbing to yourself in order to feel better about yourself. There may be homosexual people with whom, for whatever reason, you associate, but the sentiments you have expressed are not at all friendly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just find it strange when:
- Gays say to not paint them under the same brush, but seem to have no problem continuing to refer to themselves and their culture under various labels, like "sexuality of food", as though straight men can't go into a macaroon shop. (I'm not joking. One quote from a book on "sexuality of food" asked, "When have you ever seen a straight man walk into a macaroon shop?")
- Gays say they're born with it, and I've had friends who know lesbians who proudly proclaim they mess around because hormones, at the same time, proponents claim there is nothing more pure and innocent than "yuri love". So straight love is boring and dirty?
- Gays claiming that my country's art scene is dead, because gays are ostracized and leave the country. I don't agree with ostracism, but what's that accusation meant to mean? Straight people can't make decent art, or is art more interesting because a gay person made it?
Well, you could disagree completely with the above and claim I'm talking out of my behind - you could, I'm frankly not stopping you if you think your experiences trump mine. I don't think gays should be beaten to death or publicly ridiculed just because. I don't think that gays referring to straight people derisively as "breeders" or somehow less open-minded to "love" unless they proudly and loudly support them is conducive to the issue, either.
But if you think otherwise, sure thing, go ahead. If gays want to think of it as payback for under-representation, I won't disagree. If activists want to paint gay communities as saintly, all-loving nirvanas where all the problems are only caused by close-minded straight people, by all means, please continue. I don't want your side killed or maimed - but if your side wishes that of me, I follow the socially-accepted norm that I must step aside and comply with no protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't mean to say that your feelings and experiences are invalid. I mean to say that you should consider the very strong possibility that they are not generally representative. And that regardless, the implication that somehow by being gay I share responsibility for them is, frankly, a little silly.
Peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inexplicably? LOL. You, as part of an oppressed group, have no sympathy for someone else feeling attacked. I think that says it all. Why don't you develop some sensitivity to other people's feelings? Or do you feel that other people's feelings don't deserve recognition or validation for some reason? Hmm.
He doesn't harbor resentment towards homosexuals that I could tell. He harbors resentment towards actions, towards words and deeds, towards you know -- being treated a certain way and having things assumed about him. Surely you get the idea by now.
Generally representative? LOL. I think they are. As for evidence, I point to your own words. You have confirmed everything that he said in your own gross stereotypes and broad-brush thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transformative work?
This Congress is not only "Do Nothing" but "On Holiday" -- since they won't accomplish anything it seems they'd rather not be working at all. I cannot imagine them coming close to dealing with the stupidity in the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
But not all is sweet agreement. Modest Mike worked in "Streisand Effect", so I'll help him with a tagline:
You've found the site of Internet Quipper Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick! -- As you'll frequently be reminded!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
Oh so you have started reading techdirt today and lost the SEVERAL DOZENS OF ARTICLES that he criticizes precisely the lack of accountability for bogus copyright takedown notices?
Which is pretty much the position I've advocated for some time: keep the everyday good of copyright, punish those (usually The Rich and their lawyers) who want to abuse it or extend it.
Please link me where you say it. (I'm not joking or mocking you). So far you just raged everybody that called attention to this all sorts of names (grifters being your latest buzz word). Hypocrite is what you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
FIRST, we obviously disagree on whether Mike "supports copyright" or not: I see him as only using the abuses to attack its everyday good. -- And if I'm wrong on that, Mike needs to say so by stating clearly in bullet points exactly what he DOES believe is good about copyright! How many times have an AC and I asked for that? I'm going to continue to cast Mike's intentions as for doing away with all copyright, until he publishes some "position paper" on it,, as I've given with my bulleted points. -- For instance, here he starts out with a snipe at: "copyright maximalists", which implies he's a minimalist, at best.
2nd, when there's such a clear phrase use the evil Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=everyday+good+of+copyright%2C& ;as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=techdirt .com&as_occt=&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=not+filtered+by+license
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
Then again, I also do not happen to care what his exact stance is. You do not need to even hold any such position in order to know what a LIE is e.g. copyright maximalism. Knowing the truth can be hard at times, but knowing a lie is easy.
And I see copyright as a utopian, Luddite fallacy. Sure, it might allow artists to hit back at the free-rider problem and profit, but that does not mean it is the only way to hit back at the free-rider problem and profit.
Copyright is and always will be unstable as it makes the assumption that communications technology will not advance in the future. But an assurance contract perspective survives regardless of technological advancements. The crowdfunding only gets better with this technology. Copyright does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
So you believe that pointing out abuses of something equates to attacking the thing itself? That explains a lot.
Why does he need to do that? I truly don't understand why you'd think this was something that is necessary.
So you're admitting right out in the open that until Mike accedes to your arbitrary demands, you're just going to continue to accuse him of stuff you've made up out of nothing. Also good to know.
It implies no such thing. Look up the "fallacy of the excluded middle" for more clarity on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
You say that as if the everyday good it does outweighs the nature of those abuses. I had no idea that we shouldn’t really concern ourselves with people limiting the expression of others via a government-granted monopoly and just accept copyright as a gift from the Gods.
Why don't you question copyright’s usefulness in this day and age? Why don't you think about how the government made it all too easy for people to use government-granted powers to infringe upon the First Amendment? What makes it impossible for you to see how people/corporations can abuse copyright and ask for reforms to prevent such abuses?
I’d like to think you of all people would desire an end to the potential for abuse so people can see the ‘everyday good’ that copyright has to offer.
Mike needs to say so by stating clearly in bullet points exactly what he DOES believe is good about copyright!
No, he doesn’t. Mr. Masnick has no obligation to explain himself to you. Even if he did, I doubt you’d take it at face value. You’d turn it into an attack on copyright in general or a personal attack on you. You’ve proven in the past that you haven’t either the intellectual aptitude to argue your own points without resorting to ‘bogeymen’ such as Google or the self-control to go more than a paragraph without an ad hominem attack against Mr. Masnick, Techdirt’s writers in general, or the Techdirt Commenter Community.
You don’t respect anyone here and have gone out of your way to prove as much. Why should we respect you in return?
I'm going to continue to cast Mike's intentions as for doing away with all copyright, until he publishes some "position paper" on it
What gives you the impression that Mr. Masnick wants to do away with copyright as a whole? What specific quotes, articles, etc. from Mr. Masnick have ever so much as implied that he wants to see all forms of copyright destroyed for all time?
For instance, here he starts out with a snipe at: "copyright maximalists", which implies he's a minimalist, at best.
And for all we know, he does consider himself a minimalist. What does that matter when his point rings true? Copyright maximalists — those who want to see the power of copyright extended far beyond its reach and last into the eternal future without end — insist that copyright doesn’t censor people despite numerous instances of abusive copyright takedowns.
And need I remind you: the government (not nature or the Divine) grants people the power of copyright. That makes any attempt to use copyright to censor a person's self-expression nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment’s protections against government-sanctioned censorship.
So…yeah, what’s so good about copyright, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the everyday good of copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-censorious?
How is it non-censorious if it still requires content to be removed prior to a ruling of infringement? It's a lot like a preliminary injunction, except without any kind of judicial review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-censorious?
If the person chooses not to give their information so it can be fought in court, then the content is taken down.
Frankly, I'd prefer the current system except with more teeth for bogus takedowns. In cases of clear abuse there should be statutory damages equal to the statutory damages of copyright. Seems only fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Non-censorious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
And of course, if the service provider is sure it's not infringing, they would be free to leave it up, just like the current system.
The alternative is to require a court proceeding in which one side doesn't show up (if they can't be bothered to file a counternotice, they're not likely to show up in court) and the plaintiff's motion would likely be granted without much scrutiny at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
It may well be functionally equivalent, but I'm not convinced it's constitutionally equivalent. Why should failure to respond to a nonjudicial takedown demand result in the legally prescribed suppression of content prior to or instead of a ruling of infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
Here is the effect of the suggested law as I understand it: If someone issues a takedown notice for something you posted, and the service provider forwards you this notice, and you do not send a counter-notice, then the service provider will not be liable to you if it then takes that content down. I do not see that as unreasonable or unconstitutional. If the takedown is unjustified and causes actual damages to you, you can still sue the entity that sent the notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-censorious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, are you a member? That's precisely what you've gone around saying here in the comments, that there's a massive conspiracy by homosexuals to indoctrinate kids in schools and to silence any speech to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, aren't you derailing a bit? This 'straight pride' group made a stupid move by going to DMCA route, but maybe you didn't know that LGBT groups have gone the same route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep in mind if the 'indoctrination' conspiracy you're talking about is the one regarding teaching children that homosexuality isn't some horrible choice people make and which makes them horrible people, you're going to sound pretty much identical to the people a couple of decades back, objecting to kids being taught that no, just because someone has a different skin color, that doesn't make them bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for your citations:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-push-is-on-canadian-u-s-public-schools-cont inue-to-promote-homosexuality/
"[T]he gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won't evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms." ~ Editorial, Oct. 20, 2011, in Vancouver Xtra, Canada's Gay & Lesbian News
Public educators and politicians in Canada and the United States are playing god and turning children into monsters. At least they're trying to-and don't accuse us of exaggerating until you've read this article.
The editorial writer in the homosexual newspaper is addressing her remarks to the Christian parents of Canada. It is your morals that are "no longer acceptable," and your children who will be taught "new norms." In public schools throughout Canada, this work has already begun.
We shall also show that the same campaign is planned, by homosexual activists and their allies in the teachers' unions, for the children of Christians in the United States. Because the pace of these developments has accelerated so dramatically over the last year or two, we are unable to report on more than a few of the highlights (if that's the word for it).
Replacing Christianity
What are these educators and politicians actually trying to do? We asked Father Alphonse De Valk in Ontario, the editor of Catholic Insight, if he could explain it. He can.
"They are trying to replace a whole way of life," he said. "They are trying to replace Christianity."
A recent Lifesite News headline says it all: "Toronto schools will not ‘condone' exemptions from pro-homosexual classes: board chair."[2] In the article, Chris Bolton, chairman of the Toronto District School Board, told Lifesite that the board has "a policy of forbidding exemptions from the board's radical pro-homosexual curriculum, insisting ... that any attempts by parents ‘would not be condoned' in their schools." The curriculum "specifically states that parents cannot remove their children from the classes for religious reasons."[3]
How radical is the curriculum? It "begins introducing homosexual family structures"- Chalcedon does not recognize any such thing as a homosexual family-"as early as kindergarten, and recommends a discussion sometime between JK and grade 3 aimed at convincing students of the importance of participating in Toronto's annual Gay Pride Parade" [emphasis added]. We need hardly add that such parades are notorious for their displays of real and simulated sex acts which we have chosen not to describe here.
Children will be urged to read a book called Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. You can find a description of this noxious little item on www.amazon.com.[4] "We're promoting social activity that's quite large," Bolton told Lifesite. "I think we're promoting the concept of the social environment that happens around that community."
In an effort to get a translation of that statement, we contacted Bolton and requested an interview. At first he agreed, on the condition that he be allowed to call us collect. But after we provided him with a telephone number, we heard from him no more. Subsequent emails were not answered.
"All these programs are disguised as anti-bullying measures," Fr. De Valk said. "The premier of this province [Dalton McGinty] has decided that he was going to safeguard the homosexual lifestyle; so he has ordered all the schools to teach the equality of the homosexual lifestyle, and all the children in those schools are forced to listen."
Getting young children involved in the Gay Pride Parade, he added, "is only a little part of it. All schools have been ordered to have Gay-Straight Alliances [after-school clubs to promote homosexuality-ed.]-even the Catholic schools. And the bishops are silent. It's a very depressing situation. Not one bishop has spoken up."
Father De Valk himself spoke up, some years ago, in his Catholic Insight editorials. For presenting his church's teaching on homosexuality, De Valk was dragged through Canada's "human rights" system of kangaroo courts. The charge against him was finally dropped, for lack of evidence, in 2009-but not before the ordeal cost the small magazine $30,000 in legal fees.
Pornographic "Outreach"
"Why don't more people speak up?" asked Kari Simpson, host of Roadkill Radio on the Internet, and a Christian activist living in British Columbia. "Because look what happens to them when they do! Here in Burnaby, parents were threatened with hate crime charges just for questioning the homosexual-indoctrination programs in their schools. One father I know was badly intimidated when two policemen showed up at his door to ‘investigate' whether he committed a hate crime. The gay activists love to sic the police on anyone who opposes them."
Mrs. Simpson herself has been through the "human rights" ordeal. Defending herself, she won her case-one of the very few Christians ever to be acquitted by a Canadian human rights tribunal. "If you push back against them," she said, "you can win. But most people are afraid to try."
At issue in British Columbia is a homosexual activist project, Out in Schools, a publicly-funded enterprise "used to sexualize students and introduce them to homosexual culture," Mrs. Simpson said. Her new website, Culture Guard, provides links to explicitly sexual videos that are part of Out in Schools' "outreach" to middle and high school students.[5] A warning to readers: these are very explicit, baldly pornographic videos, presented by adults to minors, with the support of corporate sponsors and taxpayer dollars.
"Most people are still unaware of what's going on in their schools," Mrs. Simpson said. "Meanwhile, our whole culture here in Canada is imploding-or exploding. I can't tell which."
The Xtra editorial called Out in Schools "a well-respected anti-bullying program"-we cannot name a homosexual-indoctrination program that is not labeled "anti-bullying"-and mocked Kari Simpson for "clinging to an outdated moral code, flailing against a tide of change that's leaving you and your few remaining followers behind."
