thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,482
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 16, 2017 9:22:52 GMT -5
Well, apparently, one guy (Peter Sprigg) from the Family Research Council said that gay behavior should be outlawed. Here are is the transcript: www.nbcnews.com/id/35224225/#.WeEmIYZrygQI'm wondering how Phoenix84 would feel if someone came up to him and said heterosexual behavior would be outlawed. I know, I'd probably feel pretty upset about that... I don't think I'd shrug it off and say "Oh Well." But maybe Phoenix would.. I'd disagree with that opinion, just as I don't agree with the opinion that homosexual relationships should be illegal. But in either case, it's not going to realistically happen so why should I get all bent out of shape over it? Someone disagrees with me and holds a pie in the sky opinion! Oh the humanity! Everyone has to think the same way I do about everything! I think we've lost the ability to be objective as a society. Unless there's pending legislation to make homosexual relationships illegal, why get upset over someone's opinion and label them a hate group? If there's pending legislation, or someone does more than just talk about it with their friends, then I'll be among the first to condem such action. But I can be objective and realize that other people's opinions don't hurt me or anyone else. Because if we wait until legislation is on the table, it has already been sold to a large number of citizens. 15 years ago if you told me single payer was even close to being on the table, I would have never believed you. So I now believe that 15 years from now, some radical Christian group could have enough power to convince a bunch of people that gay marriage actually DID ruin our country and we should outlaw all homosexual behavior.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,618
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 16, 2017 9:26:27 GMT -5
Here's a question for you. Someone hates Trump. They think he's an illigetamate president, and he's destroying the country. They get together with like minded people and key note speakers. Would such an organization be a hate group? I mean, you got an organization who hates Trump and thinks he should be impeached and thrown in prison because he won the election through illegal means. They hold this opinion of a lawfully elected US president, so why not label them a hate group? I'm sure could find a pro Trump think tank to do just that. Hate groups hate people based on factors they have no control over. An organization that discusses whether President Trump knowingly or ignorantly broke the law wouldn't fit that category.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 9:27:48 GMT -5
I'd disagree with that opinion, just as I don't agree with the opinion that homosexual relationships should be illegal. But in either case, it's not going to realistically happen so why should I get all bent out of shape over it? Someone disagrees with me and holds a pie in the sky opinion! Oh the humanity! Everyone has to think the same way I do about everything! I think we've lost the ability to be objective as a society. Unless there's pending legislation to make homosexual relationships illegal, why get upset over someone's opinion and label them a hate group? If there's pending legislation, or someone does more than just talk about it with their friends, then I'll be among the first to condem such action. But I can be objective and realize that other people's opinions don't hurt me or anyone else. Because if we wait until legislation is on the table, it has already been sold to a large number of citizens. 15 years ago if you told me single payer was even close to being on the table, I would have never believed you. So I now believe that 15 years from now, some radical Christian group could have enough power to convince a bunch of people that gay marriage actually DID ruin our country and we should outlaw all homosexual behavior. Ok, so what do you want to do about it? Label anyone who thinks gay marriage should be illegal as a hateful individual or group and lock them up? Kill them? Try re educate them? Osturcize them? Take their homes and businesses? Fire them from their jobs? Banish them from the country?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 9:39:44 GMT -5
Here's a question for you. Someone hates Trump. They think he's an illigetamate president, and he's destroying the country. They get together with like minded people and key note speakers. Would such an organization be a hate group? I mean, you got an organization who hates Trump and thinks he should be impeached and thrown in prison because he won the election through illegal means. They hold this opinion of a lawfully elected US president, so why not label them a hate group? I'm sure could find a pro Trump think tank to do just that. Hate groups hate people based on factors they have no control over. An organization that discusses whether President Trump knowingly or ignorantly broke the law wouldn't fit that category. Gay people don't have to get married, that's a choice. One's religion is also a choice, so your answer misses the point. The point is that labeling things you don't agree with as hate speech and groups you don't agree with as hate groups is counter to the first amendment. Why can't we just agree to disagree? I don't agree with a lot of what's said on these message boards, but I don't want to label any of it as hate speech.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,756
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 16, 2017 9:42:50 GMT -5
Hate groups hate people based on factors they have no control over. An organization that discusses whether President Trump knowingly or ignorantly broke the law wouldn't fit that category. Gay people don't have to get married, that's a choice. One's religion is also a choice, so your answer misses the point. The point is that labeling things you don't agree with as hate speech and groups you don't agree with as hate groups is counter to the first amendment. Why can't we just agree to disagree? I don't agree with a lot of what's said on these message boards, but I don't want to label any of it as hate speech. Is being gay a choice? Is being straight a choice?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 9:43:17 GMT -5
To me, a hate group is a group that commits violence against others based on their race, religion, gender etc.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 9:45:42 GMT -5
Gay people don't have to get married, that's a choice. One's religion is also a choice, so your answer misses the point. The point is that labeling things you don't agree with as hate speech and groups you don't agree with as hate groups is counter to the first amendment. Why can't we just agree to disagree? I don't agree with a lot of what's said on these message boards, but I don't want to label any of it as hate speech. Is being gay a choice? Is being straight a choice? I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,756
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 16, 2017 9:51:54 GMT -5
Is being gay a choice? Is being straight a choice? I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry. Did you choose to be straight?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,048
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2017 9:51:55 GMT -5
Is being gay a choice? Is being straight a choice? I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry. It is a choice to marry for straight people. They can marry, or they can choose not to marry.
