More Copyright Censorship: 'Straight Pride' Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Their Own Responses To Reporter

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Wed, Aug 14th 2013 10:48am — Mike Masnick

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.

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.

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:

“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.

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.

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.

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

204 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 10:56am

Question:
What is it about the word "release" in "press release" that confuses these dolts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:06am

I find it amusing that people take pride in natural, ordinary stuff. It's like saying "LOOK! I haz a penis! I iz awesome!" when every other male also has one. Admittedly it would be idiotic coming from white pride people considering blacks are rumored to have mass destruction tools between their legs - fear not, white males, size means absolutely nothing if you know your stuff!

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:13am

Re: Question:
Well, ootb still thinks it's an anomaly even though the count is already way past 9000...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Question:
Or in one case, ootb used anomaly to mean 56% of all cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:17am

Transformative work?
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.
Sounds like a "Transformative Work" to me, which means it is not covered by their copyright at all (in addition to all the other problems their claim has with "Fair Use").

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:29am

While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
is ALWAYS used to censor, that copyright has NO other purpose, at least Mike begins to SLIGHTLY hedge his usual piratey statements and instead call for the few bad actors to be punished. 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:29am

Non-censorious?
"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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:34am

Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
You have no intellectual consistency and it is sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:35am

Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
at least Mike begins to SLIGHTLY hedge his usual piratey statements and instead call for the few bad actors to be punished

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:37am

Re: Non-censorious?
You misunderstand. "Notice and notice" would mean the content is not taken down if the counternotice is given promptly. But counternotices contain contact information and consent to submit to the jurisdiction of a court - if you choose to fight, it's easier for them to sue you.

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:38am

Re: Non-censorious?
I think you misunderstood. By providing a time to reply to the notice you give the targeted party the ability to counter the notice and force the issuer to go to court where the infringing nature of the object will be evaluated. You know, due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:42am

Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
@ "Ninja": "Well, ootb still thinks it's an anomaly even though the count is already way past 9000..."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:46am

Re: Re: Non-censorious?
I didn't misunderstand. The content is taken down if no counter-notice is given, prior to a ruling of infringement. It has the same effect as an injunction, except a judge never gets to see it and the case never goes to trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:50am

Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Your uninspired acronyms have 'em on the ropes, champ! Quick, follow it up with a bad pun and a knock-knock joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
@ "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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Never go full retard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
Your capslock seems to be broken, it seems to turn on randomly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Dirt, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Really? ootb snarking at someone else about staying on topic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Dirt, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:12pm

Re:
Couldn't all of the above also be said of Gay Pride or Black Pride? After all, they can't help who or what they are. How about let's just have Human Pride and leave it at that?

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:15pm

Re: Re:
Were it possible to actually have "Human Pride" with all humans accepted, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Yep, I'm as convinced as someone without evidence can be convinced, that OOTB is Carreon in slight disguise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymouse, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:22pm

Soooo
So is this a group attacking the gay community or the gay community acting like they are attacking the gay community, seriously i don't know anymore , well as long as the dmca was reversed and it is another example of dmca wrongs that can be used to remove the dmca in part i am happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:31pm

the only chance there is of getting 'real teeth behind punishment for bogus takedowns' is to stop those that make the laws from being bribed endlessly by the very industries that abuse the system the worse! because of what these industries do, by bribing the law makers, everyone else has jumped on the band wagon, hence the absolute disaster we have now!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jameshogg (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
I personally think Mike is too nice with respect to copyright, and should be calling for its outright abolition.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:43pm

Re:
You've obviously never seen my penis. If you had, you'd certainly agree that it is not only awesome but truly a magnificent work of art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:47pm

"who ridiculously go around claiming that homosexuals and their supporters are trying to silence heterosexuals,"

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: Re: While some pirate apologitst are still insisting that copyright
I see him as only using the abuses to attack its everyday good.

So you believe that pointing out abuses of something equates to attacking the thing itself? That explains a lot.

Mike needs to say so by stating clearly in bullet points exactly what he DOES believe is good about copyright!

Why does he need to do that? I truly don't understand why you'd think this was something that is necessary.

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

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.

For instance, here he starts out with a snipe at: "copyright maximalists", which implies he's a minimalist, at best.

