I don't know why homosexuals would want to work for a place that followed beliefs that wasn't theirs. I mean if I was a homosexual I wouldn't want to work for them. They'd go against what I believed in. Just like most black people don't care if they aren't allowed in the KKK.
This is just a big bunch of whiney losers trying to make a big deal about something so they can feel important in their own self righteousness. While claiming to be tolerant.. but showing the opposite.
<strong>Just like most black people don't care if they aren't allowed in the KKK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it is like most black people wanting to be able to get jobs at companies or be allowed to buy in neighborhoods in which their color is "deviant" (according to your definition)
<strong> [quote]This is just a big bunch of whiney losers trying to make a big deal about something so they can feel important in their own self righteousness. While claiming to be tolerant.. but showing the opposite.
It's pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No more pathetic than your clear bigotry. If this were 1901 instead of 2001, you'd be bitching about those annoying women wanting the vote. I'm sorry that it is no longer possible for you to live in a restricted neighborhood. But in the past few decades, we have decided a few things. Like that women can vote and own property, that miscegenation laws are stupid, and you can't decide not to rent to to someone 'cause they are Jewish. So sorry that more people are starting to wonder why this is not the case with gays.
<strong> [quote]Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. ...Your trying to make it into something it's not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the dictionary:
[quote]deviant, American also deviate
adjective
(esp. of people or behaviour) not usual, and generally considered to be unacceptable.<hr></blockquote>
I notice you didn't touch the scripture comment. And I will give you one point- I have zero tolerance for bigots. I don't like them. I prefer that they keep away from me. And if I can legally do so, I will discriminate against them. (oh, gee! I can! I can not give them money!)
[quote]While claiming to be tolerant.. but showing the opposite.<hr></blockquote>
You've made a similar "so tolerant of you...NOT!" crack a couple times here, and I'm not really following what point you're trying to make with it. I can offer a couple guesses:
1. You think that perfect moral relativism is actually a good thing. Good for you, but I heartily disagree, and would be shocked to find someone from your side of the aisle lining up behind it.
2. You mistakenly think that those who know that "gays are people too" have to resort to moral relativism to explain that fact. Not true at all. Quite the opposite, as I tried to explain in my last post.
3. You're still bitter about some time you were called intolerant, and so enjoy attaching the label to someone else, even though in this case that means your definition of "tolerant" includes "tolerance of the expression of hatred, to the injury of another human being." I don't much like that kind of "tolerance".
[quote]I find it funny the the groups of people like claim to be the most tolerant.. aren't.<hr></blockquote>
This sort of argument disturbs me mostly because I've used it so often in the past ... when my mind was a little less open. You can't throw tolerance vs intolerance around like it's a catch all.
It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."
It's another to tolerate discriminatory practices by a large organization. Just because they're a non-profit corporation doesn't mean they're not a corporation - and shouldn't be subject to the same rules as anyone else.
Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. Like most Mac users are computer deviants. Your trying to make it into something it's not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, Sinewave, I feel now that I was way to curt with you. I thought you were using "deviant" in it's common usage. But you actually meant it in a clinical sense- like a deviated septum or something. I suppose you would have to agree that not having pre-marital sex is a deviant sexual practice because most people do have sex before marriage. Or that Christianity is a deviant religious behavior because most people in the world aren't Xians. Mea Culpa.
Since it was my mistake, I'll kindly ask you to clear up a couple more things for me-
1. If evidence suggested that homosexuality was an inborn trait would this affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society? I'm giving you a lot of wiggle room here. You can even maintain they will all burn in hell if you like, but maybe still recognize their right to not be fired for their "disability," as I would guess you would consider it. Remember, we are talking about adult, consensual homosexuality here. (Please note: not answering this question and responding with a "What evidence?" challenge, or a dare, or a double-dog dare will succeed no better than your previous attempts to goad me into a discussion unless you give me reason why I should bother. )
2. Are you suggesting that it is somehow required that the SA should be supported for practicing their beliefs even if we do not agree with them, but if we practice our beliefs and boycott them (and give to an equally worthy charity) we are being intolerant? This seems like one sided reasoning. Does that mean that you are being intolerant for boycotting gay charities?
3. Are you suggesting that only gays should boycott them? Does it hold that only blacks should boycott, say, a KKK run charity?
4. What is the exact dictionary definition of the epithet you will most likely hurl at me instead of answering the above questions? Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Noah, your post suggests that the opposite of the "reactionary, ie left winger" is the "bigoted", ie righ winger. I know many people who are 'conservative', or lean right, and are not bigoted in any sense of the word, and I also know people on the left who are. Similarly I know people on the right who are bigoted and people on the left who are not. This simplistic black and white labelling bears little resemblence to reality, but I guess people can argue for ever and a day about the proportions of each.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO,
I expected you of all people to see that I was merely showing how that argument gives no merit to what he was saying. I was hardly making a statement of fact as I had only one line in which to make a reactionary, knee-jerk appraisal of his character. I found it amusing.
<strong>It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quick question... Why would this even come up? "Excuse me Joe, but are you gay? We need to be sure there are no homo's working here." I kinda doubt it.
I can think of two ways:
1) On the job application it specifically asks sexual orientation (doubt it, if you have one I would like to see it)
2) The guy or gal brought it up for some reason either not knowing it would get them in trouble with the org or trying to make a point.