These people have plainly announced their intention to estrange children from Christianity and impose "new norms" of their own invention. They make no effort to hide what they intend to do. And they have backed it up with action.
"The Next Big Thing"
The Chalcedon website (www.chalcedon.edu ) recently published an article which included news video of a "gender education" lesson in a California classroom.[6] We urge readers of this article to view that video.
Children in the United States are already the target of radical "sex education" programs. We don't have to wait for it to seep down from Canada.
"Gender liberation" will be the next big thing in public education, World Net Daily has reported[7]-first in California, and then spreading to other states. The California Teachers Association-it has 325,000 dues-paying members-enthusiastically supports abolishing "gender stereotypes" and doing away with the acknowledgement of all distinctions between male and female, WND reports. Schools will be expected to install "gender-neutral" lavatories so that "Each of us can decide for ourselves in which bathroom we belong." And so on.
What happens when this sort of "change" meets resistance?
In Tennessee recently, the State Senate enacted a law restricting sex education to "only the biology of human reproduction." Homosexual activists were furious, and staged loud protests at the State House.
They also produced a little video which we offer for viewing here,[8] entitled "FCKH8.com: The ‘Teachers Can't Talk About Homos' ..." The purpose of the video is to protest the legislation: these groups always want "sex education" to immerse students in the techniques and particulars of an aberrant lifestyle. To that end, the makers of the video recruited an assortment of children, some of them very young, to spout profanity-laden defiance of the legislature. By "profanity-laden" we mean that practically every other word spoken by these children is the "f-bomb."
The video is less than two minutes long, but I personally found it almost unwatchable."
-------------------------------
Put simply, this is reverse-discrimination against people with traditional moral values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly the Canadian government hates freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12d/flanders/index.html
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/ 2009/perez-hilton-sends-dmca-takedown-over-anti-gay-marriage-ad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have to read the rest of your comment. Those two lines say it all. Your logic says that unless a group experiences suffering on a large scale, and for some reason, you say it has to be on the same league as the enslavement of black people, then that group of people don't deserve to be deemed to have suffered, or to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
No, gay people haven't suffered quite as much harm as the enslavement of blacks, but just look throughout history and you will find that homosexuals did suffer. Many of them were killed, many of them were excluded from their families, their jobs, their societies. For you to wave off the persecution of homosexuals shows you are a deeply immoral and quite frankly evil person. If someone asks me, do I support homosexual marriage, I say yes, because quite frankly, there's no harm in it. If people are straight, they might go for straight marriage. If they're homosexual, they might want to have a homosexual marriage. No harm to anyone else.
You, though...you are a vile monster. You want to strip away the freedom to marry from people you have never even met. You want them to be barred from shops and to be fired from their jobs. If one person in a gay relationship is dying in hospital, you don't want their marriage to be recognised, meaning that their spouse isn't allowed to see them.
I have no problem with people marrying in a religious sense, or in a secular sense. It's you who has the problem. If you don't want your kids going through this so called homosexual propaganda, send them to a religious school. In fact, my research (unless you can point me to evidence to the contrary, and it had better be strong evidence) says that the propaganda you're so scared of is nothing more than gay rights activists being talked about in social studies classes in the same vein as minority rights activists such as Martin Luther King.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a load of nonsense. If anything they're treated like special-class citizens for no other reason than because they're gay. This busted rationale is completely devoid of any logic. As for the supposed persecution of gays, if you really want to go down that route, Christians have suffered far, FAR more persecution throughout history. Christians from the Coptic Church in Egypt are suffering persecution and death -- not a single word from our government nor the press in that regard. There have even been homosexual extremists who've persecuted and killed people, such as King Mwanga of Uganda who put to death hundreds of Christians:
http://afterjujuman.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/ugandan-martyrs-killed-by-a-homosexual-kin g/
Homosexuals didn't have to suffer nearly as much as blacks, Christians and others have. But even if we say that they did, just for the sake of argument, that still wouldn't give them a moral blank check. To portray them on similar ground to the civil rights activists of MLK's day is to make a mockery of the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Are homosexuals a minority group within mainstream society (meaning do they share a characteristic that the majority of people don't have?)
2) If yes - have homosexuals been persecuted against by other people with the reason being that Homosexuality is wrong because (Fill in the blank)?
3) If yes - Have people of certain religious leanings been persecuted against?
4) If yes - what does the fact that religious people being persecuted have to do with homosexual people being persecuted? How is it that "Christians are being persecuted" means that persecution of homosexuals should be allowed (and by persecution, I mean what you want, the removal of civil liberties from them, like marriage, jobs, ability to apply to adopt, etc).
Also, you're the only person saying that homosexuals are getting "a moral blank check". None of us here have called for it. We don't believe that just because you've suffered, you then somehow get the right to persecute others in exchange. No, if homosexuals were to try passing laws forbidding people from marrying in a Christian church, I and all the others here would be dead set against it.
Just because a person persecutes doesn't mean that all those who share the same characteristic as him/her should lose their civil liberties (whether the person doing the persecution is homosexual or religious or whatever). What you are saying there is that if a single homosexual person is bad, then all homosexuals should be punished based on his actions. How come you're not applying the same punishment to those who persecute for religious reasons? Why is it that when a Westboro Baptist Church member (extreme example I know) shouts "God hates fags", you're not calling for the punishment of all Christians everywhere?
I would like to ask exactly what makes the battle for homosexual civil rights so different from that of racism rights. They're both about minority groups within mainstream society being treated differently because of something personal that quite frankly harms no-one. Both have had quite popular and skilled leaders fighting for the rights of their respective groups. Also, both groups have had their bad apples. However, we don't say that because of those bad apples, we should continue denying rights, because then, we would have to deny right to everyone - you would find white people who were bad, Chinese people who were bad, black people etc. What makes the battle for LGBT rights so fucking different from the battle for rights for those of a different skin colour that it somehow makes a mockery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
should be "race rights", not racism.
Btw, I also note you didn't reply to my calling you out as evil, based on your persecution of homosexuals. Should I take that as an admission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty rich of you to think that I'm evil. Learn the definition of 'persecution' before you accuse me of such. (Then again, throwing around labels and contrived slanders has become commonplace from your side of the aisle.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
n.
1. The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persecution
A synonym of persecution
dis•crim•i•nate (v. dɪˈskrɪm əˌneɪt; adj. -nɪt)
v. -nat•ed, -nat•ing,
adj. v.i.
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person on the basis of the group or class to which the person belongs, rather than according to merit.
With your ranting against homosexuals merely because a few men in Gay Pride parades simulate sodomy...yeah, I call that persecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, science called, mentioned something about you being completely wrong. You want me to take a message?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Cause
Now I know why people like you and Michael want it to be a 'choice', need it to be a 'choice', but like it or not science says you're wrong, it's no more a choice than height or skin color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lastly, science has never found a "gay gene," so all they can do is speculate. Science isn't infallible and certainly not without its share of built-in biases and political influences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, if you're going to say it shouldn't be done because it's 'not natural'(never mind that it happens in nature), let's see what else people do on a daily basis that isn't natural:
- See with glasses.
- Travel 50+ MPH in vehicles.
- Fly in airplanes.
- Lose limbs and replace them.
- Survive a whole number of diseases and illnesses that would otherwise be lethal or debilitating.
- Converse with people around the globe.
- Have children when genetics or accidents would otherwise make it impossible.
And many, many other things. 'Not natural'(which, and I cannot stress this enough, homosexuality isn't, being found in nature) does not automatically equal 'not good', and just because something grosses you out does not automatically make it wrong either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
zzZZZzz
"Right, if you're going to say it shouldn't be done because it's 'not natural'(never mind that it happens in nature)..."
Nevermind that we're civilized creatures and not animals/insects, but go on...
"...let's see what else people do on a daily basis that isn't natural: *snip*"
None of those things are unnatural acts. Traveling, communicating, curing sickness and disease, etc. Bogus argument, seems more like a diversion to me.
"'Not natural'(which, and I cannot stress this enough, homosexuality isn't, being found in nature) does not automatically equal 'not good', and just because something grosses you out does not automatically make it wrong either."
Ah, but it doesn't just "gross *me* out," it grosses out millions of other people and conflicts with our beliefs and morals. You conveniently avoid any discussion with regards to the *beneficial merits* to gay sex because you know there isn't any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is why I know you have no rational argument against homosexuality, merely emotional and religious, because when presented with scientific evidence contrary to your claims, you don't even try and hide the fact that you are choosing ignore it.
Hate to break it to you, but willful ignorance is not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.
Nevermind that we're civilized creatures and not animals/insects, but go on...
Oh just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, namely that something that occurs in nature is by definition not 'un-natural'. Object to it on other grounds if you want, but calling it 'un-natural' is false no matter how much you wish you could change the definitions.
None of those things are unnatural acts. Traveling, communicating, curing sickness and disease, etc. Bogus argument, seems more like a diversion to me.
So people can naturally fly? People can naturally speak to others on the other side of the planet? People are able to naturally 'will' themselves cured of otherwise deadly diseases, no drugs needed?
The point I was trying to make with those examples was that natural or un-natural, occurring in nature or not, to judge something by 'does it occur in nature?' or some other simplistic test is meaningless when determining worth/harm.
Ah, but it doesn't just "gross *me* out," it grosses out millions of other people and conflicts with our beliefs and morals.
And? Again, I'm happy to say that like it or not theocracies, where religious rules are the laws, are few and far between, with the US not being one, so it doesn't matter if a law granting equal rights 'conflicts with your beliefs', only that it best serves the rights of the people, majority and minority alike.
And as for morals, I'm sure you could find millions of people that think woman should be covered up, as to expose skin is sinful, but again I doubt you'd agree with that merely based upon the number of people.
You want to object to something? Present evidence that the activity is harmful, don't just say 'X told me it was bad, and it's bad because X told me it was', that's circular reasoning, and not going to win you any arguments.
You conveniently avoid any discussion with regards to the *beneficial merits* to gay sex because you know there isn't any.
Speaking of 'diversions'...
Name me some 'beneficial merits' to any non-procreative sex, whether it be involving a hetero, or homosexual couple*. Heck, name me some 'beneficial merits' to procreative sex, assuming that the parents-to-be aren't in a financial situation suitable for a kid.
*Other than you know, pleasure for both parties, the expression of affection/love, reduction in stress and increase in happiness, and so on.
I don't care that some religions believe that any sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is sinful or to be avoided, because they don't get to make the rules to decide what is and is not 'okay' based upon nothing more than religious belief.
Of course this is a moot point, as the 'beneficial merits' angle was nothing more than a red herring, something doesn't have to have 'beneficial merits' to be acceptable, with books, movies, and various other 'non-productive' entertainments being prime examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hate to break it to you, but willful ignorance is not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of."
LOL, there isn't any scientific evidence, just conjecture and hyperbole.
"Oh just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, namely that something that occurs in nature is by definition not 'un-natural'. Object to it on other grounds if you want, but calling it 'un-natural' is false no matter how much you wish you could change the definitions."
By that same token, murder, rape, incest, prostitution, theft, etc. etc. aren't unnatural and therefore I should accept them.
"So people can naturally fly? People can naturally speak to others on the other side of the planet? People are able to naturally 'will' themselves cured of otherwise deadly diseases, no drugs needed?
The point I was trying to make with those examples was that natural or un-natural, occurring in nature or not, to judge something by 'does it occur in nature?' or some other simplistic test is meaningless when determining worth/harm."
Umm, that's beside the point. Who was it that dragged out the "But it happens in nature!" card?
"And? Again, I'm happy to say that like it or not theocracies, where religious rules are the laws, are few and far between, with the US not being one, so it doesn't matter if a law granting equal rights 'conflicts with your beliefs', only that it best serves the rights of the people, majority and minority alike.
And as for morals, I'm sure you could find millions of people that think woman should be covered up, as to expose skin is sinful, but again I doubt you'd agree with that merely based upon the number of people.
You want to object to something? Present evidence that the activity is harmful, don't just say 'X told me it was bad, and it's bad because X told me it was', that's circular reasoning, and not going to win you any arguments."
That's rich coming from the same side of the aisle which needs to use forceful methods in order to propagate their lifestyle upon others. I don't need to "win" an argument because truth isn't something that changes to suit your convenience. And what of the rest of the people who don't believe that homosex is normal? Are they "wrong" just because you say so? Is your world view the only correct one and nobody else's opinion counts because of homosexuals being a minority or whatever other bogus justification you wanna give?
"Speaking of 'diversions'...
Name me some 'beneficial merits' to any non-procreative sex, whether it be involving a hetero, or homosexual couple*. Heck, name me some 'beneficial merits' to procreative sex, assuming that the parents-to-be aren't in a financial situation suitable for a kid. *snip*"
So you flat-out evade the question by bringing up heterosexual relations. Hilarious. But don't worry, I understand fully why you wouldn't dare touch the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what That One Guy is saying that when you say "I am against X because Characteristic Y is unnatural", you are just flat out wrong to say so. Okay, murder, rape and incest occur in nature (I remember once being at a zoo, seeing seals/sea lions and a zoo-keeper explaining that they have to keep fathers away from their daughters when mating season comes around). However, no-one says that murder rape and incest is then okay among humans because it's natural/occurs in nature. Everyone says that they're wrong for OTHER reasons, like oh I don't know, the fact that they harm people, with murder ending their lives?
"That's rich coming from the same side of the aisle which needs to use forceful methods in order to propagate their lifestyle upon others."