It implies no such thing. Look up the "fallacy of the excluded middle" for more clarity on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McCrea (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:01pm

I'm straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:02pm

Re:
It's a subversion of being told you should be ashamed of something that's perfectly natural, ordinary stuff you don't have any control over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:10pm

Re:
But are you proud?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:36pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
McCrea (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re:
Okay, you're clearly oppressing me. I should be free to state my unqualified sexual orientation without suffering further inquiry into the degree or nature of stated straightness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xofer marlow, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
I want to marry you right now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xofer marlow, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re:
The point of Gay Pride is not "how perfectly marvelous it is to be homosexual, now drool with envy you lesser hominids". The point is "we are people just like you; we are part of your community; we deserve to have homes and jobs and legal rights; and by the way would it be too much trouble not to abduct us and beat us to death or incinerate us in nightclubs".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
If no counter-notice is given, why should it stay up? It's functionally equivalent to one side going to court and getting a default judgement because the other side didn't show up.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:48pm

Okay, I got this.
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Chas.
Chas who?
Chas up and answer the door!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
"It's functionally equivalent to one side going to court and getting a default judgement because the other side didn't show up."

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Well, if you're going to do something, why NOT go all the way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
"incinerate us in nightclubs". I knew there was something gay about fans of Great White!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd Shore (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 2:58pm

We need someone with some pockets to file a slander of title case and see it through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
Since there's a process written into the law, and said process is not unreasonable, it should be constitutional (on due process grounds, anyway.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
The DMCA involves a very specific process written into law. Does that make it constitutional?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 14 Aug 2013 @ 5:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
You say this as if nobody else was attacked or discriminated against. Gay parades aren't in the same ballpark as when black communities marched during the civil rights movement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 14 Aug 2013 @ 5:25pm

Re:
It's not a conspiracy if it can be proven, which it most definitely can.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 6:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes yes, 'It doesn't count, other people have suffered to', you really need to give that failed argument a rest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 6:14pm

Re: Re:
As the saying goes 'Citation Please'.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 6:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-censorious?
But THAT process calls for takedown before there is a chance for a response, which is more problematic due-process-wise. The proposed process allows for a response first.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question: ^^^ This comment has been flagged by the NON-community.
Indeed, my irony meter just exploded due to the readings being beyond it's capabilities to measure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 7:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about you, but I think I'm entitled to feel at least a little less supportive when this is the response I get from gays: "It's your fault for not being open-minded about us! What, us get together with people of opposite gender? Ew! Ewwy ewwy ew ew ew!"

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 14 Aug 2013 @ 8:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every group has it's idiots to be sure, but judging the group lesser as a whole because of them isn't the way to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2013 @ 11:45pm

the everyday good of copyright
There is no such thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When certain groups stop trying to use the common touch to garner sympathy, I will. Until then, get used to reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:59am

Re: Re: Re:
Here we go again, comparing a sexual perversion with the color of someone's skin. There is no "plight of the gays"; they haven't had to endure the slavery and sufferage that blacks had to.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Teaching people that it's discriminatory to hate people is not 'reverse-discrimination.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly you don't know how to read. They're forcing homosexual indoctrination on children, including exposing young children to videos featuring vile content, books on gay families, trying to convince K-through-3rd graders to attend gay parades, etc. while hiding behind the anti-bullying label. Whenever parents or teachers speak out against this filth, they are investigated for "hate crimes" (read: thought crime) and sometimes brought before Canada's so-called human rights courts, a kangaroo court system which presumes guilt unless you can "prove your innocence." The accusing party does not have to pay any legal fees and doesn't even need to show up. All they need to do is accuse you of "discrimination," which can mean anything from disagreeing with their lifestyle to writing an op-ed piece in favor of traditional marriage. This constitutes blatant discrimination against religious people, predominantly Christian denominantions.