Of course option 3 is possible however unlikely:
3) Will all gay people who work here please come collect your pink slips and prepare for the flames of hell.
This topic can now take the top seat for most annoying of all time (for me anyhow). No sense of humor, no sense of respect for others views (only thinly masked hatred and name calling), and for the most part not even a good cause for argument anymore. If you don't want to give to them fine, if you do fine.
Oh, and as far as those who want to try an put bible quoting people as all a bunch of brainwashed bigots, try reading the whole thing. Neither side should pick out one verse and say it covers it all. Jesus Christ altered the OT way quite a bit. He did not remove any of the law of the OT, he just gave us an out from the penalty for not following the law (death if you did not know or were wondering).
Funny how people pick the parts they like and disregard the rest. But on a chat forum it is really hard to have a really involved discussion on Judeo-Christian ethics in the limits of the discussion. So what do most do, pick out passages that convey the most meaning in the least space. And what do others do? Read this thread and you will see. It's just classic.
Oh, and by the way, there is only one God. So yes, when I die I will hear from him about how I did as will everyone else here. If you want to believe that you will take it up with your own god tha tis fine. We will find out who is right in the end, and it will make all the difference in the world to one of us. Or not...
(Waiting to be called a homophobic, right wing, bigoted, bible thumping, slack jawed, lily livered, son of a biscuit eater)
No, it is like most black people wanting to be able to get jobs at companies or be allowed to buy in neighborhoods in which their color is "deviant" (according to your definition)
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No because homosexuals are not a minority.. they are not a race. I know a lot of black people that would love to smack the homosexuals comparing themselves to the Black man. Hardly the same thing
[quote]<strong>
No more pathetic than your clear bigotry.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Except I am not being a bigot. I am saying the SA has every right to do what it's doing. It's not doing anything illegal. So just because they don't believe in what you do they are wrong?
[quote]<strong>
If this were 1901 instead of 2001, you'd be bitching about those annoying women wanting the vote.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Surely I wouldn't be. But thanks for turning this into a bizarro extreme.
[quote]<strong>
I'm sorry that it is no longer possible for you to live in a restricted neighborhood. But in the past few decades, we have decided a few things. Like that women can vote and own property, that miscegenation laws are stupid, and you can't decide not to rent to to someone 'cause they are Jewish. So sorry that more people are starting to wonder why this is not the case with gays.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I'm sorry this is a free country.. where people are allowed to decide and make up their own decisions on what they believe in and what they feel comfortable with. I suppose you'd be happy if the Gov made rules that everyone had to live by when it comes to things like this.. wait they can't.. that would be considered unconstitutional.
Intolerance indeed.
From the dictionary:
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
Yes Homosexual sexual practice falls in this category.
You've made a similar "so tolerant of you...NOT!" crack a couple times here, and I'm not really following what point you're trying to make with it. I can offer a couple guesses:
1. You think that perfect moral relativism is actually a good thing. Good for you, but I heartily disagree, and would be shocked to find someone from your side of the aisle lining up behind it.
2. You mistakenly think that those who know that "gays are people too" have to resort to moral relativism to explain that fact. Not true at all. Quite the opposite, as I tried to explain in my last post.
3. You're still bitter about some time you were called intolerant, and so enjoy attaching the label to someone else, even though in this case that means your definition of "tolerant" includes "tolerance of the expression of hatred, to the injury of another human being." I don't much like that kind of "tolerance".</strong><hr></blockquote>
All except no one is hating homosexuals here. There is no hate. Your being a drama queen son.
Tolerance means allowing others to believe what they want to even if you don't happen to agree with it or are offended in some way by it.
This sort of argument disturbs me mostly because I've used it so often in the past ... when my mind was a little less open. You can't throw tolerance vs intolerance around like it's a catch all.
It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."
It's another to tolerate discriminatory practices by a large organization. Just because they're a non-profit corporation doesn't mean they're not a corporation - and shouldn't be subject to the same rules as anyone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And every single company can choose not to hire homosexuals if they want. This isn't against the law. This is the way these people feel. They don't hate homosexuals. This isn't a hate thing. They just feel their lifestyle isn't following along with their ideals. You should be tolerant of that. Not everyone has the same ideals as you. But instead you want to force your beliefs and ideals down every one else's throats and claim them to be bigots if they don't come around to your way of thinking.
Oh, Sinewave, I feel now that I was way to curt with you. I thought you were using "deviant" in it's common usage. But you actually meant it in a clinical sense- like a deviated septum or something. I suppose you would have to agree that not having pre-marital sex is a deviant sexual practice because most people do have sex before marriage. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe.. most people accept waiting till your marriage as being normal and accepted
[quote]<strong>
Or that Christianity is a deviant religious behavior because most people in the world aren't Xians. Mea Culpa.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No because the Christian religion is widely accepted by the masses.
[quote]<strong>
Since it was my mistake, I'll kindly ask you to clear up a couple more things for me-
1. If evidence suggested that homosexuality was an inborn trait would this affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would still be treated like any other deviant sexual behavior that people are "born" with.