As opposed to anti-sodomy laws being pushed for by religious folks, who use them to force homosexuals to stop being homosexual...? Yeah, great double standard you have there. Also, you might want to choose your words more carefully next time. To "use forceful methods in order to propagate their lifestyle" would mean in plain English that a homosexual is forcing people to be homosexual...that hasn't happened. On the other hand, however, how many times do we see Christian bodies in the US promoting gay conversion therapy, to propagate a heterosexual lifestyle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep believing that, and maybe one day it'll be true(or not, science is independent of belief). Just because your side has nothing more than 'feelings' and thousand year old books to tell you something is wrong, doesn't mean those opposing you have the same complete and utter lack of backing evidence.
Umm, that's beside the point. Who was it that dragged out the "But it happens in nature!" card?
Merely to counter the 'it's bad because it's unnatural!' claim I keep seeing thrown about. As I said elsewhere, argue against it for some other reason if you will, but 'it's unnatural!' has, is, and always will be wrong.
And what of the rest of the people who don't believe that homosex is normal? Are they "wrong" just because you say so? Is your world view the only correct one and nobody else's opinion counts because of homosexuals being a minority or whatever other bogus justification you wanna give?
Believe whatever you want, but when you start trying to deny equal rights and treatment of others, for behaviors, beliefs, or natures that do not in any way shape or form harm you(hurt feelings don't count), then the problem occurs.
So you flat-out evade the question by bringing up heterosexual relations. Hilarious. But don't worry, I understand fully why you wouldn't dare touch the subject.
You wish. Other than the fact that I did in fact list several benefits(something you either didn't read or chose to ignore), that hold regardless of the genders of the couple involved, as I pointed out the whole 'benefits' angle was a complete red-herring argument, is has nothing to do with the inherent right/wrong nature of something, if for no other reason than what is 'beneficial', and what you mean by 'beneficial', tends to vary depending on who you ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, "nothing more than 'feelings.'" As opposed to the arguments *for* homosex, right?
"Merely to counter the 'it's bad because it's unnatural!' claim I keep seeing thrown about. As I said elsewhere, argue against it for some other reason if you will, but 'it's unnatural!' has, is, and always will be wrong."
Ha, IN YOUR OPINION.
"Believe whatever you want, but when you start trying to deny equal rights and treatment of others, for behaviors, beliefs, or natures that do not in any way shape or form harm you(hurt feelings don't count), then the problem occurs."
You never get tired of pulling this empty rhetoric about "denying rights," do you? The only ones denying the rights of others are the homosexual activists. Here's just a small list off the top of my head:
1) Attempting to sue a Church for refusal to wed a gay couple.
2) Using the state to give Catholic adoption agencies an ultimatum to allow homosexual couples to adopt, knowing full well that it goes against their religion beliefs, a BLATANT VIOLATION of their 1A rights. The state could've easily accommodated gay couples had they wanted, but instead they had a mission to intrude upon a private religious group's work.
3) Attempting to force the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters, but when they didn't get their way, they lobbied government to deny them usage of property and then went after their sponsors. Yet again, there was nothing stopping them from starting their own scout group but of course that wasn't good enough for their radical agenda. No, they needed to infiltrate and force themselves upon an established institute.
4) Homosexuals freely mock and ridicule religious groups, whether during their "pride" parades, theatrical plays, etc., mocking Jesus, Mary, priests, etc., and it's considered protected free speech, often costing the taxpaying public. Yet more and more people are being reprimanded, forced to go "sensitivity training" or outright fired for taking a stance against homosexuality, because it might "offend" someone. Blatant hypocrisy.
If anything it's the religious, particularly Christians, who are being denied equal rights, censored and fired. A student at Florida Atlantic University was banned from class for refusing to stomp on the name of Jesus. An elementary school in North Carolina forced a little girl to remove "God" from her poem. A student at another school was forced to remove a cross, and a teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving a student a Bible. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
"You wish. Other than the fact that I did in fact list several benefits(something you either didn't read or chose to ignore), that hold regardless of the genders of the couple involved, as I pointed out the whole 'benefits' angle was a complete red-herring argument, is has nothing to do with the inherent right/wrong nature of something, if for no other reason than what is 'beneficial', and what you mean by 'beneficial', tends to vary depending on who you ask."
Well gee, if you're going to play arbitrary games with the word 'beneficial' then you can also manufacture whatever barometer for it that you wish. I'll be specific this time just so that you don't evade it any further: specifically name one, just ONE undisputable biological benefit to homosex between two humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, That One Guy made an observation that well, is true.
You say "Homosexuality is unnatural".
One Guy counters with "The word unnatural meaning it doesn't occur in nature, right?"
You concur.
One Guy then says "Well, sorry to burst your bubble mate, but in nature, there have been quite a few animal species observed engaging in homosexual sex. Therefore, your statement, that it is unnatural, is wrong. Incorrect. False".
Not an opinion. A conclusion derived from observation of evidence.
"The only ones denying the rights of others are the homosexual activists."
Really? Okay, I will admit, there are homosexuals who are taking things too far when it comes to trying to promote LGBT rights, but to say that NO-ONE is denying LGBT rights? That's you willfully closing your eyes whenever a LGBT is discriminated against, which I have to inform you, still does happen.
"1)" I'll need more information, but I can agree with you there, the Church wedding is a purely religious function, so no, they shouldn't be forced to allow homosexual weddings.
"2)" Already explained to you how you're completely wrong there.
"3)" About the Boy Scouts, the US government cannot allow them use of government property if they're going to discriminate. To put it in perspective, imagine if the KKK were to demand use of a national park while being anti-black, or a group that was anti-woman etc. For the government to allow that would mean the government is endorsing the discrimination.
"If anything it's the religious, particularly Christians, who are being denied equal rights, censored and fired. A student at Florida Atlantic University was banned from class for refusing to stomp on the name of Jesus. An elementary school in North Carolina forced a little girl to remove "God" from her poem. A student at another school was forced to remove a cross, and a teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving a student a Bible. That's just the tip of the iceberg."
All First Amendment violations, I can agree with you there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say 'Homosexuality is unnatural.'
One Guy counters with 'The word unnatural meaning it doesn't occur in nature, right?'
You concur.
One Guy then says 'Well, sorry to burst your bubble mate, but in nature, there have been quite a few animal species observed engaging in homosexual sex. Therefore, your statement, that it is unnatural, is wrong. Incorrect. False.'
Not an opinion. A conclusion derived from observation of evidence."
Um, excuse me? Actually, no, that wasn't what was said. I said that it was unnatural and then That One Guy brought up the "it happens in nature" agrument. But both him and you knew that I was referring to unnatural with regards to human beings, not wild animals. Homosex is most definitely unnatural behavior, otherwise it would be the norm in society, as in 50% or more of the population (if it were, the population would steadily decline as a direct consequence).
"Really? Okay, I will admit, there are homosexuals who are taking things too far when it comes to trying to promote LGBT rights, but to say that NO-ONE is denying LGBT rights? That's you willfully closing your eyes whenever a LGBT is discriminated against, which I have to inform you, still does happen."
Maybe some gay folk are being treated unfairly but that still doesn't entitle them to the "special" rights they're demanding which would ultimately infringe upon others' rights.
"'2)' Already explained to you how you're completely wrong there."
No, you didn't. I've already provided the information in another post that when the Church wanted a religious exemption to practice, absent state-funding, LGBT activists pushed the government to prevent that from happening. That's a clear-cut violation of the 1A and shows just how little gay activists really care about others' freedoms.
"'3)' About the Boy Scouts, the US government cannot allow them use of government property if they're going to discriminate. To put it in perspective, imagine if the KKK were to demand use of a national park while being anti-black, or a group that was anti-woman etc. For the government to allow that would mean the government is endorsing the discrimination."
Yet they're endorsing reverse-discrimination against religious groups simply for adhering to their beliefs, which they have every right to do. BTW, how wonderful of you to equate the Catholic Church, the most charitable organization in the world, with the KKK, a white supremacy hate group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, "nothing more than 'feelings.'" As opposed to the arguments *for* homosex, right?
You mean 'for equality' right?
Let's see... It's natural, causes no harm other than hurt feelings and feelings of grossness in some people(neither of which are good enough reasons against), homosexual parents have been proven to be just as good as heterosexual parents, increased equality is always good... those are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head, though I could probably come up with more if I cared to.
Ha, IN YOUR OPINION.
If by that you mean 'as proven from observations and evidence from nature', then yeah, that's totally 'my opinion'.
Now based on your comment below, where you seem to be trying to separate 'human nature' from 'all the other nature', you need to check what dictionary you are using, if you say 'natural' or 'un-natural' 99% of the time people are going to assume you are saying 'does or does not happen in nature' as that's what the words mean. Trying to say you mean only 'human nature' once it's pointed out that something does in fact occur in nature is just an attempt at re-defining the word to suit your argument after the fact.
Well gee, if you're going to play arbitrary games with the word 'beneficial' then you can also manufacture whatever barometer for it that you wish. I'll be specific this time just so that you don't evade it any further: specifically name one, just ONE undisputable biological benefit to homosex between two humans.
I'll do you better, I'll list ten(though one is not strictly speaking a biological benefit, better mental health translates pretty directly to better biological health):
1. Decreased stress, lower blood pressure.
2. Boost to immune system.
3. Burns calories.
4. Improves heart health.
5. Boosts self-esteem.
6. Strengthens intimacy between partners(by releasing associated chemicals).
7. Decreases pain.
8. (For the guys) Decreased risk of prostate cancer.
9.(For the gals) Strengthens pelvic floor muscles.
10. Better sleep.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex
Now you might be tempted to say 'those are for heterosexual couples', but if you look close you will not find 'causes pregnancy' anywhere in the list, so all of those benefits apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not where 'equality' concerns 'infringing upon other people's rights.' All of the arguments for homosexuality are predicated on feelings, hence why most people resort to childish name-calling and emotionally-charged rhetoric.
"Let's see... It's natural"
Not according to most of the world population.
"causes no harm other than hurt feelings and feelings of grossness in some people(neither of which are good enough reasons against)"
That's total opinion and your side of the aisle has no right to dictate what people should be allowed to say, think or believe.
"homosexual parents have been proven to be just as good as heterosexual parents"
Again, opinion-based rationale, not an undisputable fact.
"increased equality is always good... those are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head, though I could probably come up with more if I cared to."
Equality, equality, equality. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Now based on your comment below, where you seem to be trying to separate 'human nature' from 'all the other nature', you need to check what dictionary you are using, if you say 'natural' or 'un-natural' 99% of the time people are going to assume you are saying 'does or does not happen in nature' as that's what the words mean. Trying to say you mean only 'human nature' once it's pointed out that something does in fact occur in nature is just an attempt at re-defining the word to suit your argument after the fact."
Irony: playing word games while accusing me of doing such, even though I didn't pull the "it happens in nature" card. You knew full well that I was talking about human norms and then moved the goal post to shift the argument.
"I'll do you better, I'll list ten(though one is not strictly speaking a biological benefit, better mental health translates pretty directly to better biological health):
1. Decreased stress, lower blood pressure.
2. Boost to immune system.
3. Burns calories.
4. Improves heart health.
5. Boosts self-esteem.
6. Strengthens intimacy between partners(by releasing associated chemicals).
7. Decreases pain.
8. (For the guys) Decreased risk of prostate cancer.
9.(For the gals) Strengthens pelvic floor muscles.
10. Better sleep.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex
Now you might be tempted to say 'those are for heterosexual couples', but if you look close you will not find 'causes pregnancy' anywhere in the list, so all of those benefits apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally."
Ah, I see, you're attempting to conflate normal sex with homosex. VERY disingenuous of you. Ramroding a guy up the ass decreases prostate risk how? Also, LOL at #10. Gee, however did they figure out that people tended to be exhausted/relaxed after copulation? I should become an MD...
Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of moving the goalposts and word games... Claiming homosexuality is un-natural is wrong. Any argument that uses that as 'evidence' is also wrong.
Here's the definition of 'natural', and I want you to look very closely for where it mentions 'in humans'(hint: it doesn't).
Natural
nat·u·ral
adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
To suddenly pretend that well of course when people think 'natural/un-natural' they are going to think 'what's normal for humans' when proven that something happens in nature is just plain wrong, and a blatantly obvious attempt to justify a failed argument.
But while we're at 'what's natural for humans', lets list a few other things that aren't 'natural': dwarfism, left-handedness, shortsightedness/farsightedness, albinoism. Those are all groups that alongside homosexuality are in the minority. The difference is that for whatever reason, the 'minority' status of homosexuality is considered enough to justify treating them different, because it's 'offensive' or some such rot, whereas you'd be shunned in the extreme if you tried to say that a law should be put into place that prohibited someone with drawfism from marrying.
Not according to most of the world population.
Well given I'm going off of scientific and dictionary definitions here, I really don't care. As I've said before, science and truth don't care how many people believe, either for or against.
That's total opinion and your side of the aisle has no right to dictate what people should be allowed to say, think or believe.
Oh, if you have some evidence that homosexuality causes verifiable harm, please, by all means share, though again I remind you, 'hurt feelings' and 'feeling grossed out' don't count.
Equality, equality, equality. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Well based upon several other 'mistranslations' that have come up in these discussions, it may not be what you think it means, but I always though 'equality' meant equal treatment under the law, with no laws put in place or left in place that help or hinder a particular group based upon nothing more than emotional, religious, or otherwise evidence lacking arguments/reasons.