Clearly the Canadian government hates freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xofer marlow, 15 Aug 2013 @ 6:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm willing to engage in discussion with you, but there must be honesty and facts at the core. You've presented very cartoonish and extremely vague fragmentary anecdotes. I'm talking about murder. That you feel entitled to feel less supportive of people you claim are friends -- who expose themselves to the risk of torture and death in generally horrible ways merely by allowing themselves to be who they are -- speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 6:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
An editorial does not constitute proof. Even if it did, this one proves nothing. Please try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have it your way.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are articles about DMCA abuse. They have nothing to do with your allegations, let alone support them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once proven they're no longer mere allegations but rather hard facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2013 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not suggesting that I'm advocating murder and violence against gays, are you? If this is how you feel, I'm sorry to have put it such a manner that you've interpreted it this way. I don't agree with violence against gays. It's a horrible method to put a disagreement across. If you want to think I'm "fibbing" to myself and I actually possess deep-seated hatred and enmity for them - well, sure, go ahead. You're entitled to those opinions. I feel that if I were to criticize you holding those opinions, I would then be given an impression that I wouldn't be allowed to.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Here we go again, comparing a sexual perversion with the color of someone's skin. There is no "plight of the gays"; they haven't had to endure the slavery and sufferage that blacks had to."

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True enough. That's why I'm interested in seeing some proof. Until it's produced, they're merely allegations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 12:58pm

Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Indeed, when the fundamentalists stop trying to garner sympathy with their purely emotional, religious based pleas to 'save morality' and 'save the children from corruption', and move on to rational arguments(if they have any), then they might be taken seriously. Until then, they can just suck it up and get used to dealing with the changing world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xofer marlow, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re:
Bring it on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you going the plausible deniability route? Seriously? Ok, so now that I've shown cases of DMCA abuse, you're going to play it as if both sites are possibly making false allegations. Uh-huh, good luck with that. If such were the case then how come neither one was sued for defamation and slander (they even name names)? Could it be because they're telling the truth? Naaaaah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 1:49pm

Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Just because you make bold proclamations about the supposed "changing world" doesn't count much for nothing as homosexuality isn't some new phenomenon. Their attempts to bully people and indoctrinate children will backfire. People who hold traditional family values aren't going to suddenly conform. Indeed, it seems the only way homosexual activists can get their way is through forceful means. Example: a homosexual couple in England is attempting to sue a church for "discrimination," because they refused to marry them. The arrogance is astonishing.

P.S.
"All change isn't growth, just as all movement isn't forward." - Ellen Anderson Glasgow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer the following questions

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" so different from that of racism rights."

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 15 Aug 2013 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Homosexuals haven't suffered near the hate and persecution that pedosexuals have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:08pm

Re: 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?)"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *correction*
"race groups."
Made the same mistake as you did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope that's sarcasm.

"Fun" fact: look up Bill H1592 from the Massachusetts Legislature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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?"

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are lubricants and condoms illegal items? If so, why are you so concerned about people handing them out? Do you freak out if you see them on the store shelf, in plain view? Do you see a child walking down the aisle and immediately rush to draw them away from these wicked, wicked items?
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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
per�se�cu�tion (p�rs-kyshn)
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 thread ]
Mark, 15 Aug 2013 @ 3:52pm

Some questionable things were said in this article
While I certainly agree with the point of the article and the whole copyright thing, I absolutely disapprove of the author's bitterness towards Straight Pride UK. The members of this group surely aren't the only ones who finally noticed the increasing insanity of many "human rights supporters" and people from an LGBT background. Nowadays you aren'even allowed to say the slightest thing against anyone who's gay, without getting immediately bashed for it by these whacktivists who believe they're being open-minded, modern and "democratic" by preventing others from expressing their opinions.
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 thread ]
Anonymous, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
purs-kyshn. I've never heard it pronounced like that in my life. Is their definition as faulty as their pronunciation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Are lubricants and condoms illegal items? If so, why are you so concerned about people handing them out?". Um...maybe he doesn't want anyone to get in trouble over illegal items? Maybe your second sentence would have made more sense if you'd begun it with "If not..." instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sarcasm. Truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something about reforming archaic laws relating to conduct between adults. What does that have to do with what I posted? Why were you replying to me with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dennis deems (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
You really are far gone. It's clear that any attempt to engage you as a human being is utterly futile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xofer marlow, 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me see if I understand: your feelings have been hurt -- so far as I can make out, in the main by words and/or deeds that weren't even directed toward you. Some of these were obviously jokes, such as the macaroon shop quip you read in a book, but they got under your skin nonetheless. Inexplicably, you feel under fire, or at least slighted; you harbor resentment toward homosexuals because you feel that they try to invalidate your own sexual orientation and are dismissive of your sensibilities.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Well I'm happy to say, history disagrees with you. Less than a decade ago, it would have been unthinkable for homosexuals to serve openly in the military, to serve openly in public office, or even to come out at all and expect widespread support, yet all of that is happening today.