[quote]<strong>
I'm giving you a lot of wiggle room here. You can even maintain they will all burn in hell if you like,<hr></blockquote></strong>
I've never said this. I said according to the bible a sin is a sin is a sin. Telling a lie is as bad as practicing homosexual behavior according to the Bible. Just because your homosexual doesn't mean your going to hell. It's when you try to justify your actions is where you get into the slippery slope.
[quote]<strong>
but maybe still recognize their right to not be fired for their "disability," as I would guess you would consider it. Remember, we are talking about adult, consensual homosexuality here. (Please note: not answering this question and responding with a "What evidence?" challenge, or a dare, or a double-dog dare will succeed no better than your previous attempts to goad me into a discussion unless you give me reason why I should bother. )<hr></blockquote></strong>
And employer has a right to fire someone for being homosexual yes. Is it right? That isn't for me to judge. Would *I* fire some one for being homosexual? No.. not if he/she was doing a good job.
[quote]<strong>
2. Are you suggesting that it is somehow required that the SA should be supported for practicing their beliefs even if we do not agree with them, but if we practice our beliefs and boycott them (and give to an equally worthy charity) we are being intolerant? This seems like one sided reasoning. Does that mean that you are being intolerant for boycotting gay charities?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I say you have ever right to boycott them! But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that.
Boycotting them cause you think they should let gays work there is one thing. Calling them intolerant is another.
[quote]<strong>
3. Are you suggesting that only gays should boycott them? Does it hold that only blacks should boycott, say, a KKK run charity?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am sure anyone that gets their panties in a knot about people that don't believe in the same way as they do will boycott them.
[quote]<strong>
4. What is the exact dictionary definition of the epithet you will most likely hurl at me instead of answering the above questions? Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you.
<strong>I'll just call you a bigot, thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This comment wasn't directed at me, but give me a break! Nothing he said defined him as a bigot, you pompous ass. Noah was basically right in his assessment as well, if a bit acidic / sarcastic (so sue us!).
Why don't you go back to your Rodeo Drive cafe and sip a mochachino with all the other socially elite minds of Beverly Hills and keep telling yourself how open-minded and noble you are. Everyone needs a dream....
-----
Nordy: I never said or even implied the SA is superior to or more effective than all other charities. My point was to show that a large, experienced organization like the SA, with many former homeless among their volunteers, is more likely to consistently get the food and clothing to the desperate among us than the so-called "mom and pop shops? that the original poster said he would give to (instead of the SA). That's all. Not saying the alternative charities have no merit or value. Clearly they do in most cases.
As to your hypothetical scenario of two charity organizations with the exact same resources and reach, one which hired gays and one which didn't...I would probably give my money to whichever one was located / active in my community. I wouldn't care really about the hiring policies.
My over-arching point is not that barring homosexuals from the workplace is good or bad, or that smaller charities are good or bad. It is simply to say, I cannot relate to anyone who would want to boycott an organization as giving and as beneficial as the SA, simply because they don't like their hiring policies regarding gays. As if it is a right and not a privilege for gays to work for whomever they like, while the rest of us have to live with the choices we've made in life.
That is, there is some gray area to the homosexual lifestyle debate (I think any of us can agree), so organizations should be given some leeway when considering their position on whether they want to hire gays or not ?PARTICULARLY if the organization is of a socio-religious nature, which the SA qualifies as IMO. It's not like they're turning away all women, or all Blacks, or anyone who was born with one arm, etc. They see homosexuality as a choice -- as do many people , gays included -- and further a choice which is not consistent with the socio-religious values of their organization.
Thus, as with any other choices an applicant makes (dying their hair purple, eating small rodents for lunch, standing on their head every 15 minutes?whatever?people do all kinds of unusual things in this world, and they have to live with those choices), an organization like the SA should be able determine whether the applicant?s choices (and hence their lifestyle) are consistent with the overall social values which the organization promotes, and the image which they wish to project to the public. *inhale, exhale*
In the end though, it all boils down to this: I can't sympathize with anyone who withholds money from the Salvation Army, during the holiday season / winter months, simply because they think it's more important to make a social statement, than to help the poor and destitute. Find some other way. I hardly think the organizers and leaders of the SA are cold, evil-hearted people who are unwilling to listen to others in the community. Maybe you can bring them around to your way of thinking and a year from now they'll hire gays, maybe they won't. But you cannot deny the great amount of good that they do. Why detract from that at a time like this?
It?s just sad. Really sad. That?s all the more I?ll say of it because I don?t want to get into raging debates about workplace hiring policies and all that bullcrap. If you don?t want to give to the SA because you think gay workers being there is more important than them feeding and clothing the homeless, good luck in life. They?re getting my money this year and every year I can give it.
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ? in response to the bigot comment:
This comment wasn't directed at me, but give me a break! Nothing he said defined him as a bigot, you pompous ass.<hr></blockquote>
Not entirely true. The word "bigot" simply implies a strong preference for one's own group and just as strong a rejection of any competing groups, be it race, religion, politics, etc. By this <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bigot"; target="_blank">definition</a> (ie. the actual definition of the word), most of the discussion in this thread is bigoted. The Salvation Army is bigoted against homosexuals and the boycotters are bigoted against people who are bigoted against homosexuals.