Until recently, gay people didn't have a choice. Marriage was illegal for gays, just like it used to be illegal for mixed races.
Are those people who want to reverse that law and return gays to their forced marriage free status guilty of hate crimes against gays?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,618
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 16, 2017 9:53:04 GMT -5
Here's a question for you. Someone hates Trump. They think he's an illigetamate president, and he's destroying the country. They get together with like minded people and key note speakers. Would such an organization be a hate group? I mean, you got an organization who hates Trump and thinks he should be impeached and thrown in prison because he won the election through illegal means. They hold this opinion of a lawfully elected US president, so why not label them a hate group? I'm sure could find a pro Trump think tank to do just that. To me, a hate group is a group that commits violence against others based on their race, religion, gender etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 19:38:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 10:46:29 GMT -5
I think some people have a very narrow set of parameters they find attractive. Others have a very wide set.
We all make choices in what relationships to pursue. Those choices should be based on our own predelictions. Not the judgement of anyone else.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 11:06:16 GMT -5
I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry. Did you choose to be straight? He and his society did, jointly. For his part, he chose what to view, which lusts to nurture, and who to have sexual relations with. In some societies--the ancient Greeks and Romans (in certain locales) being two--homosexuality/bisexuality was widespread (over 50% of the population in some cities). It wasn't because 50%+ of the population was "born gay". It was because they were raised in a society where homosexuality--including sexual initiation of the young by older men--was commonplace and the society was immersed in homosexual eroticism. Whether the children raised in such a society ultimately had a "choice" as to how their minds developed is a matter of debate. Regardless, I support every effort by the FRC to expunge anything and everything that promotes homosexuality as normal, harmless, and healthy. I'm also 100% for keeping the orgies, incest, and other sexual depravity of those failed societies out of our own. The FRC is a "hate group" because it refuses to call immorality good. Nothing more. There are violent gay-bashing groups and zealots full of malice (e.g. the WBC) who deserve to go on a "hate" list. If the SPLC hadn't caved to politicism, their list in particular might have meant something. Now one takes a look at it and wonders "Does this group actually hate people?"
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,756
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 16, 2017 11:18:57 GMT -5
Did you choose to be straight? He and his society did, jointly. For his part, he chose what to view, which lusts to nurture, and who to have sexual relations with. In some societies--the ancient Greeks and Romans (in certain locales) being two--homosexuality/bisexuality was widespread (over 50% of the population in some cities). It wasn't because 50%+ of the population was "born gay". It was because they were raised in a society where homosexuality--including sexual initiation of the young by older men--was commonplace and the society was immersed in homosexual eroticism. Whether the children raised in such a society ultimately had a "choice" as to how their minds developed is a matter of debate. Regardless, I support every effort by the FRC to expunge anything and everything that promotes homosexuality as normal, harmless, and healthy. I'm also 100% for keeping the orgies, incest, and other sexual depravity of those failed societies out of our own. The FRC is a "hate group" because it refuses to call immorality good. Nothing more. There are violent gay-bashing groups and zealots full of malice (e.g. the WBC) who deserve to go on a "hate" list. If the SPLC hadn't caved to politicism, their list in particular might have meant something. Now one takes a look at it and wonders "Does this group actually hate people?" I have never expected anything less from you, Virgil.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 11:54:11 GMT -5
I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry. It is a choice to marry for straight people. They can marry, or they can choose not to marry.
Until recently, gay people didn't have a choice. Marriage was illegal for gays, just like it used to be illegal for mixed races.
Are those people who want to reverse that law and return gays to their forced marriage free status guilty of hate crimes against gays?