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 thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
LOL. Your ignorance is showing. 1) Homosexuality is not the same thing as being black or being a woman; it is a behavior. 2) Homosexuals are not being denied the right to vote, nor the right to marry -- if you even understand what marriage means and has meant for 2k years, which is doubtful. 3) Being denied something as a matter of state law (Jim Crow) is different than being forced to endorse something as a private businessman or risk being sued. As for citations, do your freakin' homework and spend five minutes on Google. I won't do your thinking for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:22pm

Re:
Why would it be idiotic coming from white people? Your bias is showing, because you assume that white pride is a racist construction, and you also assume that black pride isn't a racist construction. Then you argue further on, assuming stereotypes that whites have small penises. Seriously, you are a bigot, barely disguised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they were not jokes in the sense of being innocent. The jokes were clearly part of a cultural domination, and they work well in drawing lines between "us" and "them". Think about it like this. What if I said, "When was the last time you saw a gay go into a motorcycle shop?" Ha ha, right? Uhm, no. You get the idea. It's a cultural offensive, and to claim that you know nothing about it and can't see it is risible.

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 thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
You are putting words in his mouth. He said nothing about 'good old days', 'women taking jobs from me and knew their place'. So, you are lying about what he said.

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 thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ROFL. Seriously, stop. You have no proof that he has persecuted homosexuals. Stating that something is morally evil, as homosexuality is, is not the same thing as persecuting homosexual people.

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 thread ]
Phoenix77 (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 7:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, you will never be satisfied until people everywhere do not make a distinction among people on the basis of their behaviors. Homosexuality is a behavior, a lifestyle, and above all, a choice. All homosexuals are responsible for the actions they take, and they choose every sex act they participate in. BTW, I'm responsible, too. So am I making a distinction on the basis of behavior? Yup. Furthermore, making a distinction is NOT persecution! LOL. You don't even take yourself seriously, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to put that in writing? Cause, I hope you understand, but if you were to advertise a job opening, interview prospective employees and then told the failures "You didn't make it cause you're a filthy fag"...you can and will be sued over that. Even asking about it at an interview is wrong, and illegal. Yeah, you go on redefining words, not persecution or discrimination my ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Homosexuality is a choice'

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:19pm

The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems
'And if I choose, as an agent of free will, to not hire a black person because I believe black people are inferior, 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.'

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2013 @ 10:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Then please, enlighten me, what 'traditional family values' are so sacred that they require trampling on the rights of others to preserve?

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 thread ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 1:55am

Re: Re:
Are you trying to get a rise?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:34am

Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Uh-huh, society is changing ...just like the Roman Empire, right? The difference here is that it's being shoved in people's faces despite moral objection. Also, care to show me where I said anything about women's rights? What does teaching children about sodomy have to do with equal rights, let alone family values? Wrapping it under the anti-bullying moniker doesn't change the fact that gay sex is abnormal and in no way beneficial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So are you saying a beaten-up, discriminated-against gay is worth less than a beaten-up, discriminated-against black?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Phoenix got it right, gay sex is an action, not a built-in physical characteristic. There is a very clear difference between the act of sex between man and woman vs homosex -- one is natural, the other unnatural. No matter how you try and whitewash it, it will never be natural for a man to stick his genitals up another man's rear-end, nor for two women to copulate. It's disgusting to the core and has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 6:03am

Re: The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems
You're extrapolating race from sexual preference. However, I agree with the gist of the argument that homosexuals ought to have the same job opportunities as anyone else ...to an extent. Where I draw the line is where there's a conflict of interest involving religious-based occupations, such as teaching at a Catholic school. Recently a gay teacher's contract wasn't renewed because his gay wedding was splashed across the news. This created a conflict of interest because the parents are paying (serious money) for their children to be raised in a specific environment where homosexuality clashes with their religious upbringing.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to showcase how morally deprived government has become. To be specific, that bill would legalize sex with animals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Are lubricants and condoms illegal items? If so, why are you so concerned about people handing them out? Do you freak out if you see them on the store shelf, in plain view? Do you see a child walking down the aisle and immediately rush to draw them away from these wicked, wicked items?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 8:11am