[quote]As if it is a right and not a privilege for gays to work for whomever they like, while the rest of us have to live with the choices we've made in life.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think it is a matter of "working for whomever they like," as no one except strident affirmative-action supporters would suggest it is right to hire a non-qualified person for the job. But there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding whether an otherwise qualified homosexual should be rejected on that basis alone.
[quote]Thus, as with any other choices an applicant makes (dying their hair purple, eating small rodents for lunch, standing on their head every 15 minutes?whatever?people do all kinds of unusual things in this world, and they have to live with those choices)<hr></blockquote>
...not being Christian, having children, being or not being married...yes, I can see how choices in one's personal life can and should disqualify one from a workplace position
You know, there's a damn good reason the US is not a democracy. Mob rule leads to exactly the kind of majority privilege at the expense of the minority that Sinewave -- and you by tacit agreement -- seems to propose.
First time in this thread, and I don't have time to read it all, so sorry if this has been said...
This boycott, like most, is pretty stupid. Does anyone have a list of all the companies and organizations that have the same policy as the SA? If not, you're a hypocrite for boycotting one and not all of the others. Watch out! That soft drink you're about to put up to your lips might be from one of those companies!
<strong>Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior....Like most Mac users are computer deviants</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then I asked if that would mean that people who don't have premarital sex or who practice Xianity would be considered deviant
Then you modified your definition to be...
[quote]<strong>
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, do people really consider mac users deviant? Well, even if they do, by using this definition we are talking about extremely relative and subjective evaluations. Xianity would, indeed, be considered deviant at certain times (around 1 A.D.) and in certain places (the middle east- today). Being against slavery, segregation or in favor of women getting the vote would all at one time be considered deviant. Since you seem to insist that you are using it in the most innocent terms, despite the negative connotation of it's common usage can you give me a good reason why we couldn't use a synonym like "unconventional"? I certainly would agree that abolitionists, de-segregationists, women suffragists, and early Xians were unconventional, but I wouldn't call them deviant.
[quote]<strong>It [homosexuality] would still be treated like any other deviant sexual behavior that people are "born" with. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Could I get a simple yes or no to my original question? From your response I assume that your answer is - No, if homosexuality was an inborn trait it wouldn't effect how I think homosexuals should be treated in society in any way. Also, I need to ask if you consider it ok for people to discriminate against hiring people for other inborn conditions (one's that do not effect their work performance), like skin color or disabilities. If your position is simply a libertarian one where people should be free to discriminate for whatever reason, I could respect that. There would still be the sticky matter of governmental hiring practices, however.
[quote]<strong>
No I say you have ever[y] right to boycott them! But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that. Boycotting them cause you think they should let gays work there is one thing. Calling them intolerant is another. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So let me get this strait... To be tolerant one must tolerate intolerance? Whatever. I think I get your basic meaning, that you feel "tolerance" has been unfairly co-opted by one side of the political landscape and that tolerating Xian beliefs is excluded from the list of what is to be tolerated. I'm not a big fan of misleading terms like "tolerance", "pro-life", or "family values" because they are so relative (like "deviant"). I prefer to be intolerant of opinions unsupported by objective fact and, for this reason, do not support discrimination against gays for religious reasons. It's nice to know that you entirely support my right to be intolerant of the SA.
Great thread. I'm jumping in on this late, so appologies if I mention something previously covered. Appologies also if I screw up the quotes--first time using it on this board (yeah, I'm new).
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb]No because homosexuals are not a minority.. they are not a race. I know a lot of black people that would love to smack the homosexuals comparing themselves to the Black man. Hardly the same thing</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, homosexuality is not a race, but it isn't a choice either, or a movement like the 60s, or grunge, or bell-bottom jeans. People do not choose to be attracted to the same sex; they either are, or they aren't. No, I'm not talking about people who "experiment" with the "other side of the fence." I'm talking about people who live there, permanently.
It isn't an exclusively societal or human practice either. Evidence of homosexuality can be found in the earliest societies, and recent work in zoological studies has shown that animals also engage in homosexual activity (rare, though it is).
Yes, there is no comparison to the black experience. Homosexuals were never sold into slavery. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's directed at homosexuals, the handicapped, blacks, jews, or asians.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb] I am saying the SA has every right to do what it's doing. It's not doing anything illegal. So just because they don't believe in what you do they are wrong? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it is illegal...in certain states. There's no federal statute, but states like California do have laws that makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation. Which, of course, complicates the issue since the SA operates in every state...
Also, as history shows, "legal" does not equate "right." Fifty years ago, it was legal to have "separate but equal" treatment of blacks, which basically resulted in sanctioned racism. A hundred years ago, it was legal for only men to have the right to vote, and illegal for women to. Before the civil war, it was legal to own slaves.
No, they shouldn't have any "special" rights, but I think they should--morally and legally--be allowed to enjoy the same rights that we all have. Like being evaulated for a job based on your abilities and acomplishments, not on whether you're straight or gay.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb] But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. Personally, I've found that people who claim to be tolerant are actually the most intolerant of other people's opinions. Boycotting the sA isn't the answer, since I doubt they'd even notice losing a few quarters here and there anyway. A better way to protest is to save your spare change and write a nice fat check to your charity of choice at tax time. That way, you can make sure your money gets used how you want it to, and get a nice tax write off to boot. If you're really upset, you should write to the SA to implore them to change their hiring practices (legitimate email, not DoS attacks).