But hey, that's just what I think 'equality' means, I'm curious as to how you define it.
Again, opinion-based rationale, not an undisputable fact.
If by that you mean 'as tested and observed', and thereby backed by two things you seem to hate(science and contrary evidence), then sure. Strange, guess I've always been going off of the wrong idea as to what 'opinion' meant, chalk that up to another 'mistranslation' I suppose.
Ah, I see, you're attempting to conflate normal sex with homosex. VERY disingenuous of you. Ramroding a guy up the ass decreases prostate risk how? Also, LOL at #10. Gee, however did they figure out that people tended to be exhausted/relaxed after copulation? I should become an MD...
Nice try though.
Ah, now I get it, that was a mistake on my part. I thought you wanted me to provide evidence that homosexual sex has the same biological benefits as heterosexual sex, but you actually wanted me to provide evidence as to why it's better. Well I'm sorry to say that other than 'no risk of unwanted pregnancies', the biological benefits are pretty much equal for both, as other than the presence or lack of certain bits, there's really not much of a difference between the two biologically.
Now as to the 'prostrate cancer risk' and 'sleep' points, if you'd actually you know, read the list in the link, you'd know that the decrease in prostate cancer has nothing to do with position or partner's gender, and everything to do with frequency of orgasm for men, while the sleep one is due to the release of certain chemicals, and not exhaustion.
Also, I can't help but laugh at how often you bring up anal sex, with such 'colorful descriptions' no less. For someone who objects so strongly to homosexual acts, you sure seem to think about them a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if I choose, as an agent of free will, to not hire a homosexual person because I believe the practice of homosexuality to be evil, that is not persecution, anymore than someone refusing to hire me because I am a night owl. To use the government to compel me to violate my fourth amendment rights of free association -- now that is evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems
Swap out a few words and that argument could have come straight out of early/mid last century, no other changes required. And this is why it's so impossible to take the arguments against homosexuals seriously, we've all heard them before in history classes, the only difference is the group being affected, no matter how vocal the protesting of 'No really, this is different, I have a black friend, but I just can't stand those gays!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems
Besides, truth be told, Obamacare is government-mandated discrimination because it gives employers a huge incentive to hire illegals rather than American citizens, specifically $0 vs $3,000 in mandatory medical coverage. Try to argue that one away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Misleading assertion. Yes, they're a minority, though not equivalent to race or gender, i.e. physical characteristics people are inherently born with.
"2) If yes - have homosexuals been persecuted against by other people with the reason being that Homosexuality is wrong because (Fill in the blank)?"
You already know the answer. Then again, can you name a group of people who haven't been?
"3) If yes - Have people of certain religious leanings been persecuted against?"
Again, you already know the answer.
"4) If yes - what does the fact that religious people being persecuted have to do with homosexual people being persecuted? How is it that 'Christians are being persecuted' means that persecution of homosexuals should be allowed (and by persecution, I mean what you want, the removal of civil liberties from them, like marriage, jobs, ability to apply to adopt, etc)."
What a leap to a false conclusion, that being that I'm for gay people losing their jobs or condone violence against them; however, I don't believe in same-sex marriage and that if possible children should be raised by a mother and father. The purpose of my highlighting Christian persecution is to show that persecution isn't exclusive to gays. If anything, people who spoke out either in favor of traditional marriage or against same-sex marriage have literally lost their jobs over it.
"Also, you're the only person saying that homosexuals are getting 'a moral blank check.' None of us here have called for it. We don't believe that just because you've suffered, you then somehow get the right to persecute others in exchange. No, if homosexuals were to try passing laws forbidding people from marrying in a Christian church, I and all the others here would be dead set against it."
Are you trying to be intentionally misleading? If you're not calling for a moral blank check then what exactly are you calling for? Civil liberties, perchance? Gays are already afforded all the same Constitutional rights as everyone else.
"Just because a person persecutes doesn't mean that all those who share the same characteristic as him/her should lose their civil liberties (whether the person doing the persecution is homosexual or religious or whatever). What you are saying there is that if a single homosexual person is bad, then all homosexuals should be punished based on his actions. How come you're not applying the same punishment to those who persecute for religious reasons? Why is it that when a Westboro Baptist Church member (extreme example I know) shouts 'God hates fags,' you're not calling for the punishment of all Christians everywhere?"
Because being Christian isn't merely a label or title, it's a way of life: literally, to be Christ-like. No true Christian would go along with the WBC's extreme stances. As for my example of King Mwanga, that was to show that extremism isn't a one-way street, i.e. Christians committing hate crimes against homosexuals. So no, I'm *not* saying that anyone should lose their rights. Quit misconstruing everything I say. BTW, what civil liberties have homosexuals lost? Free speech? Gun rights? Unlawful search and seizure? Be specific.
"I would like to ask exactly what makes the battle for homosexual civil rights so different from that of racism rights. They're both about minority groups within mainstream society being treated differently because of something personal that quite frankly harms no-one. Both have had quite popular and skilled leaders fighting for the rights of their respective groups. Also, both groups have had their bad apples. However, we don't say that because of those bad apples, we should continue denying rights, because then, we would have to deny right to everyone - you would find white people who were bad, Chinese people who were bad, black people etc. What makes the battle for LGBT rights so fucking different from the battle for rights for those of a different skin colour that it somehow makes a mockery?"
They're not battling for "equal rights," as you put it, but rather to *force* acceptance of their chosen lifestyle upon everyone, including people who morally object to it. It's one thing to say, "Homosexuals deserve all the same rights as everyone else," that much is certainly true. However, how by dancing around in the street, passing out lubricants and condoms and simulating sodomy is that to be considered fighting for equal rights? They weren't made to sit at the back of the bus like blacks were, weren't sold into indentured servitude like blacks were, et al. So no, their agenda is not one and the same as racial groups'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *correction*
Made the same mistake as you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you against them? Condoms protect against unwanted pregnancies and can reduce the risk of STIs. It's not just homosexuals who use them. Heterosexual people can use lubricant for anal sex, why is it you don't freak out about a man ramming his penis up a woman's arse? (In case you forgot, you once said those exact words, except about two men).
"BTW, what civil liberties have homosexuals lost? Free speech? Gun rights? Unlawful search and seizure? Be specific."
If not for LGBT civil rights battles over the last few decades, they wouldn't have the right to marry an adult whom they choose, the right to apply to adopt children (not the same thing as saying they're entitled to children, but that they can go through the same process as everybody else, instead of being rejected out of hand because of their homosexuality), along with protection from being fired from their jobs because of being homosexual.
Lastly, about the forced acceptance of homosexuality - I'll just say, I'm from Ireland, so I haven't experienced what's going on over in the US. However, there is nothing forcing you to go to a Gay Pride parade, just as there's nothing forcing me to go to an Orange Parade here in Ireland. As for your comments about homosexuality being taught in schools - just how bad are they? Are they teaching kids sexual positions, or as I've researched, the background of homosexual civil rights activists?
Also, about your last sentence - that again is your ridiculous standard, that somehow unless a minority group suffers like the blacks did (back of the bus, enslaved), then somehow they should be ignored when they want their civil rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're deflecting from the question, so let's try this again: what does passing out lubricants and condoms have to do with equal rights?
"Why are you against them? Condoms protect against unwanted pregnancies and can reduce the risk of STIs. It's not just homosexuals who use them. Heterosexual people can use lubricant for anal sex, why is it you don't freak out about a man ramming his penis up a woman's arse? (In case you forgot, you once said those exact words, except about two men)."
Actually, no, I didn't. I specifically singled out homosex. But you're right, I feel it is still disgusting to perform anal sex to a woman. As for your condom/lubricant argument, by defending their use, you're promoting promiscuous behavior.
"If not for LGBT civil rights battles over the last few decades, they wouldn't have the right to marry an adult whom they choose, the right to apply to adopt children (not the same thing as saying they're entitled to children, but that they can go through the same process as everybody else, instead of being rejected out of hand because of their homosexuality), along with protection from being fired from their jobs because of being homosexual."
The original argument was about getting the government to recognize it and give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples. States that pushed through gay marriage began telling Catholic adoption agencies to either allow same-sex couples to adopt, in violation of their beliefs (and 1A rights), or cease operation. As for jobs, I haven't heard of any widespread denied applications for homosexuals. If anything, more and more cases are popping up of people being fired simply for believing in traditional values, even where it doesn't conflict with their work. Thought crime discrimination.
"Lastly, about the forced acceptance of homosexuality - I'll just say, I'm from Ireland, so I haven't experienced what's going on over in the US. However, there is nothing forcing you to go to a Gay Pride parade, just as there's nothing forcing me to go to an Orange Parade here in Ireland. As for your comments about homosexuality being taught in schools - just how bad are they? Are they teaching kids sexual positions, or as I've researched, the background of homosexual civil rights activists?
Also, about your last sentence - that again is your ridiculous standard, that somehow unless a minority group suffers like the blacks did (back of the bus, enslaved), then somehow they should be ignored when they want their civil rights?"
Your argument holds no weight because homosexuals weren't denied the same Constitutional rights as blacks were. As for schools, that's easy enough to research on your own,. although I've already provided a lot of info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one who mentioned condoms and lubricant, so I was wondering what your beef with them was.
"But you're right, I feel it is still disgusting to perform anal sex to a woman."
Just as I feel uncomfortable about the thought of a man having anal sex with me...however, I don't let that translate into "No-one should have anal sex!" or "Strip rights from sodomites or LGBTs"
" As for your condom/lubricant argument, by defending their use, you're promoting promiscuous behavior."
By promiscuous, you're probably talking about loveless sex outside marriage. While I myself would only ever have sex for love...what other people do in their sex lives has quite frankly, FUCK ALL to do with you. I also hope you realise that married straight couples also use both of them. Are you going to come down like a ton of bricks if you see a couple at the cash registers wearing wedding rings and stocking up on condoms/lubricants? Or will you shut your mouth because what other people do has nothing to do with you? This is partly why to me Christianity is a dirty word, those who profess the faith are all too quick to judge others about what they should and should not do in the bedroom (I can't remember the last time I heard of a homosexual saying to a straight couple they shouldn't have sex, that they're evil for being straight).
"States that pushed through gay marriage began telling Catholic adoption agencies to either allow same-sex couples to adopt, in violation of their beliefs (and 1A rights), or cease operation."
Operating an adoption centre has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. NOTHING. The First Amendment has to do with free speech and separation between Church and State. If the state were to fund Christian adoption centers while they were using their religion as an excuse to deny XYZ, rather than judging the applicant's actual parental skills, that would actually be a violation of the separation, since the state would be promoting that religion. What if the Nation of Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
were to set up an adoption center, deny white couples out of hand, say that's because that's what their religion says (white people are a race of devils, according to the teachings of that religion's founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad)? Would you say the state should still give money to this discriminatory body? If the state were to allow discrimination like this, that would mean that the children (remember them) are very likely not getting the best parents, but rather those who fit the discriminatory view of whoever runs them. That would be tantamount to child abuse in my book. And no, it wasn't "Cease operations", it was lose state funding.
"As for jobs, I haven't heard of any widespread denied applications for homosexuals."
Maybe that has something to do with it now being illegal to discriminate? Whereas before, it wasn't? Why, it was only recently that you could come out as homosexual within the US military and not be discharged automatically. However, it does remain a historical fact, that while it can arguably said to not be as widespread as discrimination against blacks, there were still plenty of people being fired over nothing more than their homosexuality.
As for the school teacher...I know you won't be surprised, but I'm behind him. If in his lawsuit, the state rules against him, they would be saying that yes, you can be fired over something that has nothing to do with your employers. I found it ironic that the reason his employers gave was because he had done the sin of being one of the first gay couples to marry in his area, once it became legal and that it had made the news. By talking about it, even though this was something that was happening outside of the school and had nothing to do with it, the school still felt it should punish his speech (hello 1A violations!)
While on school time, the teacher should spew forth whatever bullshit his employers say, as that's what he's being paid to do. If he doesn't like it, he should quit. However, for the school to reach forth their hand and extend it into his private life and find something they don't like (hey, he probably drank alcohol on Good Friday! Fired!), THAT is a violation of the First Amendment.
Just to give some perspective on that, I went to three different Catholic schools in Ireland. My secondary school (high school)'s second to last headmaster...was an out and out homosexual. This is a school run by the Marianists, and no-one had a problem with the headmaster of a CATHOLIC school being gay. He wasn't a member of the Marianists himself, but he ran the school well from what I was told.
" If anything, more and more cases are popping up of people being fired simply for believing in traditional values,"
If people are being fired merely for believing in Christianity or Islam or Judaism or whatever, fine, I would agree with you there. However, if they, using their religion as a cloak, then go on to, in the course of their jobs, deny service to LGBTs, then they should be fired. There's a huge difference between speaking the tenets of your religion and actions taken in the course of your job. Jews don't eat pork, but if a Jewish cashier at the supermarket told a customer who was buying bacon to fuck off, I would want that cashier to be fired.
"Your argument holds no weight because homosexuals weren't denied the same Constitutional rights as blacks were."
Sigh...why is it that you remain incapable of understanding? Let me break it down. From what you've written, unless a group experiences suffering close to or of the same degree as what blacks did, such as institutionalized slavery and segregation, then that group, in your view, HAS NOT SUFFERED. Am I somehow reading your words wrong?
It was only in recent years and decades that it became law that it was illegal to discriminate because of sexuality. Before then, you could fire a gay person and that person would have no resource for restitution. Just like what happened with the blacks.