Re: Some questionable things were said in this article
I for one am not intimidated by the gay movement, nor are most people judging from the comments I read on most gay-related news articles and otherwise. It's mostly the media attempting to portray them as victims of hate and intolerance in order to foster a paranoia about offending them in the slightest way. Meanwhile, it's A-OK whenever they ostracize, smear and even cost people their jobs for such 'thought crimes' as disagreeing with their lifestyle. If anything they're the fanatical bullies, preaching tolerance while showing none for anyone with a different opinion. Does that make them heterophobes? Where is it written in the Constitution that the government is there to protect people's feelings, specifically minority groups, and to hell with everyone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to point out how that would be legal? Want to give us a quote on it? Or are you just spewing forth crap again? Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, have I heard of a gay rights bill sneaking in animal sex language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 8:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://heterosexualawarenessmonth.com/2013/07/the-first-us-state-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage-now-t o-legalize-bestiality-adultery-repeal-public-morality-and-stop-teaching-children-about-values-and-vi rtues/

"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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 9:00am

Re: 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?"

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 9:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh by the FSM... did you read the quote you posted? As things are written, to repeal the anti-homosexuality law they are forced to repeal the anti-bestiality law, because they are the same law.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do love the fact that the only sources The Real Michael quotes from, are not news sources or neutral in any definition of the word, but are rather anti homosexual, so whatever he quotes will always be worth very little.
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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, this would go a lot easier if you actually read the links I posted. No, science has not found a 'gay gene', because something as complex as human sexuality is not as simple as 'has specific gene - is straight, doesn't have specific gene - isn't straight', it's based on a whole slew of factors, 'choice' not being one of them.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...it's based on a whole slew of factors, 'choice' not being one of them."

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 16 Aug 2013 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Your penultimate sentence. Why? Is there something unnatural about sex? Is it not found in nature?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 4:57pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that were really the case then that bill wouldn't have made any difference to them either way since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and gays weren't prevented from having sex in any way, shape or form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
zzZZZzz

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it very well would have.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 16 Aug 2013 @ 7:45pm

Back on April 25 I wore an Alice In Wonderland shirt and a girl-love symbol taped to it in celebration of the day. So few people know about the subculture that I don't think anyone noticed or had a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 Aug 2013 @ 8:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
And what, you think there was no 'moral' objections to blacks being treated equally, to woman being treated equally, or any other large social change?

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 4:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
I love how you weasel out of the discussion by constantly referring to race and gender -- two entirely seperate things than who a person chooses to have a relationship with.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 5:15am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 5:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a total crock and you know it. Gays in MA were able to have their relationships, including sexual, absent of state intrusion. They repealed it because they're sickos who want to legalize animal sex and every other immoral, disgusting filth that they can get away with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe if the mainstream press did their job and actually reported the full story then I wouldn't need to look to alterantive sources. You know, sort of like how it took for a foeign news source to reveal that the NSA was spying on everyone. Just because it doesn't come down the wire from a mainstream news agency doesn't in the slightest eliminate the truth of what's being said. The way that legislative hearing in MA was staged was completely anti-democratic and biased, a complete mockery of our system, or, to be more blunt, a thorough hijacking. Representation my ass. It's literally no different than the way big businesses lobby and push through onerous laws or the way government installs certain individuals who will tow the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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..."

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"By that same token, murder, rape, incest, prostitution, theft, etc. etc. aren't unnatural and therefore I should accept them."

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what, I was going to return the favor, but I don't think I'll sink to your level. If the only defense you have to counter my point is throwing insults and vile characterizations around like an angry child, then it's blatantly clear that you have no valid counter argument
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, there isn't any scientific evidence, just conjecture and hyperbole.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Aug 2013 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I have a beef against my neighbor and I pick up a gun and go over to his house and kill him, that makes me a villain in the eyes of society. But if I put on a uniform, pick up a gun, travel to the other side of the world and kill people who have done nothing to me, that makes me a hero in the eyes of society. Exactly how does that work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Aug 2013 @ 3:33pm