<strong>As to your hypothetical scenario of two charity organizations with the exact same resources and reach, one which hired gays and one which didn't...I would probably give my money to whichever one was located / active in my community. I wouldn't care really about the hiring policies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if one of the organizations decided to discriminate against blacks (in hiring not in whom they help) you would still favor them if they were the shorter walk down the block?
So if one of the organizations decided to discriminate against blacks (in hiring not in whom they help) you would still favor them if they were the shorter walk down the block?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jeez.
I never expected you (of all people) to take what I said out of context and twist it to involve something no one has even mentioned. Yah that's me all right...Mr. Racist Lazy Man who cares less about fairness than walking the provrbial extra mile. What the hell?!
Maybe instead of assuming you and everyone else here knew the context in which I was speaking (about the hiring policies as they applied to homosexuals ONLY), I should list every possible type of person or habit that could be used as a basis for judging and applicant, and then state in each case whether I agree with it or not. Hope you don't mind, the thread might take about 4 days to load into your browser....
Obviously the color of one's skin is something one is born with and thus has no control over. When did I ever say organizations should be free to discriminate on that type of basis? Never. In fact I explicitly tried to make the point that homosexuality is seen by many (some homosexuals included) as a CHOICE...and hence the SA as an organization should be free to evaluate that lifestyle choice, as to whether it is consistent with their values (or not).
Please don't make ugly implications about me like that again, lest I lose faith in you as a thinking person, which I don't want to do since we've had some interesting debates....[edit]
Then I asked if that would mean that people who don't have premarital sex or who practice Xianity would be considered deviant
Then you modified your definition to be...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Are you arguing semantics?
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, do people really consider mac users deviant? Well, even if they do, by using this definition we are talking about extremely relative and subjective evaluations.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ever try to hook a Mac up to a PC only Company's network?
[quote]<strong>
Xianity would, indeed, be considered deviant at certain times (around 1 A.D.) and in certain places (the middle east- today). Being against slavery, segregation or in favor of women getting the vote would all at one time be considered deviant. Since you seem to insist that you are using it in the most innocent terms, despite the negative connotation of it's common usage can you give me a good reason why we couldn't use a synonym like "unconventional"? I certainly would agree that abolitionists, de-segregationists, women suffragists, and early Xians were unconventional, but I wouldn't call them deviant.<hr></blockquote></strong>
And what negative connotation of it's common usage is that? As far as i can remember that is what Deviant meant, But if it makes you feel better if I used "unconventional" then ok.
[quote]<strong>
Could I get a simple yes or no to my original question?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Very rarely are answers yes or no.
<strong> [quote]
From your response I assume that your answer is - No, if homosexuality was an inborn trait it wouldn't effect how I think homosexuals should be treated in society in any way. Also, I need to ask if you consider it ok for people to discriminate against hiring people for other inborn conditions (one's that do not effect their work performance), like skin color or disabilities. If your position is simply a libertarian one where people should be free to discriminate for whatever reason, I could respect that. There would still be the sticky matter of governmental hiring practices, however.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For all we know now there is no homosexual gene being passes on. There is no physical way of telling some one is homosexual or not. There have been homosexuals that changed to heterosexual. There has been proof that this isn't something that is permanent. Until they can.. it wont get treated as such IMHO.
True, homosexuality is not a race, but it isn't a choice either, or a movement like the 60s, or grunge, or bell-bottom jeans. People do not choose to be attracted to the same sex; they either are, or they aren't. No, I'm not talking about people who "experiment" with the "other side of the fence." I'm talking about people who live there, permanently. <hr></blockquote></strong>
There is no proof that people are born that way either. but that still doesn't mean it should be accepted as ok? even if it was.
[quote]<strong>
It isn't an exclusively societal or human practice either. Evidence of homosexuality can be found in the earliest societies,
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And saying homosexuality has been going on for a long time proves what?
[quote]<strong>
and recent work in zoological studies has shown that animals also engage in homosexual activity (rare, though it is).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No you'll never see one gorilla let another gorilla sodomize him. I bet you that. I wanna see the test where they put two gay male lions in a room with a female lion that is in heat. Watch how un-gay they become.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, there is no comparison to the black experience. Homosexuals were never sold into slavery. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's directed at homosexuals, the handicapped, blacks, jews, or asians.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not according the the policies we have now I guess. And in this country people have the right to have their own view on things. You can't just push your views on them because you think your right. You should also respect that they have their own views. Like it or not. That is what tolerance is.
[quote]<strong>
Actually, it is illegal...in certain states. There's no federal statute, but states like California do have laws that makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation. Which, of course, complicates the issue since the SA operates in every state...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well those countries are being unconstitutional then. Shame on them. If I run a company and run it according to how my religious beliefs are then the Gov constitutionally have a right to tell me other wise.
[quote]<strong>
Also, as history shows, "legal" does not equate "right." Fifty years ago, it was legal to have "separate but equal" treatment of blacks, which basically resulted in sanctioned racism. A hundred years ago, it was legal for only men to have the right to vote, and illegal for women to. Before the civil war, it was legal to own slaves.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh I am sure homosexuals will force themselves to be widely accepted or else! Sooner or later this will happen. Again.. it will just make things worse. And again.. this isn't about hate.