That's the question I'm trying to get you guys to answer. My answer is "no."
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Oct 16, 2017 11:58:55 GMT -5
Is being gay a choice? Is being straight a choice? No - and science supports the No.
But then again if you think science is evil and wrong and a liberal conspiracy . . . . . .
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 12:02:52 GMT -5
I don't know. Since I'm not gay I won't speculate, and questions like that are outside the scope of this thread. I know marriage is a choice though, since there are many heterosexuals as well as homosexual couples that don't marry. Did you choose to be straight? It's like the nature/nurture debate, there's never going to be a definitive answer if being gay or straight is a choice or not. One could argue that, both historically and presently, we're a heterosexual oriented culture. Had I been raised by gay parents in a gay culture who knows? At present, it's not a choice who I'm attracted to. But I can choose how or if to act on it, so regardless if one "chooses" to be gay or straight, choice enters into it at some point. Do you get married or not? Do you have casual sex or a committed relationship? Are you monogamous or not? Those are all choices regardless of orientation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 19:38:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 12:08:33 GMT -5
As stated by others, there is definitive evidence that we have innate prededelictions.
After that, everyone should have the same rights regarding their choices.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 19:38:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 12:15:35 GMT -5
Maybe this is better. I could be pansexual, attracted to everyone, and choose to have heterosexual intercourse, or choose to have homosexual intercourses, of any numbers of combinations therein... In this example I still AM a pansexual. I choose my relationships. I choose who I have sex with and marry and what that looks like. But I don’t choose who I am...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 12:17:16 GMT -5
As stated by others, there is definitive evidence that we have innate prededelictions. After that, everyone should have the same rights regarding their choices. 'Innate' doesn't preclude predilections of exogenous origin. Or in simpler terms: society makes the man.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 12:22:24 GMT -5
Maybe this is better. I could be pansexual, attracted to everyone, and choose to have heterosexual intercourse, or choose to have homosexual intercourses, of any numbers of combinations therein... In this example I still AM a pansexual. I choose my relationships. I choose who I have sex with and marry and what that looks like. But I don’t choose who I am... FWIW, I--and many religious conservatives besides--define sexuality purely by action. Hence a man who feels an attraction towards both sexes but who abstains from sex with other men (as well as pornography) is heterosexual (or "asexual", I suppose, if he remains celibate). The same standard holds for any other kind of sexual attraction.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Oct 16, 2017 12:36:09 GMT -5
Maybe this is better. I could be pansexual, attracted to everyone, and choose to have heterosexual intercourse, or choose to have homosexual intercourses, of any numbers of combinations therein... In this example I still AM a pansexual. I choose my relationships. I choose who I have sex with and marry and what that looks like. But I don’t choose who I am... FWIW, I--and many religious conservatives besides--define sexuality purely by action. Hence a man who feels an attraction towards both sexes but who abstains from sex with other men (as well as pornography) is heterosexual (or "asexual", I suppose, if he remains celibate). The same standard holds for any other kind of sexual attraction. Nope - and nope again.
Your sexual orientation is innate - and science supports this (unless, again, you drink the koolaid that suggests science is a liberal conspiracy . . . )
HOWEVER - while I disagree with you in that one does NOT (and actually, should not) have control over their *feelings* (innate characteristics), I agree with you that they DEFINITELY have control over their *behavior*
But do not make the mistake of mixing up the two things - because they are *very* different.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,048
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2017 12:50:50 GMT -5
Maybe this is better. I could be pansexual, attracted to everyone, and choose to have heterosexual intercourse, or choose to have homosexual intercourses, of any numbers of combinations therein... In this example I still AM a pansexual. I choose my relationships. I choose who I have sex with and marry and what that looks like. But I don’t choose who I am... FWIW, I--and many religious conservatives besides--define sexuality purely by action. Hence a man who feels an attraction towards both sexes but who abstains from sex with other men (as well as pornography) is heterosexual (or "asexual", I suppose, if he remains celibate). The same standard holds for any other kind of sexual attraction. No. Someone who refrains from having sex is celibate.