Incidentally, anybody notice how far off-topic this has gotten? Isn't that one of the excuses used to flag OOTB's comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Aug 2013 @ 3:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about the religious exemption in Obamacare? It applies only to members of certain religions. Isn't that religious discrimination and a blatant violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Why do I keep bringing up race and gender rights? Because if you took of your gorram blinders for a minute, you'd see that the core issues of equality are the same freakin' thing over all three groups.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 8:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
The only ones trampling on people's rights are the homosexual activists who use their newfound political clout to attack and trample upon people's rights, including religious groups. For instance, they had the freedom to start their own scout group, but of course that wasn't good enough for them. Nope, instead they opted to specifically focus on infiltrating the Boy Scouts. Just one example out of a whole slew. "Gay rights" is nothing more than an excuse to trample on others' freedoms, attempting to force others to affirm their lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 8:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Homosexuality is a CHOICE, period. 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. Attempting to portray their movement as a form of civil rights activism and constantly utilize emotional ploys is a joke -- they're rights aren't being violated. Heck, they're being treated like special-class citizens for absolutely no other reason than their sexual preference for the same sex. It's a farce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh* Yet another emotional ploy. Nowhere did I condone violence towards anybody, but you already knew that. The original point was that gays weren't forced into slavery like blacks were, so their cries for equality are a joke. And no, a few isolated incidents of hate crimes against gays isn't equivalent to the sufferage of black ancestors. I can find incidents of hate crimes committed against all sorts of people, yet what does it prove besides that there are violent people in all walks of life?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 8:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Right, say it with me: 'Separate but 'equal' is not equal'.

'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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, I didn't know that threapy offered (and that's the key word) by religious groups was MANDATORY. As for anti-sodomy laws, I don't think it should be up to the government either way. Nevertheless, interesting you should mention that because back when the government originally appealed the law, they said that it in no way signified a push towards gay marriage ...and here we are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Right, first of all sexuality is not a simple binary thing, it's not Heterosexual/Homosexual, with nothing in between, it's an entire range, with different people placing differently on the 'scale'.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 9:51pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 17 Aug 2013 @ 10:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact remains that homosexual have been free to pursue their relations but now activists are pushing to appeal a law which would effectively legalize animal sex. You cannot argue away reality by grandstanding, name-calling, knocking down strawmen, or whatever.

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 10:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
The only ones trampling on people's rights are the homosexual activists who use their newfound political clout to attack and trample upon people's rights, including religious groups.

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Aug 2013 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Homosexuality is a CHOICE, period.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 1:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhh...where did this come from? Who mentioned war among humans? What does that have to do with anything being discussed here in the comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 1:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Ha, IN YOUR OPINION."

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What about the religious exemption in Obamacare? It applies only to members of certain religions. Isn't that religious discrimination and a blatant violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 5:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you conveniently ignore is that they're there primarily to service the soldiers who A) want to worship God while on duty yet cannot because of their circumstances, B) seek help, counseling or advice, C) need last rites, etc. If you really honored their service then you'd likewise respect their private wishes. Ministers and priests aren't there to instruct the military/government, nor are they there to *intrude* upon the rights of gays, atheists and anyone else who doesn't believe. It's funny that it "pisses you off" that they're there to begin with yet are probably unaware of how the government is trying to force them to violate their conscious by marrying homosexual soldiers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 18 Aug 2013 @ 5:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhh...what does a debate over homosexuality have to do with copyright censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 6:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what YOU conveniently ignore is that tax money is going to pay religious leaders in a military that is supposed to be protecting against that kind of thing. If religious leaders want to volunteer to provide every last thing you mentioned to members of our military that are religious, I have ZERO problem with that. Let their religions pay them for their trouble, not me....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 18 Aug 2013 @ 6:29am

Oh, the problems that could be avoided if we didn't have government...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 6:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry for the delayed reply.

"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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:11am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then, you don't support certain people due to their religious beliefs, despite the fact that they're putting their lives at risk, yet expect respect and demand all sorts of state-backed protectionism from those SAME religious people, also using THIER tax dollars, FOR homosexuals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the fuck are you talking about? All I said is tax money shouldn't fund religion, which is exactly what paying military chaplins, rabbis, and all the rest is. Even someone who's religious should understand that, if they understand what secularism is....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
"Ridiculous," you say, despite ample evidence. Tell me Mike, how is it the LGBT community's business what the Boy Scouts do? What business is it of theirs who a private religious group decides to service or deny? 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
"Tell me Mike, how is it the LGBT community's business what the Boy Scouts do?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 8:04am