[quote]<strong>
No, they shouldn't have any "special" rights, but I think they should--morally and legally--be allowed to enjoy the same rights that we all have. Like being evaulated for a job based on your abilities and acomplishments, not on whether you're straight or gay.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
To some people that says a lot about you. That is just a fact a life. Life sucks doesn't it? It's full of prickly wooden sharp object that poke at you. Pretending they aren't there isn't going to make them hurt less.
[quote]<strong>
You're right. Personally, I've found that people who claim to be tolerant are actually the most intolerant of other people's opinions. Boycotting the sA isn't the answer, since I doubt they'd even notice losing a few quarters here and there anyway. A better way to protest is to save your spare change and write a nice fat check to your charity of choice at tax time. That way, you can make sure your money gets used how you want it to, and get a nice tax write off to boot. If you're really upset, you should write to the SA to implore them to change their hiring practices (legitimate email, not DoS attacks).
Comments
This is just a big bunch of whiney losers trying to make a big deal about something so they can feel important in their own self righteousness. While claiming to be tolerant.. but showing the opposite.
It's pathetic.
<strong>Just like most black people don't care if they aren't allowed in the KKK.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it is like most black people wanting to be able to get jobs at companies or be allowed to buy in neighborhoods in which their color is "deviant" (according to your definition)
<strong> [quote]This is just a big bunch of whiney losers trying to make a big deal about something so they can feel important in their own self righteousness. While claiming to be tolerant.. but showing the opposite.
It's pathetic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No more pathetic than your clear bigotry. If this were 1901 instead of 2001, you'd be bitching about those annoying women wanting the vote. I'm sorry that it is no longer possible for you to live in a restricted neighborhood. But in the past few decades, we have decided a few things. Like that women can vote and own property, that miscegenation laws are stupid, and you can't decide not to rent to to someone 'cause they are Jewish. So sorry that more people are starting to wonder why this is not the case with gays.
<strong> [quote]Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. ...Your trying to make it into something it's not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the dictionary:
[quote]deviant, American also deviate
adjective
(esp. of people or behaviour) not usual, and generally considered to be unacceptable.<hr></blockquote>
I notice you didn't touch the scripture comment. And I will give you one point- I have zero tolerance for bigots. I don't like them. I prefer that they keep away from me. And if I can legally do so, I will discriminate against them. (oh, gee! I can! I can not give them money!)
You've made a similar "so tolerant of you...NOT!" crack a couple times here, and I'm not really following what point you're trying to make with it. I can offer a couple guesses:
1. You think that perfect moral relativism is actually a good thing. Good for you, but I heartily disagree, and would be shocked to find someone from your side of the aisle lining up behind it.
2. You mistakenly think that those who know that "gays are people too" have to resort to moral relativism to explain that fact. Not true at all. Quite the opposite, as I tried to explain in my last post.
3. You're still bitter about some time you were called intolerant, and so enjoy attaching the label to someone else, even though in this case that means your definition of "tolerant" includes "tolerance of the expression of hatred, to the injury of another human being." I don't much like that kind of "tolerance".
[quote]I find it funny the the groups of people like claim to be the most tolerant.. aren't.<hr></blockquote>
This sort of argument disturbs me mostly because I've used it so often in the past ... when my mind was a little less open. You can't throw tolerance vs intolerance around like it's a catch all.
It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."
It's another to tolerate discriminatory practices by a large organization. Just because they're a non-profit corporation doesn't mean they're not a corporation - and shouldn't be subject to the same rules as anyone else.
<strong>
Since when is calling what homosexuals practice deviant being a bigot? Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior. This is just stating facts.. not being a bigot. Like most Mac users are computer deviants. Your trying to make it into something it's not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, Sinewave, I feel now that I was way to curt with you. I thought you were using "deviant" in it's common usage. But you actually meant it in a clinical sense- like a deviated septum or something. I suppose you would have to agree that not having pre-marital sex is a deviant sexual practice because most people do have sex before marriage. Or that Christianity is a deviant religious behavior because most people in the world aren't Xians. Mea Culpa.
Since it was my mistake, I'll kindly ask you to clear up a couple more things for me-
1. If evidence suggested that homosexuality was an inborn trait would this affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society? I'm giving you a lot of wiggle room here. You can even maintain they will all burn in hell if you like, but maybe still recognize their right to not be fired for their "disability," as I would guess you would consider it. Remember, we are talking about adult, consensual homosexuality here. (Please note: not answering this question and responding with a "What evidence?" challenge, or a dare, or a double-dog dare will succeed no better than your previous attempts to goad me into a discussion unless you give me reason why I should bother. )
2. Are you suggesting that it is somehow required that the SA should be supported for practicing their beliefs even if we do not agree with them, but if we practice our beliefs and boycott them (and give to an equally worthy charity) we are being intolerant? This seems like one sided reasoning. Does that mean that you are being intolerant for boycotting gay charities?
3. Are you suggesting that only gays should boycott them? Does it hold that only blacks should boycott, say, a KKK run charity?