Sorry, but to me, you're the exact same person as those from before the 1960's, who discriminated against blacks simply because...of well, being black. To me, your discrimination is pure evil, since you don't afford others a fair chance. You judge them and judge them harshly, all for something that has nothing to do with you and never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the hell? Answer the question!
"Just as I feel uncomfortable about the thought of a man having anal sex with me...however, I don't let that translate into 'No-one should have anal sex!' or 'Strip rights from sodomites or LGBTs'"
Can you answer ANYTHING without resorting to empty rhetoric about gay people mysteriously having all their rights denied?
"By promiscuous, you're probably talking about loveless sex outside marriage. While I myself would only ever have sex for love...what other people do in their sex lives has quite frankly, FUCK ALL to do with you. I also hope you realise that married straight couples also use both of them. Are you going to come down like a ton of bricks if you see a couple at the cash registers wearing wedding rings and stocking up on condoms/lubricants? Or will you shut your mouth because what other people do has nothing to do with you? This is partly why to me Christianity is a dirty word, those who profess the faith are all too quick to judge others about what they should and should not do in the bedroom (I can't remember the last time I heard of a homosexual saying to a straight couple they shouldn't have sex, that they're evil for being straight)."
Are you actually trying to dictate to me that I don't have the right to have an opinion? Yes, yes, of course, Christianity is so bad, because we uphold moral values as opposed to arbitrarily shifting views (i.e. relativism). At least we're consistant. But no, everybody should just do whatever the hell they want and go along with it and agree that everything is fine and dandy.
"Operating an adoption centre has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. NOTHING. The First Amendment has to do with free speech and separation between Church and State. If the state were to fund Christian adoption centers while they were using their religion as an excuse to deny XYZ, rather than judging the applicant's actual parental skills, that would actually be a violation of the separation, since the state would be promoting that religion. What if the Nation of Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
were to set up an adoption center, deny white couples out of hand, say that's because that's what their religion says (white people are a race of devils, according to the teachings of that religion's founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad)? Would you say the state should still give money to this discriminatory body? If the state were to allow discrimination like this, that would mean that the children (remember them) are very likely not getting the best parents, but rather those who fit the discriminatory view of whoever runs them. That would be tantamount to child abuse in my book. And no, it wasn't 'Cease operations,' it was lose state funding."
You're so full of it.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680
"Some believe that the new civil unions law will not effect religious organizations such as the Catholic Church. And some homosexual advocates are claiming that the Church's decision to shut down its adoption and foster care services is a sign of intolerance. But when a bill, SB 1123, was proposed to amend certain language in the law in order to protect religious liberty, the amendment was attacked by homosexual activists and defeated by one vote.
This is not the first time something like this has happened. Catholic services in other states have also been forced to shut down. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. was forced to shut down their foster care and public adoption program due to a law recognizing same-sex marriage that went into effect in 2010. The law requires that religious organizations serving the general public must provide services to homosexuals regardless of their religious beliefs. District lawmakers could have granted an exemption to the archdiocese, but they chose to force it to compromise Church teaching on marriage or shut down its programs. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, said, "Archbishop Wuerl [of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C.] isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program."
Something similar also happened in the state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down unless it agreed to place children with homosexuals. New state licensing laws in 2006 required that Catholic agencies facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. According to an article by Father Robert J. Carr, in a joint statement, bishops from four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said, ". . . if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present 'a serious pastoral problem' and threaten religious freedom."
Apparently, this has also happened in England and Wales. Marianne Medlin writes, "Last August, a local commission ruled that the last remaining agency, Catholic Care, was not justified in its refusal to place children with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs."
All of these forced closing reflect a trend, and it is not benign. I believe that homosexual activists have given us a clue to the nature of this trend. They tell us that they just want to be treated equally, that they want to be free to love each other and have families like married heterosexual couples. But I do not believe this is true, and it is not realistic. In addition, homosexual activists in Illinois are calling the new civil unions law the "Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act." But the law does not protect freedom, certainly not mine or yours, anyhow. So if this trend is not about equality, freedom or love, then what is it about? Perhaps it will help us answer this question if we look at another example.
Since the 1980's, various groups (homosexuals, feminists, secularists and atheists) have been attacking the Boy Scouts of America. This first came to my attention when the Supreme Court ruled on a case between the Boy Scouts and an assistant scoutmaster, James Dale. The Boy Scouts discharged Dale from his position when it became clear that he was a homosexual. Dale sued the Boy Scouts for discharging him. However, in 2000 the Court upheld the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of "freedom of association" and ruled in favor of the Scouts' right to set their own membership standards.
This did not end the Scouts' legal battles, however. The decision apparently energized homosexual activists to destroy the Boy Scouts. Only now, the focus shifted to turning public opinion and support against the Scouts and attacking the Scouts' relationship with government through litigation initiated by such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). As a result, some corporations and charities have turned against the Scouts, and the Scouts have lost the use of government land and facilities which had historically been available to them.
Homosexuals could have established their own type of program, but they did not. At least they were free to do so if they had wanted to. But it was not freedom that they wanted. They wanted to take others' freedom, to force the Scouts to change their beliefs. If the homosexual activists did not get what they wanted, then they would try to destroy the Scouts and deny boys the chance to participate in one of the best experiences a boy could have.
It appears that this is similar to the civil union laws springing up around the country. This trend is not about equality or freedom or love. We know this because states could allow unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexuals to adopt children and become foster parents without forcing the Catholic Church to violate its beliefs or shut down its services. The secular state could easily make room for both if it wanted. But every indication is that it wants to force the Church to conform to its irrational and immoral beliefs or be driven out of the public sector."
---------------------------------
"Maybe that has something to do with it now being illegal to discriminate? Whereas before, it wasn't? Why, it was only recently that you could come out as homosexual within the US military and not be discharged automatically. However, it does remain a historical fact, that while it can arguably said to not be as widespread as discrimination against blacks, there were still plenty of people being fired over nothing more than their homosexuality.
As for the school teacher...I know you won't be surprised, but I'm behind him. If in his lawsuit, the state rules against him, they would be saying that yes, you can be fired over something that has nothing to do with your employers. I found it ironic that the reason his employers gave was because he had done the sin of being one of the first gay couples to marry in his area, once it became legal and that it had made the news. By talking about it, even though this was something that was happening outside of the school and had nothing to do with it, the school still felt it should punish his speech (hello 1A violations!)
While on school time, the teacher should spew forth whatever bullshit his employers say, as that's what he's being paid to do. If he doesn't like it, he should quit. However, for the school to reach forth their hand and extend it into his private life and find something they don't like (hey, he probably drank alcohol on Good Friday! Fired!), THAT is a violation of the First Amendment."
Oh really? So then, every single instance where a newscaster, athlete, teacher, businessman or otherwise said something or did something on their private time and was fired for it, those are all 1A violations to you? Apparently you don't realize that we have something called freedom of association.
"Just to give some perspective on that, I went to three different Catholic schools in Ireland. My secondary school (high school)'s second to last headmaster...was an out and out homosexual. This is a school run by the Marianists, and no-one had a problem with the headmaster of a CATHOLIC school being gay. He wasn't a member of the Marianists himself, but he ran the school well from what I was told."
That's all well and good. However, what the media did in the other instance must've upset enough parents and teachers that they were forced to respond, and it was well within their right. As I said, the parents are paying for a specific education in a specific environment, therefore the Catholic school has a right to maintain its public image.
"If people are being fired merely for believing in Christianity or Islam or Judaism or whatever, fine, I would agree with you there. However, if they, using their religion as a cloak, then go on to, in the course of their jobs, deny service to LGBTs, then they should be fired. There's a huge difference between speaking the tenets of your religion and actions taken in the course of your job. Jews don't eat pork, but if a Jewish cashier at the supermarket told a customer who was buying bacon to fuck off, I would want that cashier to be fired."
I agree.
"Sigh...why is it that you remain incapable of understanding? Let me break it down. From what you've written, unless a group experiences suffering close to or of the same degree as what blacks did, such as institutionalized slavery and segregation, then that group, in your view, HAS NOT SUFFERED. Am I somehow reading your words wrong?
It was only in recent years and decades that it became law that it was illegal to discriminate because of sexuality. Before then, you could fire a gay person and that person would have no resource for restitution. Just like what happened with the blacks.
Sorry, but to me, you're the exact same person as those from before the 1960's, who discriminated against blacks simply because...of well, being black. To me, your discrimination is pure evil, since you don't afford others a fair chance. You judge them and judge them harshly, all for something that has nothing to do with you and never will."
Are you finished with the lame false characterizations? Yeah, I'm real evil for not sacrificing my beliefs in order to conform to your world view. As far as firing people for being gay, you keep harping on this one point without offering up evidence. Now, I'm sure that there have been many people fired who are gay (then again, there's probably been people from EVERY group, race or whatever that have been fired), but can you prove that they were fired specifically because A) they were gay and for no other reason, and B) that this occurred on a semi-regular basis? If so, your argument might hold some weight. Until then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/your-money/protections-for-gays-in-workplace-are-piece meal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(If you can't see it, you may need to get a javascript blocker for your web browser and disable javascript).
There's no federal level law that prohibits the firing of someone based on their sexuality.
http://www.seiu.org/2013/05/fired-for-being-gay.php
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e du/press/5-people-who-were-fired-for-being-gay-and-the-29-states-where-that-is-still-legal/
"""If people are being fired merely for believing in Christianity or Islam or Judaism or whatever, fine, I would agree with you there. However, if they, using their religion as a cloak, then go on to, in the course of their jobs, deny service to LGBTs, then they should be fired. There's a huge difference between speaking the tenets of your religion and actions taken in the course of your job. Jews don't eat pork, but if a Jewish cashier at the supermarket told a customer who was buying bacon to fuck off, I would want that cashier to be fired."
I agree."
You agree that someone serving a customer should not refuse service to someone else because of their sexuality?
Umm...hypocrisy? Remember in an earlier article you and I had a discussion, and you quoted from a website that mentioned a Christian lady photographer who refused service to a homosexual couple? I remember you defending her discrimination there.
"Oh really? So then, every single instance where a newscaster, athlete, teacher, businessman or otherwise said something or did something on their private time and was fired for it, those are all 1A violations to you? Apparently you don't realize that we have something called freedom of association."
Freedom of association...the freedom to associate with who we want...meaning that you then must support the freedom of the teacher to associate with, and then marry, his husband. Sure, maybe he shouldn't mention his marriage while teaching, as it's not part of the lesson plan. If asked by his students, he should then say "Sorry, that's private, but if you still want to chat (maybe because you yourself are homosexual), you and I can talk after school, once I'm off the clock". Which would obviously leave unspoken but well understood by anyone with half a brain that this homosexuality is so feared by his employers that he has been told not to talk about it, that he has to wait until he's off hours before he can even broach the topic.
With your list of athletes and whatnot above, you probably mean when they get in trouble with the law, such as get caught doing drugs or whatever. Once they're seen to violate the law, then fine, I have no problem with them being fired. Not the school teacher.
"That's all well and good. However, what the media did in the other instance must've upset enough parents and teachers that they were forced to respond, and it was well within their right. As I said, the parents are paying for a specific education in a specific environment, therefore the Catholic school has a right to maintain its public image."
To the point where every facet of the employee's lives is scrutinised by the school, and if they violate one of the teachings of that school while off the clock, they should be fired? What if the teacher doesn't go to Mass on Sundays? So you're fine with discrimination as long as someone pays for it. Fine then, if ever I go to the US and I happen to go into say a restaurant, would it be all right if I paid extra for the management to clear his building of all religious folk or black folk, or Asians, or whatever? (as long as it's not a booking restaurant, where it's possible for one person to book the entire building for a romantic evening, say)
As for your quote from catholic.org, again, operating an adoption center IS NOT A RIGHT. It has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. No-one, least of all a church or religious body, has the right to open and run one. I would say the exact same thing if a pro-homosexual body opened one and then refused to let straight couples adopt: I would still call that discrimination of the worst sort.
When one is running a business or service that receives funding from the state, no matter what it is, one must follow the laws of the state. Again, my example, would you allow a Nation of Islam adoption centre to refuse white couples? Or one run by the KKK to refuse blacks? Or a group that says it's anti-Semite, or anti-Asian, or whatever?
The goal of an adoption centre is to find proper homes and parents for children under their care. That means finding parents that have a steady income, have proven they are loving, willing to raise a child and have proven they have the ability to do so. Imagine if you will, if you have a child, but you die, and that child is now orphaned. Your precious Christian adoption centre then looks for parents, but instead of allowing a perfectly able homosexual couple, who have passed all their tests and have proven they would make great parents...are instead refused, solely because of their homosexuality. Your child is refused a loving home. Your child is then stuck in the system for could be months or years, all because your precious Christian adoption centre was allowed to discriminate.
"Yeah, I'm real evil for not sacrificing my beliefs in order to conform to your world view."
No, I'm not saying you're evil because you refuse to sacrifice your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. What I am saying you are evil for are your actions when you discriminate against LGBTs, because that harms people for no good reason whatsoever.
Look, I agree and believe in Free Speech. Religious people can and should have the right to say and believe in whatever they want, just the same as anyone else. What I don't like is when religion is used as an excuse to allow all sorts of outrageous behaviour, or to have that's religions teachings such as their discriminatory views codified as law, such that everybody must follow it or be punished. You can have your churches and other groups and exclude anyone as much as you want...unless you're an employer and thus you run up against employee's rights, such as not being dismissed out of hand for a prospective job/being fired for something that has nothing to do with their job. As long as someone shows up to work, does their job politely, has the proper skills for it, that should be that. Your employer shouldn't reach into your private life, find something you've done that isn't in any way illegal, and then decide you're fired. That would mean handing far too much power to employers, to the detriment of employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That actually kind of works both ways. You could argue this, but if they had attempted to make Obamacare universal, including with religious hospitals, the religions would have screamed bloody murder that the law violated the 1A since it forced them to do something.