Re: 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?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Regardless of your animosity towards them, they're comprised of taxpaying citizens and shouldn't be forced to compromise their beliefs for the sake of any other group.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 9:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
The proper question is: should an organization getting public money be disallowed from discriminating which members of that same public get to join their club. The answer, OF COURSE, is yes....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you're saying is that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay their salaries, because some people find it offensive and/or take exception to their tax dollars being appropriated to such use. Ok, so how about those who are offended by other things such as homosexuality being taught in the taxpaying public classroom, offending many parents? Don't their opinions matter just as much as anyone else's, or is offending religious people somehow considered fair game? Tell me, are you aware that the military has new guidelines which state that nobody can say anything deemed offensive about pedophilia? What's your stance on that? Priests, rabbis, etc. have been involved with service members for decades, yet now, all of a sudden, it's a 'problem.' Go figure. 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. It's a very strange and disturbing trend by this government which causes me to wonder who is really running things behind the scenes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 9:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Actually, no, they shouldn't, because it's still a private club, exclusive by its very nature. Besides, aren't most of their funds provided by private sponsors? So even if they shunned state-funding, they'd still be denied usage of government property, because of homosexual lobbyists. That's discrimination as the Boy Scouts have EVERY RIGHT to remain an exclusive group with a strict code of conduct for membership. Freedom of association, remember that? The government is in effect MANDATING that they rescind that freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What you're saying is that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay their salaries, because some people find it offensive and/or take exception to their tax dollars being appropriated to such use."

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Think about what you just said: the BSoA have every right to be exclusionary AND should still be given free use of government land and buildings? What the fuck is that matter with you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you own examples showed, those laws that they are trying to get rid of, they are trying to get off the books because they were written to apply to both homosexuality and bestiality alike. So you want to blame someone, blame the morons who couldn't tell the difference between those two actions when they wrote the laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 11:05am

Re:
Nah, blue's comments get flagged for being spammish, filled with lies and name calling, among other things.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 18 Aug 2013 @ 11:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except they're not the public's rules. They're the GOVERNMENT'S rules.
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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of your comments were handled fairly well by Rikou, so I'll just touch on a few.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the article at the top of the page. It's about an anti-homosexuality group misusing copyright law to silence something that embarrassed them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 18 Aug 2013 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait...there's an article at the top of the page?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 1:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
The BSoA have abided by a code of conduct for decades; a very important part of their identity. The government, under the influence of gay activists, is demanding that they change their policies in order to appease another group. How is that not a violation of the Boy Scouts' rights to run their club as they see fit? They are TAXPAYERS just like everybody else and therefore should be allowed to use land they're indirectly helping pay to maintain.

Nobody -- NOBODY -- has an *inherent right* to dictate the policies of one or another group, including the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You mean 'for equality' right?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 2:34pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Aug 2013 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once they've done so, do you honestly believe that they intend to immediately reinstate outlawing animal sex?

Nope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 3:23pm

Re: 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?"

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet, 18 Aug 2013 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 8:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Well except the religious apparently, who you seem to think should get to have their cake and eat it too, ignoring the laws but still getting public money and special perks.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Aug 2013 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And back to character assassination and not even close to subtle hints of nefarious intent. Thanks for proving my point that you don't have one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 1:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
If by 'count' you mean telling other people what to do, how to conduct their business or run their policies, then no, they shouldn't. Nobody should have the right to dictate the policies of a privately-run organization or business. Part of the problem is that the government is trying to get everyone to think that they need their permission in order to do anything. We don't live in a socialist-republic; we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. If the LGBT community doesn't like how the BSoA run their operations, they can go start their own, they have the freedom to do so. But they sure as heck don't have the right to bully and force others to conform to their way of thinking. The tail is trying to wag the dog.

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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you say that a group of people who suffer discrimination, including violent attacks, murder and all kinds of actual hurt are 'a joke' just because they didn't suffer from slavery? Slavery is seriously abhorrent, and yet it doesn't count as a "we're better than anyone else who is only pretending to suffer" card.

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
Tell me Mike, how is it the LGBT community's business what the Boy Scouts do?

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:58am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:57am

Re: 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?"