4. What is the exact dictionary definition of the epithet you will most likely hurl at me instead of answering the above questions? Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
Noah, your post suggests that the opposite of the "reactionary, ie left winger" is the "bigoted", ie righ winger. I know many people who are 'conservative', or lean right, and are not bigoted in any sense of the word, and I also know people on the left who are. Similarly I know people on the right who are bigoted and people on the left who are not. This simplistic black and white labelling bears little resemblence to reality, but I guess people can argue for ever and a day about the proportions of each.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO,
I expected you of all people to see that I was merely showing how that argument gives no merit to what he was saying. I was hardly making a statement of fact as I had only one line in which to make a reactionary, knee-jerk appraisal of his character. I found it amusing.
<strong>It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quick question... Why would this even come up? "Excuse me Joe, but are you gay? We need to be sure there are no homo's working here." I kinda doubt it.
I can think of two ways:
1) On the job application it specifically asks sexual orientation (doubt it, if you have one I would like to see it)
2) The guy or gal brought it up for some reason either not knowing it would get them in trouble with the org or trying to make a point.
Of course option 3 is possible however unlikely:
3) Will all gay people who work here please come collect your pink slips and prepare for the flames of hell.
Oh, and as far as those who want to try an put bible quoting people as all a bunch of brainwashed bigots, try reading the whole thing. Neither side should pick out one verse and say it covers it all. Jesus Christ altered the OT way quite a bit. He did not remove any of the law of the OT, he just gave us an out from the penalty for not following the law (death if you did not know or were wondering).
Funny how people pick the parts they like and disregard the rest. But on a chat forum it is really hard to have a really involved discussion on Judeo-Christian ethics in the limits of the discussion. So what do most do, pick out passages that convey the most meaning in the least space. And what do others do? Read this thread and you will see. It's just classic.
Oh, and by the way, there is only one God. So yes, when I die I will hear from him about how I did as will everyone else here. If you want to believe that you will take it up with your own god tha tis fine. We will find out who is right in the end, and it will make all the difference in the world to one of us. Or not...
(Waiting to be called a homophobic, right wing, bigoted, bible thumping, slack jawed, lily livered, son of a biscuit eater)
<strong>
No, it is like most black people wanting to be able to get jobs at companies or be allowed to buy in neighborhoods in which their color is "deviant" (according to your definition)
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No because homosexuals are not a minority.. they are not a race. I know a lot of black people that would love to smack the homosexuals comparing themselves to the Black man. Hardly the same thing
[quote]<strong>
No more pathetic than your clear bigotry.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Except I am not being a bigot. I am saying the SA has every right to do what it's doing. It's not doing anything illegal. So just because they don't believe in what you do they are wrong?
[quote]<strong>
If this were 1901 instead of 2001, you'd be bitching about those annoying women wanting the vote.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Surely I wouldn't be. But thanks for turning this into a bizarro extreme.
[quote]<strong>
I'm sorry that it is no longer possible for you to live in a restricted neighborhood. But in the past few decades, we have decided a few things. Like that women can vote and own property, that miscegenation laws are stupid, and you can't decide not to rent to to someone 'cause they are Jewish. So sorry that more people are starting to wonder why this is not the case with gays.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I'm sorry this is a free country.. where people are allowed to decide and make up their own decisions on what they believe in and what they feel comfortable with. I suppose you'd be happy if the Gov made rules that everyone had to live by when it comes to things like this.. wait they can't.. that would be considered unconstitutional.
Intolerance indeed.
From the dictionary:
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
Yes Homosexual sexual practice falls in this category.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
You've made a similar "so tolerant of you...NOT!" crack a couple times here, and I'm not really following what point you're trying to make with it. I can offer a couple guesses:
1. You think that perfect moral relativism is actually a good thing. Good for you, but I heartily disagree, and would be shocked to find someone from your side of the aisle lining up behind it.
2. You mistakenly think that those who know that "gays are people too" have to resort to moral relativism to explain that fact. Not true at all. Quite the opposite, as I tried to explain in my last post.
3. You're still bitter about some time you were called intolerant, and so enjoy attaching the label to someone else, even though in this case that means your definition of "tolerant" includes "tolerance of the expression of hatred, to the injury of another human being." I don't much like that kind of "tolerance".</strong><hr></blockquote>
All except no one is hating homosexuals here. There is no hate. Your being a drama queen son.
Tolerance means allowing others to believe what they want to even if you don't happen to agree with it or are offended in some way by it.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>oh sinewave.
This sort of argument disturbs me mostly because I've used it so often in the past ... when my mind was a little less open. You can't throw tolerance vs intolerance around like it's a catch all.
It's one thing to tolerate an individual's choices about how he or she lives their life in private. After all, the sexual practices of one of their employees is not their business. Just entertaining the subject, for a heterosexual woman, would be called sexual harrasment. For a lesbian, however, it's "just making sure employees don't undermine the company's moral fiber."
It's another to tolerate discriminatory practices by a large organization. Just because they're a non-profit corporation doesn't mean they're not a corporation - and shouldn't be subject to the same rules as anyone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And every single company can choose not to hire homosexuals if they want. This isn't against the law. This is the way these people feel. They don't hate homosexuals. This isn't a hate thing. They just feel their lifestyle isn't following along with their ideals. You should be tolerant of that. Not everyone has the same ideals as you. But instead you want to force your beliefs and ideals down every one else's throats and claim them to be bigots if they don't come around to your way of thinking.