If you want a better example of the government violating the first amendment, go with the fact that there are religious leaders on the military payroll. And if THAT doesn't piss you off, you don't understand what secularism is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. The constitution is quite clear that the government and religion should have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The public paying the salaries of clergy violates that. Teaching about the existence and tolerating homosexuality in a secular classroom violates zero constitutional amendments. They aren't even close to the same thing.
"What's more, the government is attempting to force them to sanction gay marriages, with the full knowledge that it violates their beliefs. This is a recurring theme: attempting to manipulate religious persons into violating their beliefs."
Excuse me, but if a clergymen wants public dollars he plays by the public's rules. Otherwise, he/she can get the fuck out of the military entirely, or else volunteer their service, which is what they'd be doing if they were pious to begin with. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they play by secular rules, simple as fucking that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I would agree that if you don't want the government's rules don't take the money. This is why, for example, the legal drinking age in every state is 21. The government held out the carrot of highway funds and told the states that if they wanted the money, they had to raise their drinking age to 21. Not a single state refused. They all had their hands out for the federal money. Much of the American public has its hands out for federal and state money too. That's part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would depend on what they're being paid to do. Are they there to service specific service members' beliefs or are they there to propagate their faith? Nevertheless, if they want to completely secularize the military, fine, they have the right to do so, just as religious people have every right to walk away from service, which might in fact be in the government's playbook. After all, I can see how attempting to coerce religious people to violate their conscious and turn on American citizens would make hostile government takeover difficult.
"Teaching about the existence and tolerating homosexuality in a secular classroom violates zero constitutional amendments. They aren't even close to the same thing."
Actually, it does, and that's the key: 1A rights are not restricted only to adults but children as well. What the school is doing is using taxpayer dollars to socially engineer children into believing something which contradicts their faith.
"Excuse me, but if a clergymen wants public dollars he plays by the public's rules. Otherwise, he/she can get the fuck out of the military entirely, or else volunteer their service, which is what they'd be doing if they were pious to begin with. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they play by secular rules, simple as fucking that."
Fair enough, which is why I believe that religious people would be better off abandoning government services, since it's obvious that the government doesn't have an ounce of respect for their beliefs. The next time the "secular government" wants to start a war with another country, let 'em go do it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically the same thing isn't it, while they're being paid taxpayer money.
"What the school is doing is using taxpayer dollars to socially engineer children into believing something which contradicts their faith."
Now you've gone off the deep end. In a public school, funded by tax payer dollars, what the religion says means FUCK ALL when it comes to what goes in the lesson plan. Otherwise, you'd have to cater to EVERY religion, with all the stupid beliefs therein, such as the Nation of Islam's anti-whites (are you now going to say that just as homosexuality shouldn't be taught in sex ed, now NoI students should be taught in biology class that white men are inferior?).
"Fair enough, which is why I believe that religious people would be better off abandoning government services, since it's obvious that the government doesn't have an ounce of respect for their beliefs. The next time the "secular government" wants to start a war with another country, let 'em go do it themselves."
Reading between the lines...lemme guess, you want a theocracy, where the members of one religion are in power, get to call the shots, and have greater rights than non-believers. That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to help avoid, with its separation between Church and State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said anything about teaching religion? I certainly didn't. What I said was that the public school system has no right to infringe upon the students' 1A freedom to believe as they choose. The public education system is appropriating taxpayer funds to teach about how homosexuality is normal and ok, which constitutes a VIOLATION of the students' rights.
"Reading between the lines...lemme guess, you want a theocracy, where the members of one religion are in power, get to call the shots, and have greater rights than non-believers. That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to help avoid, with its separation between Church and State."
You show me where I said that I want a theocracy. I didn't. You're knockin down strawmen. I said that if the government wants to get rid of the priests and rabbis, fine, so be it, but that they shouldn't complain later when religious people inevitably walk away from service. The priests and rabbis play an integral role to help boost morale and keep soldiers' spiritually and psychologically fit. And no, they do not constitute a theocracy, regardless of how you try to spin it.
By the way, the 1A cuts both ways: the religious don't get to force their beliefs upon others, just as the secularists, homosexuals and others don't get to force theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, you might just be the stupidest person I've ever conversed with. You have zero understanding of what the first amendment is, does, and what secularism is and does. In the secular classroom, there is no violating children's religion, because they don't have a religion in the eyes of the classroom. As far as the classroom is considered, there is NO SUCH THING as religion. That's the entire point. The secular state operates without any respect to any religion at all. That's the entire basis of secularism, meaning there's no violation of religion within the classroom unless there is any acknowledgement of religion.
For example, if a teacher taught students that the Catholic church is a bigoted monstrosity, that'd be a violation. But if the teacher teaches that homosexuals are people and should be treated with the same respect in our government afforded everyone else, without mentioning any religion at all, there's no violation. Plain and simple. Try some reading on the Virginia religious statute authored by Thomas Jefferson, and maybe you'll have a clue why your government is so special, then maybe you'll start appreciating why secularism has been a boon for Catholicism in this country. After all, were it not for secularism, we'd all be protestants.
"Fair enough, which is why I believe that religious people would be better off abandoning government services, since it's obvious that the government doesn't have an ounce of respect for their beliefs. The next time the "secular government" wants to start a war with another country, let 'em go do it themselves."
Hey, that's fine with me. Enjoy having no say in defending the nation that made your religion flourish on a continent where it never had before. If you can't show the small amount of gratitude you owe to your secular state, you can sit shit out while we get important stuff done.
Fortunately, most of the Christians I've met in my life are nothing like you, would hate you for what you say, and don't mind fighting for everyone's rights and interests, not just their own sectarian beliefs. But hey, you go sit out the wars, because I'm sure you were just itching to enlist otherwise, tough guy.
Here's the truth: you're a shitty American. Were I you, I'd try to get better at American-ing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then, when that school down in Texas tried to expel a student for objecting to wearing the RFID chip due to religious beliefs, and then the education board in effect tried to coerce her family into compliance, that doesn't constitute a violation of her 1A rights? As was said before, the 1A cuts both ways: the religious don't get to force their views upon others, just as the the secularists don't get to force theirs.
"For example, if a teacher taught students that the Catholic church is a bigoted monstrosity, that'd be a violation. But if the teacher teaches that homosexuals are people and should be treated with the same respect in our government afforded everyone else, without mentioning any religion at all, there's no violation. Plain and simple. Try some reading on the Virginia religious statute authored by Thomas Jefferson, and maybe you'll have a clue why your government is so special, then maybe you'll start appreciating why secularism has been a boon for Catholicism in this country. After all, were it not for secularism, we'd all be protestants."
First, the public school is supposed to educate children, not to give them lessons in moral relativism -- a violation of their 1A rights. Second, children don't need to be *taught* that homosexuals are *people* because that's leaping to the illogical conclusion that children are stupid tools. Third, teaching that homosexuality is "normal behavior" does not constitute for education and has everything to do with social engineering. Whether or not the children believe that homosexuality is normal is THEIR CHOICE. The secular state has no business infringing upon their personal beliefs, no matter what YOU personally think.
"Hey, that's fine with me. Enjoy having no say in defending the nation that made your religion flourish on a continent where it never had before. If you can't show the small amount of gratitude you owe to your secular state, you can sit shit out while we get important stuff done."
Important stuff such as what? Blowing up innocent people in foreign countries so that American enterprise can then pillage them and oil giants can get lucrative no-bid contracts to syphon their oil? Explain to me how by killing some caveman in a third-world country on the other side of the globe is "protecting our freedom"? Meanwhile our *secular government* continues to erode our Constitution...
"Fortunately, most of the Christians I've met in my life are nothing like you, would hate you for what you say, and don't mind fighting for everyone's rights and interests, not just their own sectarian beliefs. But hey, you go sit out the wars, because I'm sure you were just itching to enlist otherwise, tough guy."
Yeah right. You definitely don't speak for anyone who share my Christian beliefs. What would they "hate me" for, disagreeing with what is taught in the Bible to be an abomination? Standing up for their right to believe as they do? Meanwhile, here's you, an atheist(?) who's for removing all priests and rabbis from military service, because you find it "offensive" that your tax dollars are paying their salaries. Of course it's no surprise that you'd personally hate me; after all, Jesus did say that His believers would be scourned, mocked and hated in the world. You're living proof of that. See if after you pass from this life into the next and stand before the Throne of God how well your (Satanic) world view goes over with Jesus.
"Here's the truth: you're a shitty American. Were I you, I'd try to get better at American-ing...."
Please, like you're going to teach me about being American when you're in favor of state-sponsored social engineering in the classroom, relinquishing religious people from duty and forcing homosexuality on groups which want nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an example, if a young-earth-creationist(YEC) believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, had children who were taught the same, and sent them to school, it would in no way, shape or form be a 'violation of their first amendment rights' for the teachers in the school to teach those children that no, as a matter of fact the earth is much older than that, despite the fact that what they were teaching directly contradicted the YEC's beliefs.
In the same way, a member of a religion can belief whatever he wants about homosexuality, but teaching students that homosexuality is natural, and does not turn someone into a terrible person is not a violation of their first amendment rights, because it's based on scientific observations(both biological and psychological) and fact, the only things that matters in a school setting.
The point of schooling (ideally anyway) is to teach the students facts and information, based upon science and the scientific method of observable, testable evidence. 'Belief' has nothing to do with that, unless it is also backed by scientific observation and supporting evidence, which the 'homosexuality is unnatural and wrong' group sorely lacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You bring up young-Earth creationists' supposed lack of scientific evidence for their posit, yet fail to mention that evolution as it's taught has never been observed, much less proven through abiogenesis, the first step necessary in order for the theory to even get off the ground. Having evolution without abiogenesis would be like building something without the necessary blueprints. Life begets life, nobody can contest this fact, and therefore you need life in order for it to *evolve*. They teach children that amino acids were just lying around for millions of years and, by some mysterious and unknown-to-man "natural" occurrance, just happened to form a peptide. (Yeah, right, like that's even plausible...) And still, that's nowhere NEAR the data necessary to assemble and work in tandem to create a life form. You want to talk about faith-based science? Look no further than evolution and abiogenesis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's official then. You do not understand at all, and in fact, DON'T WANT to understand what the First Amendment actually means, despite it being explained to you several times. A student doesn't set the lesson by saying "No teacher, I don't believe what you're teaching, teach something else, I'm (Religion XYZ). I don't believe in math/history/biology etc, my religion says that what you're teaching is false".
The teacher teaches things according to fact and science, because they are the only ways to deal with the world. You observe phenomena in the world, research them, and come to a conclusion. I don't start out by saying "Gay sex is wrong" and then run around trying to find things that justify it, while discarding everything else, then teach that.
The age of the Earth has been pretty much proven and is basically incontestable. In fact, I recently watched a video of a Christian fundamentalist giving a talk, saying the Earth is 10,000 years old and saying that the study of strata proves that...thing is, he completely left out radiometric (you might know this better as Carbon 14 dating) analysis. He didn't mention it at all. He didn't mention this well known piece of evidence that puts the age of the earth at just over 4 billion years. And you would WANT this taught in schools? You know, places of education for young people where they're supposed to be taught facts?
Why should a debunked theory of the world be taught? "Ooh, this religion says it's true!" Yeah...plenty of other religions say things - my 'religion', the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, says that God is the FSM, that he was drunk when he created the universe and that pirates are the epitome of human evolution. Why isn't that being taught in schools, and given the same treatment as Christian creationism? What makes your religion so damn special that it must be included in public schools, against the First Amendment wishes of atheist/agnostic/other denomination students? (see what I did there? I took your argument and turned it against you!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Age of the Earth... who knows? Were you there when it first came into being? C-14 'dating' measures the amount of C-14 in something but in and of itself does not constitute for a 'clock.'
The state giving moral lessons through the public school system is a violation of both the childrens' and the parents' 1A right to freedom of religion; the 1A protects the childrens' right to believe whatever they wish. It's up to the parents to instill good morals into their children. The state is trying to deny that right with courses steeped in moral relativism. Since when did children become the property of the state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calculating_ages
"While a plant or animal is alive, it is exchanging carbon with its surroundings, so the carbon it contains will have the same proportion of 14C as the biosphere. Once it dies, it ceases to acquire 14C, but the 14C it contains will continue to decay, and so the proportion of radiocarbon in its remains will gradually reduce. Because 14C decays at a known rate, the proportion of radiocarbon can be used to determine how long it is since a given sample stopped exchanging carbon—the older the sample, the less 14
C will be left."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
"Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common."
Pretty much takes the Young Earth/Creationist theory out back and shoots it in the head. Observable evidence has been used to show that in this case, what the Bible says, is flat out wrong, false, fake. So with that out of the way...why do you still believe in the Bible? I and plenty of other people have just demonstrated it is untrustworthy. If it really were the inspired Word of God, surely God would have been smart enough to have made sure that there were no falsehoods, no errors or mistakes of any kind? For a god who supposedly wants to spread his message, he's gone about it incredibly stupidly, hasn't he?
So...again, why do you follow the Bible? Why do you base your discrimination towards homosexuals on the teachings of the Bible?