You can be a gay person who gets married to someone of the opposite sex and has children, but you are still a gay person, just one that is living very deeply in the closet. It's possible to do this and even have a happy life, if that's what you choose to do, but gay people should not be obligated to either be celibate or marry 'straight' because the straight people have stigmatized them. I have a problem calling gay people immoral because the biological facts are that 10% of mammalian species (and some birds) are gay. This is not a liberal fantasy cooked up to encourage immoral behavior, this is just plain biology, and there is no moral/immoral to it. Imagine if I told you from now on you have to pretend to be gay and go marry a guy or spend the rest of your life celibate - as hard as that is for you to imagine, that's what you want gays to do.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 16, 2017 13:08:52 GMT -5
To me, a hate group is a group that commits violence against others based on their race, religion, gender etc. As far as I know, the Westboro Baptists never actually committed violence. Still a hate group.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 13:10:40 GMT -5
FWIW, I--and many religious conservatives besides--define sexuality purely by action. Hence a man who feels an attraction towards both sexes but who abstains from sex with other men (as well as pornography) is heterosexual (or "asexual", I suppose, if he remains celibate). The same standard holds for any other kind of sexual attraction. Nope - and nope again.
Your sexual orientation is innate - and science supports this (unless, again, you drink the koolaid that suggests science is a liberal conspiracy . . . )
HOWEVER - while I disagree with you in that one does NOT (and actually, should not) have control over their *feelings* (innate characteristics), I agree with you that they DEFINITELY have control over their *behavior*
But do not make the mistake of mixing up the two things - because they are *very* different.
Rather than argue about what "the science" does and doesn't say, I'll point out that one of the FRC's mandates is educating people on what the science does and doesn't say on the topic. One more reason the "hate group" designation is a travesty. happyhoix: Biologists don't label animals "gay" (to avoid anthropomorphism), and they talk about sexual interactions between same-sex individuals purely in terms of observed behaviour, to which they impute no motive. They certainly don't talk about "attraction". I have seen hypotheses about dominism, boredom, learned behaviour, and flat-out confusion, however. As for your definition of what is/isn't "gay", what should/shouldn't be stigmatized, you know as well as I do that we're not going to agree. The point of this thread is that the FRC should be able to present its case without being labeled a hate group.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 16, 2017 13:21:49 GMT -5
Precisely Virgil.
The bottom line is that people should be tolerant of opinions that may differ from their own. The FRC should be able to have their beliefs and key note speakers without being labeled a hate group.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 19:38:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 13:24:33 GMT -5
Why the fuck should I have tolerance for someone else’s opinion about my behaviour?
Or an ‘opinion’ that is stated as a fact which is not true?
Or an opinion that will seek to limit my rights while protecting the opinionholders?
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Oct 16, 2017 13:25:44 GMT -5
Biologists don't label animals "gay" (to avoid anthropomorphism), and they talk about sexual interactions between same-sex individuals purely in terms of observed behaviour, to which they impute no motive. Too bad the judgmental fundies of this world can't or won't do the same thing for their fellow human beings
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 19:38:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 13:26:06 GMT -5
Guess you think we should tolerate Pence’s ‘opinion’ that all gays should hang... and Trumps ‘opinion’ that the idea is funny...
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Oct 16, 2017 13:28:11 GMT -5
Your belief system aligns with theirs. I doubt you want to believe you are a 'hate group'.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,048
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2017 15:14:20 GMT -5
Nope - and nope again.
Your sexual orientation is innate - and science supports this (unless, again, you drink the koolaid that suggests science is a liberal conspiracy . . . )
HOWEVER - while I disagree with you in that one does NOT (and actually, should not) have control over their *feelings* (innate characteristics), I agree with you that they DEFINITELY have control over their *behavior*
But do not make the mistake of mixing up the two things - because they are *very* different.
Rather than argue about what "the science" does and doesn't say, I'll point out that one of the FRC's mandates is educating people on what the science does and doesn't say on the topic. One more reason the "hate group" designation is a travesty. happyhoix : Biologists don't label animals "gay" (to avoid anthropomorphism), and they talk about sexual interactions between same-sex individuals purely in terms of observed behaviour, to which they impute no motive. They certainly don't talk about "attraction". I have seen hypotheses about dominism, boredom, learned behaviour, and flat-out confusion, however. As for your definition of what is/isn't "gay", what should/shouldn't be stigmatized, you know as well as I do that we're not going to agree. The point of this thread is that the FRC should be able to present its case without being labeled a hate group. Ok, so lets talk about the sexual interactions between same sex humans in terms of observed behavior, like biologists do with animals, and not stick a label like 'moral' or 'immoral' onto it.
I appreciate that, in your religion, same sex interactions are immoral and must be guarded against, but that's your religion, and neither Canada nor the States are a theocracy (at least not yet) so, as secular nations, we have to stick with leaving same sex interactions as 'observed behavior' and stop criminalizing behaviors that two grown adults chose to participate in.
|
|