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 18, 2017 10:56:58 GMT -5
Of course humankind has innate rights in the natural world. A person has a right in the natural world to do whatever his/ her blessed little heart tells them to do. And then a lion has an innate right to eat them. My dog has an innate right to eat her dog food right out of the bag in which it is kept. I have an innate right to try to stop her. You're confusing rights with abilities.
|
|
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 18, 2017 11:05:50 GMT -5
As I've said before, we as a society suppress dozens of behaviors "others choose for themselves".The only difference here is you arbitrarily labeling e.g. sodomy and same-sex marriage "rights" and insisting they can't be suppressed. I assure you, as far as the natural world is concerned, man has no innate rights. You have no basis for calling the suppression of these particular behaviours "hatred", especially since you don't apply the label to cases where you consider the suppression morally justifiable. Nope. We suppress behaviors that others choose for themselves that also impact other people in a negative way, and against their consent.
This is why we don't lock up all the drunks, we just lock up drunks who kill people with their cars. We don't lock up everyone who owns guns, we lock up people who use guns to harm other people.
You say that having gay people in society, being publically prideful about living in sin, is bad for society. Having them out there being all gay everywhere is a bad example for our kids.
Well, I think having drunks that pass out under bridges is bad for society and sets a bad example for our kids. Having people walking around with guns strapped to themselves all the time is bad for society and sets a bad example for our kids. But that isn't enough to lock drunks and gun owners up - they must HARM SOMEONE FIRST.
If we tolerate the public drunks and the gun nuts among us because they aren't hurting anyone, we also have to tolerate the gays, and to advocate that we are morally correct in focusing on gay behavior when we ignore other, more dangerous public displays, it's a hate crime.
We lock people up for drunk and disorderly conduct. We lock up drunk drivers who haven't killed anyone with their cars. We lock up CEOs of companies whose factories put too much CO2 into the air. We lock up people who carry illegal weapons who've never used those weapons to harm anyone. We lock up people for speech that might possibly incite bad behaviour in others. We lock up people for trespassing, no matter their motives or whether they've done any harm. We lock up people who violate gambling laws, drug laws, tax laws, perverted sex laws, despite their vehement belief they're committing no wrong, and without evidence they've caused specific harm. I could go on for pages, but suffice it to say your "HARM SOMEONE FIRST" proviso is bunkum and you know it.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 18, 2017 11:13:51 GMT -5
Nope. We suppress behaviors that others choose for themselves that also impact other people in a negative way, and against their consent.
This is why we don't lock up all the drunks, we just lock up drunks who kill people with their cars. We don't lock up everyone who owns guns, we lock up people who use guns to harm other people.
You say that having gay people in society, being publically prideful about living in sin, is bad for society. Having them out there being all gay everywhere is a bad example for our kids.
Well, I think having drunks that pass out under bridges is bad for society and sets a bad example for our kids. Having people walking around with guns strapped to themselves all the time is bad for society and sets a bad example for our kids. But that isn't enough to lock drunks and gun owners up - they must HARM SOMEONE FIRST.
If we tolerate the public drunks and the gun nuts among us because they aren't hurting anyone, we also have to tolerate the gays, and to advocate that we are morally correct in focusing on gay behavior when we ignore other, more dangerous public displays, it's a hate crime.
We lock people up for drunk and disorderly conduct. We lock up drunk drivers who haven't killed anyone with their cars. We lock up CEOs of companies whose factories put too much CO2 into the air. We lock up people who carry illegal weapons who've never used those weapons to harm anyone. We lock up people for speech that might possibly incite bad behaviour in others. We lock up people for trespassing, no matter their motives or whether they've done any harm. We lock up people who violate gambling laws, drug laws, tax laws, perverted sex laws, despite their vehement belief they're committing no wrong, and without evidence they've caused specific harm. I could go on for pages, but suffice it to say your "HARM SOMEONE FIRST" proviso is bunkum and you know it. All of which can do measurable harm to other people through no action of their own. So, not the same thing as consenting homosexual relationships between two adults. You can post for pages, but it won't change the fact that there is no compelling, non-religiously based reason for denying or infringing on the civil rights of gay people. None.
|
|
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 18, 2017 11:41:37 GMT -5
All of which can do measurable harm to other people through no action of their own. So, not the same thing as consenting homosexual relationships between two adults. What can I say except that I respectfully, vehemently disagree? If my disagreement constitutes hatred in your mind, we'll also have to disagree on whether the FRC is a hate group. Which is truly unfortunate, because it means you've lumped them into the same category as people who truly hate homosexuals et al. and wish all kinds of evil on them.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 18, 2017 12:45:51 GMT -5
All of which can do measurable harm to other people through no action of their own. So, not the same thing as consenting homosexual relationships between two adults. What can I say except that I respectfully, vehemently disagree? If my disagreement constitutes hatred in your mind, we'll also have to disagree on whether the FRC is a hate group. Which is truly unfortunate, because it means you've lumped them into the same category as people who truly hate homosexuals et al. and wish all kinds of evil on them. I realize there are other things that are a worse evil than being locked in jail for the crime of being gay.