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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?)."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 8:15am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 8:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Repealing a law against animal sex is just that: repealing a law against animal sex, meaning people in Massachusetts could have sexual intercourse a dog, cow or any other animal of their choosing and it would be deemed legal. These people are morally bankrupt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As opposed to you and your constant attempts to garner sympathy for the homosexual cause? Funny you should mention Native Americas -- I'm part Native American, so don't even bother trying to conflate sexual preference with the way my ancestors were treated because there's zero comparison.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you want morally bankrupt people, that would be the ones who wrote the law, and apparently considered homosexuals to be no different than animals, and so therefor treated sex involving either group identically in the eyes of the law.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:37pm

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 have a very strange view of the first amendment. It says that people can believe whatever they want, what it does not say is that they get to go through life without being challenged or having people say they are wrong.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:26pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 1:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
"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."

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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 5:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, what a surprise. Someone waving the 'Pride' parades as the be-all and end-all of homosexuality. Why don't I treat the Westboro Baptist Church as indicative of all US Christians? Seriously mate, far from all gays are like that, and if so, so what - one of the reasons for it is to actually be visible and not ignored. Might as well moan about large marches by blacks in the 60s - bet there were plenty of 'fine upstanding Southern gentlemen' who found those repulsive too! Plenty of gays are denied basic rights the rest of us have, are hated on and slandered and even physically attacked.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Plenty of gays are denied basic rights the rest of us have, are hated on and slandered and even physically attacked."

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
So let me get this straight. Because Russia is passing legislation banning public displays of homosexuality before the Olympics, I'm supposed to believe that gays are being persecuted? Name another group who's attempting to stage public displays in order to promote their sexual lifestyle? Middle eastern countries do far worse to gays, such as in Iran where they kill them, but then they'll kill anyone they take exception to for any reason, including Christians.

"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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh* Well they filed the legislature in 2003, so it's apparent that they intentionally attached the bestiality law to the sodomy one in order to use the latter as a stepping stone to repealing the former. Like I said, are they going to reinstate the law against bestiality once they repeal anti-sodomy? The answer is no, because the real intention here is to legalize animal sex.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 22 Aug 2013 @ 5:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pathetic how you overlook the fact that what the LGBT community is pushing for has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with infringing upon others'.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 22 Aug 2013 @ 6:20am

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:
What an absolute crock. Yeah, so when parents objected to public schools teaching ther kids that homosexuality is normal and they went ahead and did it anyway, that's not a violation of their 1A rights? Try again. The public education system has no business teaching relativism.

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:09am

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:
"What an absolute crock. Yeah, so when parents objected to public schools teaching ther kids that homosexuality is normal and they went ahead and did it anyway, that's not a violation of their 1A rights? Try again."

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So it's ok with you when they mock Christianity, huh?"
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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then campaign against the bestiality alone, if what you're saying comes true. Don't lump it in with homosexuality, that's a different topic altogether. You won't find people here disagreeing with you when you say you're against sex with animals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful there, turnabout is fair play...
" Because Russia is passing legislation banning public displays of homosexuality before the Olympics, I'm supposed to believe that gays are being persecuted?"
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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:04pm

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:
Schools are there to teach facts, and the facts say that homosexuality is natural, does not cause psychological or biological harm, is not something that people chose, and does not indicate that there is something 'wrong' with homosexuals.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah good old double standards and hypocrisy... you go on and on about how homosexual activists are using 'emotional pleas' to make their case, and then turn around with 'well they may say they just want to get rid of the law to allow homosexuals to be together, but what they really want is to legalize bestiality', as if that's not nothing more than an appeal to emotions and an attempt to paint the people trying to repeal a bad law as filthy immoral perverts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 23 Aug 2013 @ 5:23am

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:
Actually, no, you didn't, because you cannot show where I ever said that creationism should be taught in the schools.

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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 23 Aug 2013 @ 7:02am

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:
"Schools are there to teach facts, and the facts say that homosexuality is natural"

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 thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 9:02am

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:
"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.'"
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 thread ]
The Real Michael, 24 Aug 2013 @ 5:17am

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:
First, scientists are leaping to the conclusion that the levels of C-12 and C-14 were always equal in order make their estimations, and that the rate of decay wasn't affected by anything, yet there's no way of knowing this without a time machine.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Aug 2013 @ 6:33am

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:
False. Presumptions. Presumtion. Opinion-based rationale.

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 thread ]