Anyway, this is the last time I'm gonna reply to you. You steadfastly still stick to your completely wrongheaded belief that it's somehow a violation of the First Amendment to teach kids in schools that homosexuals exist. I want to debate with people, and when those people give me compelling evidence and reasons to change my beliefs, I will do so. I expect the same in return. However, you don't. We have demonstrated here that you are flat out wrong. Not relatively wrong, as in, it's our opinion that you're wrong...no, just flat out wrong, the same kind of wrong as if you said the Moon were made of cheese.
For the record, I too believe in some sort of intelligent design. It has to do with DNA, and its use in changing (evolving) creatures over time to adapt to their environment (such as DNA helping creatures evolve eyes, to make use of a natural phenomena, visible light). There's no way for the creatures to have knowingly changed their own features. HOWEVER...I don't have evidence to back up my belief (perhaps belief is the wrong word here, perhaps I should say strongly suspect). I don't say "well, science hasn't given us an answer (yet) so therefore, it MUST be intelligent design!" No, I say "I don't know the answer, perhaps I should go out and find it".
" riddled with so many blind (faith-based).
Faith based. FAITH based. Do you even understand what that means and the irony for you to call someone else's belief's faith based? It means you take a belief on it's word, with no evidence to back it up, you assume it to be true. That is the province of religion. The Bible says the Earth is 6 to 10,000 years old. Doesn't offer (concrete) evidence to back it up, it says that for you to be a good Christian, you have to take this on faith.
Any, I'm out. Have a nice life believing all sorts of simply wrong things. I truly do pity you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for my religious beliefs, of course it's predicated on faith, whereas with science you're supposed to be able to observe something, yet you're putting faith in whatever these people want you to believe. Science isn't the be-all, end-all of human understanding and knowledge.
The idea that something (i.e. life) can come from nothing is pure hogwash, defeats all rational logic and defies all natural laws.
"I want to debate with people, and when those people give me compelling evidence and reasons to change my beliefs, I will do so. I expect the same in return. However, you don't. We have demonstrated here that you are flat out wrong. Not relatively wrong, as in, it's our opinion that you're wrong...no, just flat out wrong, the same kind of wrong as if you said the Moon were made of cheese."
"Compelling evidence," you say. Oh, the irony. Let's see all of this "compelling evidence" for homosex. (...) BTW, the idea of debate isn't necessarily to 'change someone's beliefs,' as you assert, because that almost never happens anyway. Oh, and just because the number of homosexual advocates present here outnumbers me doesn't change a single thing. In the real world, most people want nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Object to it on 'moral' or 'religious' grounds all you like, I'm glad to say that science says otherwise, and as long as schools are teaching science rather than religion(as they always should), science will always win that particular fight.
Oh please tell me you're not one of those people who think that the 'Creation museums' are actually scientific...
So apparently we're adding 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' to 'first amendment rights' as things you have a very 'interesting' view on.
So, regarding abiogenesis:
First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. At. All. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life, evolution deals with how it changes.
As the video I'm going to link to(and feel free to ignore it like all the other evidence I've presented) says:
'Scientific theories are designed to explain a SPECIFIC set of facts. You would not claim the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain germs(that's what Germ Theory is for). Claiming evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life, is like claiming an umbrella doesn't work because it doesn't predict the paths of hurricanes. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life, evolution explains how life changes once it already exists.'
The vid in question(It's only 10-minutes long, just mute the soundtrack unless you like opera music):
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg
Second, and this is kind of important, it has been proven that organic can come from inorganic, via the Miller-Urey experiment, so the claim that 'life can't come from non-life' is demonstrably false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_Experiment
Now as for evolution...
I honestly don't even know where to begin with this. To say that evolution has never been observed shows an absolutely astounding ignorance of the piles of evidence contrary to that claim.
There are enormous amounts of evidence regarding evolution in the fossil record, involving countless species and how they've changed over the course of history.
There are modern day, observable examples of evolution (probably the most important being that germs/viruses and other nasties are continually evolving, requiring new and stronger medicines to combat them).
There are even man-made/driven examples of evolution(the massive number of different dog breeds came from a form of guided evolution, where desirable traits were kept, less desirable ones were allowed to die out, and drastically different dog breeds were the result).
Just the idea that you think that YEC beliefs, with their completely religious based 'evidence', are even close to something as scientifically 'proven' as evolution shows a massive lack of understanding as to how science works, and what evidence there is out there regarding the various scientific theories.
If you plan on continuing that argument, I would highly recommend you spend some time on non-religious sites and look over the available evidence, as it's pretty obvious you've been getting your 'scientific' information from people who have only the barest familiarity with actual science and it's methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False.
"does not cause psychological or biological harm"
Presumptions.
"is not something that people chose"
Presumtion.
"and does not indicate that there is something 'wrong' with homosexuals."
Opinion-based rationale.
"Object to it on 'moral' or 'religious' grounds all you like, I'm glad to say that science says otherwise, and as long as schools are teaching science rather than religion(as they always should), science will always win that particular fight."
Yeah, because Jim taking it up the rear by Billy is a matter of "scientific study" which should be presented to children as a form of "normal behavior." Fail harder.
"Oh please tell me you're not one of those people who think that the 'Creation museums' are actually scientific..."
No idea -- never seen one.
"So apparently we're adding 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' to 'first amendment rights' as things you have a very 'interesting' view on."
Excuse me for this but who was it that brought up young-Earth creationists?
"So, regarding abiogenesis:
First of all, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. At. All. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life, evolution deals with how it changes."
Uh-huh, and what good would the theory of evolution be without the necessary foundation of life? They are absolutely related, or are you forgetting that abiogenesis was first called "chemical evolution"?
"As the video I'm going to link to(and feel free to ignore it like all the other evidence I've presented) says:
'Scientific theories are designed to explain a SPECIFIC set of facts. You would not claim the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain germs(that's what Germ Theory is for). Claiming evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life, is like claiming an umbrella doesn't work because it doesn't predict the paths of hurricanes. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life, evolution explains how life changes once it already exists.'
The vid in question(It's only 10-minutes long, just mute the soundtrack unless you like opera music):
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg"
Seems to me that they're trying to make excuses for why abiogenesis should not be considered related to evolution. Then, after having presented their hypothesis, riddled with so many blind (faith-based) assumptions that I could cry, they exclaim, "Thus beginning evolution!" LOL. Didn't they just make excuses for why abiogenesis wasn't related to evolution?
Here, I'll tell you what, let's give this the benefit of the doubt and say that this video slide-show was all possible. So what? You've got a bunch of vesicles floating around in water. So where does that leave us? How does life come into the equation? Where is the information coming from to produce an actual species capable of senses, cognitive awareness, reproduction, etc., let alone mutate into a massive variety of differing life-forms, practically all of which are co-dependent upon each other in order for the chain of life as we know it today to sustain itself? And I'm supposed to sit here and buy the notion that unguided, random event brought all of this about?
"Second, and this is kind of important, it has been proven that organic can come from inorganic, via the Miller-Urey experiment, so the claim that 'life can't come from non-life' is demonstrably false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_Experiment"
A controlled experiment, presuming the early Earth's atmosphere to be anoxic and filled with methane, manipulated by *intelligent* persons, resulting in a small yield of amino acids. Means NOTHING. An amino acid isn't going to magically become a complex life-form. 'Something from nothing' is non-scientific on its face, yet this is the hocus-pocus they're trying to sell people. Show me where by *unguided natural processes* a life form appears from out of nowhere. You can't.
"Now as for evolution...
I honestly don't even know where to begin with this. To say that evolution has never been observed shows an absolutely astounding ignorance of the piles of evidence contrary to that claim."
Yeah, like what, the Piltman? Where's bigfoot when you need him?
"There are enormous amounts of evidence regarding evolution in the fossil record, involving countless species and how they've changed over the course of history."
Surely you jest. There are no intermediate steps between species, just the overactive imagination of secularists trying desperately to fabricate half-steps.
"There are modern day, observable examples of evolution (probably the most important being that germs/viruses and other nasties are continually evolving, requiring new and stronger medicines to combat them)."
Micro-evolution is a far cry from macro. Nobody has ever observed the latter in nature. Saying that time did it is a cop-out.
"There are even man-made/driven examples of evolution(the massive number of different dog breeds came from a form of guided evolution, where desirable traits were kept, less desirable ones were allowed to die out, and drastically different dog breeds were the result)."
That's not evolution, that's breeding within a given species.
"Just the idea that you think that YEC beliefs, with their completely religious based 'evidence', are even close to something as scientifically 'proven' as evolution shows a massive lack of understanding as to how science works, and what evidence there is out there regarding the various scientific theories."
Neither theory is observable nor testable. It's clear you don't know what I think.
"If you plan on continuing that argument, I would highly recommend you spend some time on non-religious sites and look over the available evidence, as it's pretty obvious you've been getting your 'scientific' information from people who have only the barest familiarity with actual science and it's methods."
So much of what constitutes for science these days is agenda-driven, filled with holes, assumption and faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, definitely getting AJ flashbacks here, 'I don't like your evidence, so I will pretend it doesn't exists'.
I notice you don't actually present any counter-evidence in any of your claims regarding homosexuality, but merely try and dismiss the available scientific/psychological evidence without any reason other than you disagree with what it says. Could that perhaps be because you don't have counter-evidence, and are relying entirely on emotion and religious based arguments for your opposition?
Well I'm glad to say, that pretending that evidence counter to your position does not exists does not in fact, make such true, it just shows you to be willfully ignorant.
Yeah, because Jim taking it up the rear by Billy is a matter of "scientific study" which should be presented to children as a form of "normal behavior." Fail harder.
You and your fixation on anal sex... anyway, science is concerned with facts, not whether or not a particular religion believes something, and the facts say that while such activity isn't common, it is indeed 'normal' and not some nefarious activity.
Excuse me for this but who was it that brought up young-Earth creationists?
That would be me, to provide a counter example as to why schools teaching students something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs is not in any way a violation of their first amendment rights.
The first amendment ensures that people can believe what they want to, but just because they don't agree with the facts being taught, does not mean they get to demand that the school stop teaching them just to suit their religious beliefs.
Or put simply, people have a right to their own beliefs, but they do not have a right to their own facts.
Uh-huh, and what good would the theory of evolution be without the necessary foundation of life? They are absolutely related, or are you forgetting that abiogenesis was first called "chemical evolution"?
No, they really aren't, and you're just exposing your ignorance of science by continuing to claim otherwise. It does not matter how the life got there in the first place(which abiogenesis deals with), evolution only cares about how it changes once there. Life could have been 'birthed' in pools of primordial chemicals, willed into place by some deity, or any other theory you care to come up with, and it would not affect evolution theory in the slightest.
Let me try and explain via example.
Say you were a botanist, and you discovered a new plant somewhere. As you prepare to research and examine it, to see how it grows, it's chemical and biological makeup, someone asks you how it got to where it was located. You of course have no idea, you just found it. The seeds could have been wind borne, they could have been eaten and passed by a bird or other animal, or some other way of dispersal.
The person then claims that because you have no idea how it got to where it is now, any research you make as to it's composition or life-cycle doesn't matter and isn't valid, simply because you can't tell them how it ended up where it is now. Obviously this idea is ridiculous, as observations of how the plant is now do not require you to know how it was like before or how it got there.
...And I'm supposed to sit here and buy the notion that unguided, random event brought all of this about?
You're making a mistake I see often in discussions like this(two actually), which is failing to factor in time, and thinking it's all a matter of blind chance.
The timeframe we're talking about is millions, if not billions of years, which even if it was purely chance based would still give fairly good odds. However, you're also not taking into account the 'laws' of chemistry and biology, which have very strict rules as to how things react with each other, making things a lot less 'random' than they would otherwise be.
A controlled experiment, presuming the early Earth's atmosphere to be anoxic and filled with methane, manipulated by *intelligent* persons, resulting in a small yield of amino acids. Means NOTHING. An amino acid isn't going to magically become a complex life-form. 'Something from nothing' is non-scientific on its face, yet this is the hocus-pocus they're trying to sell people. Show me where by *unguided natural processes* a life form appears from out of nowhere. You can't.
Yes, a controlled experiment, using what scientists had been able to deduce via available evidence as to the likely chemical composition of the atmosphere at the time, sealed away from outside interference, and then left to run completely on it's own.
I'm going to guess you again didn't bother to follow the link, as you'd have read that a few years after the initial experiment, different scientists fine-tuned the experiment, taking advantage of more up to date information, and got not only similar results, but better ones, with even more different molecules showing up.
Regarding amino acids, you're sorta correct, amino acids on their own are not life, but they are the building blocks of it. Once you've got the basics existing, then it's just a matter of time(of which again, you're talking billions of years worth) until it gradually gets more and more complex, as mutations cause gradual complexity and differing forms.
You are right though, amino acids are not going to 'magically' create complex life-forms, but why in the world would you think they would in the first place? It would start very, very basic, with things like extremely simple single-celled organisms, and over time gradually become more and more advanced, all of this taking place over an enormous period of time.
Yeah, like what, the Piltman? Where's bigfoot when you need him?
... bigfoot. Your 'rebuttal' to masses of evidence of evolution is bigfoot. And you wonder why I doubt your scientific knowledge...
Surely you jest. There are no intermediate steps between species, just the overactive imagination of secularists trying desperately to fabricate half-steps.
As I've said before, just because you don't like, or don't understand, the evidence and what it suggests, does not mean it ceases to exist.