We could burn them at the stake, I guess. Or stone them to death.
However, of the list of punishments currently available to Americans in our legal system, being imprisoned when you're innocent has to be the worst punishment available, which = evil, to most rational humans. Especially when our legal system is taxed already to house the criminals that are actually hurting other people - the murderers and rapists and what not.
I believe there are no sins that are worse than other sins? All sins are sinful? So applying the worst punishment we have available in this country (except, I guess, for capital punishment) for this one particular sin, while ignoring or simply 'vehemently disagreeing' with all the other sins that take place in this country is singling out that group of people as being the 'worst' sinners who deserve special punishment, which is evil.
If you really want to go after the sinners who are harming society and the people around them, lock up the gluttons. All the obesity related diseases are making our health care costs go up. At least until they get skinny.
|
|
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 18, 2017 13:23:55 GMT -5
Sin is breaking of the law, no matter how trivial.
Sin is dealt with in a variety of ways, one of which is worldly punishment. Fines. Imprisonment. Death. Worldly punishment is carried out by a legal authority--judges--according to a moral code or doctrine.
Different sins are met with different penalties. At his discretion, a judge may also show mercy rather than impose a just penalty.
Not all sins are known, and not all known sins are justly punished. Whether punished in this world or not, all sins--great and small--will be judged by Christ. One of the commissions placed on the Church by Christ was the preaching of repentance: a complete turning away from sinful behaviour in obedience to God. The Church was also to be an example and a light to the world.
This is fundamental Christianity 101.
My Church, following in the footsteps of the First Century Church, preaches against many sins, including adultery and homosexuality. An organization like the FRC, as its name would suggest, is particularly concerned with sin that destroys the family, much of which is sexual sin. They've styled themselves for a secular audience and therefore make secular arguments--what is sometimes referred-to as the Athenian approach. Their particular focus arises from the combination of these two factors.
Are there hypocrites among them unconcerned with their own sins? I'm sure there are. But they speak rightly on the matter of families and I support their mandate on that basis.
Other organizations testifying against other sins--gluttony, pornography, infidelity, drug abuse, elder abuse, murder, injustice, poaching, grave cruelty, etc.--I similarly support. Nor do I consider them to be ignoring every evil they aren't testifying against.
Hopefully this answers your questions.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 18, 2017 13:33:37 GMT -5
All of which can do measurable harm to other people through no action of their own. So, not the same thing as consenting homosexual relationships between two adults. What can I say except that I respectfully, vehemently disagree? If my disagreement constitutes hatred in your mind, we'll also have to disagree on whether the FRC is a hate group. Which is truly unfortunate, because it means you've lumped them into the same category as people who truly hate homosexuals et al. and wish all kinds of evil on them. I'm not sure I would classify them as a "hate group" under the strictest definition of the term. However, they promote agendas that lead to real harm for homosexual people, and they still represent a real threat.
|
|
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 18, 2017 13:44:33 GMT -5
Sin is breaking of the law, no matter how trivial.
I'm going to disagree with that broad brush.
|
|
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 18, 2017 13:46:09 GMT -5
What can I say except that I respectfully, vehemently disagree? If my disagreement constitutes hatred in your mind, we'll also have to disagree on whether the FRC is a hate group. Which is truly unfortunate, because it means you've lumped them into the same category as people who truly hate homosexuals et al. and wish all kinds of evil on them. I'm not sure I would classify them as a "hate group" under the strictest definition of the term. However, they promote agendas that lead to real harm for homosexual people, and they still represent a real threat. On their website, they point out that the SPLC's designation "hate group" has been cited by certain individuals who've physically attacked FRC members and one man whose intent was to commit mass murder. Hence if speaking truth that leads to "real harm" is sufficient to make it hate speech, and to make the speaker a hate group, the SPLC would qualify as a hate group in its own right. I don't believe the SPLC actually hates the members of the FRC. Perhaps some individuals within the SPLC do, but as an organization I believe they're simply trying to expunge a doctrine they consider abhorrent.
|
|
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 18, 2017 13:49:29 GMT -5
Sin is breaking of the law, no matter how trivial.
I'm going to disagree with that broad brush. Referring to the great Spiritual Law, not man's laws; and if you want to debate it, it will have to be over on RD. I warn you that since it's such a fundamental issue, my argument will come from scripture--which you don't hold to be definitive. I'm not interested in a philosophical debate. In short, it would be a waste of time.
|
|
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 18, 2017 14:17:51 GMT -5
Perhaps you should have stated that it was spiritual law in the first place instead of sounding so theocratic. Then I could have just ignored you.
Now go off and warn somebody else about your definitive fundamentalism.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 18, 2017 14:26:21 GMT -5
Let's get this discussion back on topic. If someone would like to start a thread in Religious Discussions about the current arc, that would be a good idea. Obviously, there are those who'd like to debate it. RD is the place to do that. ![](http://storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 19, 2017 11:25:13 GMT -5
Sin is breaking of the law, no matter how trivial. Sin is dealt with in a variety of ways, one of which is worldly punishment. Fines. Imprisonment. Death. Worldly punishment is carried out by a legal authority--judges--according to a moral code or doctrine. Different sins are met with different penalties. At his discretion, a judge may also show mercy rather than impose a just penalty. Not all sins are known, and not all known sins are justly punished. Whether punished in this world or not, all sins--great and small--will be judged by Christ. One of the commissions placed on the Church by Christ was the preaching of repentance: a complete turning away from sinful behaviour in obedience to God. The Church was also to be an example and a light to the world. This is fundamental Christianity 101. My Church, following in the footsteps of the First Century Church, preaches against many sins, including adultery and homosexuality. An organization like the FRC, as its name would suggest, is particularly concerned with sin that destroys the family, much of which is sexual sin. They've styled themselves for a secular audience and therefore make secular arguments--what is sometimes referred-to as the Athenian approach. Their particular focus arises from the combination of these two factors. Are there hypocrites among them unconcerned with their own sins? I'm sure there are. But they speak rightly on the matter of families and I support their mandate on that basis. Other organizations testifying against other sins--gluttony, pornography, infidelity, drug abuse, elder abuse, murder, injustice, poaching, grave cruelty, etc.--I similarly support. Nor do I consider them to be ignoring every evil they aren't testifying against. Hopefully this answers your questions.
I know I'm not going to change your mind on this subject, but I would like you to be completely honest and admit that the FRC is targeting gay people when in fact it's the adulterers and the abusive, drunk parents who do far more harm to our kids and families.
If the FRC would advocate for locking up all the sinners of the world who are harming our families, I wouldn't call them a hate group, because they would be targeting a whole pool of sinners equally. But it's the gays the single out for special punishment.
|
|
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 19, 2017 21:34:04 GMT -5
Organizations pick their battles based on need, likelihood of effectiveness, potential for impact, number of competing organizations, public perception, funding, personal stakes, and a litany of other factors.
I am no more going to condemn the FRC for focusing on promiscuity and homosexuality than I am going to condemn the Snow Leopard Conservancy for focusing on poaching of snow leopards. I'm not going to belittle their work because "real conservationists" would be combating the poaching of all animals, not one out of millions of species.
This is now the fourth reason you've contrived to designate the FRC "hateful". It doesn't matter to you that they don't hate homosexuals. It doesn't matter that they operate within the law, through argument, reason, and litigation. It doesn't matter that seeking to prohibit immoral behaviour is right and normal in democratic society, and that you approve of many such prohibitions. It doesn't matter that organizations with specialized mandates are ubiquitous.
Nothing matters to you. You want to call them "hateful" and you would do so even if angels descended from Heaven in a great pillar of fire to tell you and a thousand witnesses you're wrong.
I can only hope that somebody reading this takes the time to think through the issue and see your endless excuses for what they are. If even one person walks away begrudgingly admitting the FRC isn't a hate group, the world will be a slightly saner place. Such is the utility of these debates.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 19, 2017 22:51:43 GMT -5
Lol! Reason? The Family Research Council (FRC) was founded in 1981 by Focus on the Family chairman Dr. James Dobson. It is a homophobic right-wing fundamentalist Christian advocacy group. It is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. <snip> Keeping in line with his prior reputation as a truly deluded goofball, Gary Bauer decided to make use of the shooting of Pakistani women's rights activist Malala Yousafzai by Taliban thugs to blame the parties he thought were responsible — namely, Sandra Fluke and the "American left". There's probably no microscope powerful enough to find a shred of logic in that argument, of course, but when has that ever stopped Bauer before?[10] In June 2013 Bauer asserted that the Supreme Court's decision against the Defense of Marriage Act would lead to anti-gay "activists" going to jail for merely expressing their opinion publicly, which would seem to set a new personal record by Bauer for pulling a nonsensical conclusion out of the thin air it was apparently based on.[11] And then there's former member Josh Duggar.[12][13] Oops. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 20, 2017 6:51:15 GMT -5
Southern Poverty Law Center. is a hate group itself!!
|
|
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 20, 2017 11:08:47 GMT -5
Lol! Reason? The Family Research Council (FRC) was founded in 1981 by Focus on the Family chairman Dr. James Dobson. It is a homophobic right-wing fundamentalist Christian advocacy group. It is considered... ...eat puppies for breakfast... ...stupid lardheads... ...crazy nutters once chased a dingo... Thank you for your wiki's perspective, as always, Weltz.
|
|
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 20, 2017 11:10:37 GMT -5
Southern Poverty Law Center. is a hate group itself!! No, it's not. And they should be free to label other organizations as they see fit. That doesn't mean we should value their judgment, though.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 20, 2017 11:48:57 GMT -5
Well, I got called a nazi by some snowflake who didn't like the fact that I was proud of my son's alma mater letting a speaker speak even though the majority don't like what he has to say. To me it said that his school felt their students were mature enough to hear another point of view, even one most people wouldn't agree with. Fortunately the rational people agreed that it showed their school positively.
|
|