Micro-evolution is a far cry from macro. Nobody has ever observed the latter in nature. Saying that time did it is a cop-out.
The only difference is scale, both are instances of evolution. Many instances of micro-evolution, gradually adding up over time, end up as macro-evolution, and in any case the core concept, that of mutations to the core organism to cause changes over time, with beneficial ones staying around, remains the same.
That's not evolution, that's breeding within a given species.
As I said, it's basically controlled evolution, with desirable traits being bred in, less desirable traits bred out, and given it's controlled, taking a much shorter period of time than usual.
I'm getting the feeling this is another instance of you using a drastically different definition of a word than what it's generally held to mean, so I'm curious, how do you define evolution?
Neither theory is observable nor testable. It's clear you don't know what I think.
The age of the earth is testable with carbon and radiometric dating, and it's drastically older than 6,000-10,000 years old as the YEC's claim. Evolution is both observable on the micro-scale, and testable by looking for examples that are contrary to what the theory would hold to be possible, of which no known counter-examples exist.
So much of what constitutes for science these days is agenda-driven, filled with holes, assumption and faith.
Funny statement coming from a religious individual, thought faith was supposed to be a good thing? But I digress...
Individuals may have agendas, they may have biases that would skew their results and methods, but science is both a competitive, and co-operative field, where scientists from all over both work together to build on what is generally been observed to be true, and working alone, to find things that are wrong and propose fixes to them, both to further science as a whole, and their careers individually.
As such, unless you're going to try and claim that scietists as a whole are in some sort of cahoots with each other to 'hide' things, any individual agenda of a scientist would be crushed as all the others countered his/her claims with contrary evidence pointing out where they're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/your-money/protections-for-gays-in-workplace-are-piece meal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(If you can't see it, you may need to get a javascript blocker for your web browser and disable javascript).
There's no federal level law that prohibits the firing of someone based on their sexuality.
http://www.seiu.org/2013/05/fired-for-being-gay.php
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e du/press/5-people-who-were-fired-for-being-gay-and-the-29-states-where-that-is-still-legal/"
If in fact those individuals were fired simply for being gay (and not for, say, disrupting their workplace environemtn by pushing their sexuality on others) then I believe that that would be wrong, with the exception of religious-based work where there's a clear conflict of interest. However, on the flip-side, I also don't believe that employers should feel obligated to hire someone simply because of their sexual preference. It would make it too easy for homosexuals to claim discrimination even where that isn't the case, such as instances where there's someone else who's more qualified to hold a position. It would need to be proven without a doubt that they were denied specifically because of their sexual preference; otherwise it merely becomes a whipping post to mandate hiring out of fear of litigation. (On a side-note, I don't know of any such protections against discrimination based on religious beliefs.)
"You agree that someone serving a customer should not refuse service to someone else because of their sexuality?
Umm...hypocrisy? Remember in an earlier article you and I had a discussion, and you quoted from a website that mentioned a Christian lady photographer who refused service to a homosexual couple? I remember you defending her discrimination there."
Correction: religious *couple* which run their own private business. They are allowed to pick and choose who they service by the very nature of their private artistic work; they do not provide out of necessity but rather leisurely pursuit. Using another example, if there's a musician/band and they are asked to perform at a gay wedding but object for whatever reason, they are free to do so because the very nature of their work doesn't obligate them to serve the general public. Nobody is *owed* anything in life.
"Freedom of association...the freedom to associate with who we want...meaning that you then must support the freedom of the teacher to associate with, and then marry, his husband."
You're right, he has that freedom, just as the private religious school has the freedom to decide whom to associate with...
"Sure, maybe he shouldn't mention his marriage while teaching, as it's not part of the lesson plan. If asked by his students, he should then say 'Sorry, that's private, but if you still want to chat (maybe because you yourself are homosexual), you and I can talk after school, once I'm off the clock.' Which would obviously leave unspoken but well understood by anyone with half a brain that this homosexuality is so feared by his employers that he has been told not to talk about it, that he has to wait until he's off hours before he can even broach the topic."
Hold it. You don't work for a religious institute, especially one with clear moral objections to homosexuality as the Catholic Church, without knowing full well the implications and workplace demands. They have a reputation to uphold to the parents who are funding their efforts. If you as an employee decide to do something to compromise that image, whether on their time or your own, and then it comes out in headlines splashed across newspapers, it's well within their right to respond.
"With your list of athletes and whatnot above, you probably mean when they get in trouble with the law, such as get caught doing drugs or whatever. Once they're seen to violate the law, then fine, I have no problem with them being fired. Not the school teacher."
No, they're are people who were fired merely for stating their beliefs, not due to drug use or what-have-you. Whether it's legal or not, it's still open discrimination for thought crime. When you're employed, there's a code of conduct you're expected to follow. Many employers insist that even when you're not on the job that you still represent their workplace. In the instance of the private Catholic school, the teacher decided to hold a lavish gay wedding and it was plastered across the news, and since he represents his workplace wherever he goes, they have the right to relieve him of his duties (by not renewing his contract). Now could that be considered discriminatory behavior? Yes indeed, however, it's not discrimination based on race, sex or creed but rather action, creating a conflict of interest. It's worth nothing that they knew he was gay all the while yet still kept him employed, probably because he did his job well.
"To the point where every facet of the employee's lives is scrutinised by the school, and if they violate one of the teachings of that school while off the clock, they should be fired? What if the teacher doesn't go to Mass on Sundays? So you're fine with discrimination as long as someone pays for it. Fine then, if ever I go to the US and I happen to go into say a restaurant, would it be all right if I paid extra for the management to clear his building of all religious folk or black folk, or Asians, or whatever? (as long as it's not a booking restaurant, where it's possible for one person to book the entire building for a romantic evening, say)"
You're conveniently ignoring that this is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION that we're talking about, NOT a public one, much less taxpayer-funded. Parents are paying a lot of money in order to give their children the education service they want. If it were, say, a public school then they'd be wrong to fire him and we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, have you even bothered to look at the abysmal state of our public education system? Most of them are horrendous, turning out kids who cannot even write a sentence correctly in English. It's a travesty. Guess they're too concerned with their "anti-bullying" (code word for normalizing gays) social engineering programs and terrorizing children with staged mock-terror drills with local and federalized police running around in full military gear. Keep putting your head in the sand.
"As for your quote from catholic.org, again, operating an adoption center IS NOT A RIGHT. It has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. No-one, least of all a church or religious body, has the right to open and run one. I would say the exact same thing if a pro-homosexual body opened one and then refused to let straight couples adopt: I would still call that discrimination of the worst sort.
When one is running a business or service that receives funding from the state, no matter what it is, one must follow the laws of the state. Again, my example, would you allow a Nation of Islam adoption centre to refuse white couples? Or one run by the KKK to refuse blacks? Or a group that says it's anti-Semite, or anti-Asian, or whatever?
The goal of an adoption centre is to find proper homes and parents for children under their care. That means finding parents that have a steady income, have proven they are loving, willing to raise a child and have proven they have the ability to do so. Imagine if you will, if you have a child, but you die, and that child is now orphaned. Your precious Christian adoption centre then looks for parents, but instead of allowing a perfectly able homosexual couple, who have passed all their tests and have proven they would make great parents...are instead refused, solely because of their homosexuality. Your child is refused a loving home. Your child is then stuck in the system for could be months or years, all because your precious Christian adoption centre was allowed to discriminate."
You're blatantly ignoring the fact that even in the instances where certain agencies invoked religious exemption (meaning doing without state-funding), the state still attempted to force them to violate the tenets of their faith. That constitutes a state-intrusion upon their 1A right to freedom of religion, regardless of whatever service they're running. As was made perfectly clear in the aforementioned article, there was nothing preventing either homosexual groups or the state from servicing homosexual couples, yet they chose to go after Catholic institutes, simply because they wanted to. "But when a bill, SB 1123, was proposed to amend certain language in the law in order to protect religious liberty, the amendment was attacked by homosexual activists and defeated by one vote." So, essentially, this is a clear-cut example of homosexuals attacking others' rights, all the while pretending to be victims. They're not *owed* service by these Catholic services. The Catholic Church provides a wealth of non-profit charities, including hospitals, clinics, homeless shelters, food pantrys, soup kitchens, community centers, home care, etc. etc., services which it could also be argued nobody has an inherent right to, purely out of charity (as opposed to the pure selfishness of another group I know). All of this is provided by donations from members of the Church whom, I might add, are also tax-payers. Go ahead and pull the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church and watch what happens to your taxes when the burden they shoulder suddenly becomes everybody's problem.
"No, I'm not saying you're evil because you refuse to sacrifice your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. What I am saying you are evil for are your actions when you discriminate against LGBTs, because that harms people for no good reason whatsoever."
Actually, you're wrong: I don't discriminate against them but rather their actions, because I believe that what they're doing is immoral. That's a far cry from treating a homosexual as a lesser-human or such.
"Look, I agree and believe in Free Speech. Religious people can and should have the right to say and believe in whatever they want, just the same as anyone else. What I don't like is when religion is used as an excuse to allow all sorts of outrageous behaviour, or to have that's religions teachings such as their discriminatory views codified as law, such that everybody must follow it or be punished. You can have your churches and other groups and exclude anyone as much as you want...unless you're an employer and thus you run up against employee's rights, such as not being dismissed out of hand for a prospective job/being fired for something that has nothing to do with their job. As long as someone shows up to work, does their job politely, has the proper skills for it, that should be that. Your employer shouldn't reach into your private life, find something you've done that isn't in any way illegal, and then decide you're fired. That would mean handing far too much power to employers, to the detriment of employees."
You mentioned beliefs codified into law, yet that's precisely what the LGBT community has managed to do, by forcing their world view upon people/groups who don't agree with their lifestyle. We need laws and morals to follow, otherwise our society will be destroyed from within, just like the Greek and Roman empires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Fun" fact: look up Bill H1592 from the Massachusetts Legislature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Repealing the law against bestiality!
Sexual “freedom” is one of the driving forces of the “gay” movement. Back in 2005, the year after “gay marriages” began to be performed in Massachusetts, the homosexual lobby pushed a bill to repeal the bestiality law. (The same bill had also been filed in 2003 as H3357, as the official State House document shows.) But MassResistance (then known as Article 8 Alliance) publicized it, and after nationwide pressure they backed down and the bill died. (See some of our blog coverage from 2005 here.)
This year, after their success with the transgender law, they appear to be ready to try it again. It’s such a bizarre move that it even took us by surprise.
Current Massachusetts law, M.G.L. Ch 272, Sec. 34, describes both homosexuality and bestiality to be an “abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with a beast.” Similar to the Bible (Lev. 18:22-23) it lists them together.
They actually filed two bills regarding this. Bill H1592 was filed by Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston). Bill H1673 was filed by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham) along with Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) and Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord). Both of these bills completely repeal the anti-bestiality / anti-sodomy statute. And just to be sure, both bills also repeal an additional “morality” statute, M.G.L. Ch 272, Sec. 35, regarding “unnatural and lascivious acts.”"
There you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So while it may make for a nice soundbite, 'They gays are trying to legalize bestiality!', the fault lies entirely on the people who wrote the law and made no distinction between homosexual sex and bestiality(which is rather telling, none of it good).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Michael, before you go running off the mouth about how it's all right to have a site called Heterosexual Awareness and to have Hetero parades...that's not the same thing as a site dedicated to promoting hetero rights, especially as it denigrates homosexuals. Besides, what would be the point of "promoting" hetero rights and parades? Heteros already have all their liberties, no-one discriminates against us. I especially love (read, hate) the image on your site's About page about the kid complaining about his two dads sodomizing each other.
Quite frankly, Michael, what the parents get up to in the bedroom should be of no concern to the child. Kissing, hugging and fondling in front of the child? Sure, no one bats an eye when a straight couple do it. However, you and I can agree that the child should not watch sex, whether straight or gay. For you to quote from that site without bothering to check up on their quite stupid and downright disgusting assertions...well, that says a lot about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legalizing homosexual marriage, while keeping a law on the books that made homosexual sex illegal would be like making it legal to buy a car, but illegal to actually drive it; without both issues dealt with, the legalization half would be nothing more than a waste of paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and here's another winner: in San Francisco, transgenders can CHOOSe whichever public bathroom they want to use. That is freaking insane!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Before you say otherwise, consider, by your own quotes, the 'anti-bestiality' law is also the 'anti-homosexuality' law, so obviously the people who wrote it considered the groups to be similar enough that one law should cover both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some questionable things were said in this article
I'll explain this to you by means of an example. LBGT people, along with their supporters, are ALWAYS demanding respect and equal rights, which is ok, but let's be honest: they've massively gone overboard. For the slightest thing you say, you get called a "homophobe", even when you're saying otherwise normal things. Because they're just as prejudiced as anybody else. It's not like being gay automatically makes you open-minded and respectful of other people's opinions. However, despite the fact that we're all the same (isn't this what those whacktivists are always going on about?), god forbid you say anything that even remotely sounds like you're criticizing them. They can do and say anything they want, because they're gay and must be respected, even though this often comes to the expense of straight people. Gays can reasonably be proud of their sexuality. Contrarily, if someone is proud of being straight, then he's automatically an intolerant jerk who hates gays and everyone thinks they have the right to ridiculize them, to insult them and so forth. And NOBODY has the courage to step up against this, because otherwise they would surely be regarded as "homophobes" themselves. Is this actually the world we live in? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some questionable things were said in this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Long as the discussion is good, offtopic stuff is fine, though obviously comments based on the article in question are preferred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]