Can any one say hypocrite ?
<strong>
Oh, Sinewave, I feel now that I was way to curt with you. I thought you were using "deviant" in it's common usage. But you actually meant it in a clinical sense- like a deviated septum or something. I suppose you would have to agree that not having pre-marital sex is a deviant sexual practice because most people do have sex before marriage. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe.. most people accept waiting till your marriage as being normal and accepted
[quote]<strong>
Or that Christianity is a deviant religious behavior because most people in the world aren't Xians. Mea Culpa.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No because the Christian religion is widely accepted by the masses.
[quote]<strong>
Since it was my mistake, I'll kindly ask you to clear up a couple more things for me-
1. If evidence suggested that homosexuality was an inborn trait would this affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would still be treated like any other deviant sexual behavior that people are "born" with.
[quote]<strong>
I'm giving you a lot of wiggle room here. You can even maintain they will all burn in hell if you like,<hr></blockquote></strong>
I've never said this. I said according to the bible a sin is a sin is a sin. Telling a lie is as bad as practicing homosexual behavior according to the Bible. Just because your homosexual doesn't mean your going to hell. It's when you try to justify your actions is where you get into the slippery slope.
[quote]<strong>
but maybe still recognize their right to not be fired for their "disability," as I would guess you would consider it. Remember, we are talking about adult, consensual homosexuality here. (Please note: not answering this question and responding with a "What evidence?" challenge, or a dare, or a double-dog dare will succeed no better than your previous attempts to goad me into a discussion unless you give me reason why I should bother. )<hr></blockquote></strong>
And employer has a right to fire someone for being homosexual yes. Is it right? That isn't for me to judge. Would *I* fire some one for being homosexual? No.. not if he/she was doing a good job.
[quote]<strong>
2. Are you suggesting that it is somehow required that the SA should be supported for practicing their beliefs even if we do not agree with them, but if we practice our beliefs and boycott them (and give to an equally worthy charity) we are being intolerant? This seems like one sided reasoning. Does that mean that you are being intolerant for boycotting gay charities?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I say you have ever right to boycott them! But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that.
Boycotting them cause you think they should let gays work there is one thing. Calling them intolerant is another.
[quote]<strong>
3. Are you suggesting that only gays should boycott them? Does it hold that only blacks should boycott, say, a KKK run charity?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I am sure anyone that gets their panties in a knot about people that don't believe in the same way as they do will boycott them.
[quote]<strong>
4. What is the exact dictionary definition of the epithet you will most likely hurl at me instead of answering the above questions? Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't thought of one yet
<strong>I'll just call you a bigot, thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This comment wasn't directed at me, but give me a break! Nothing he said defined him as a bigot, you pompous ass. Noah was basically right in his assessment as well, if a bit acidic / sarcastic (so sue us!).
Why don't you go back to your Rodeo Drive cafe and sip a mochachino with all the other socially elite minds of Beverly Hills and keep telling yourself how open-minded and noble you are. Everyone needs a dream....
-----
Nordy: I never said or even implied the SA is superior to or more effective than all other charities. My point was to show that a large, experienced organization like the SA, with many former homeless among their volunteers, is more likely to consistently get the food and clothing to the desperate among us than the so-called "mom and pop shops? that the original poster said he would give to (instead of the SA). That's all. Not saying the alternative charities have no merit or value. Clearly they do in most cases.
As to your hypothetical scenario of two charity organizations with the exact same resources and reach, one which hired gays and one which didn't...I would probably give my money to whichever one was located / active in my community. I wouldn't care really about the hiring policies.
My over-arching point is not that barring homosexuals from the workplace is good or bad, or that smaller charities are good or bad. It is simply to say, I cannot relate to anyone who would want to boycott an organization as giving and as beneficial as the SA, simply because they don't like their hiring policies regarding gays. As if it is a right and not a privilege for gays to work for whomever they like, while the rest of us have to live with the choices we've made in life.
That is, there is some gray area to the homosexual lifestyle debate (I think any of us can agree), so organizations should be given some leeway when considering their position on whether they want to hire gays or not ?PARTICULARLY if the organization is of a socio-religious nature, which the SA qualifies as IMO. It's not like they're turning away all women, or all Blacks, or anyone who was born with one arm, etc. They see homosexuality as a choice -- as do many people , gays included -- and further a choice which is not consistent with the socio-religious values of their organization.
Thus, as with any other choices an applicant makes (dying their hair purple, eating small rodents for lunch, standing on their head every 15 minutes?whatever?people do all kinds of unusual things in this world, and they have to live with those choices), an organization like the SA should be able determine whether the applicant?s choices (and hence their lifestyle) are consistent with the overall social values which the organization promotes, and the image which they wish to project to the public. *inhale, exhale*
In the end though, it all boils down to this: I can't sympathize with anyone who withholds money from the Salvation Army, during the holiday season / winter months, simply because they think it's more important to make a social statement, than to help the poor and destitute. Find some other way. I hardly think the organizers and leaders of the SA are cold, evil-hearted people who are unwilling to listen to others in the community. Maybe you can bring them around to your way of thinking and a year from now they'll hire gays, maybe they won't. But you cannot deny the great amount of good that they do. Why detract from that at a time like this?
It?s just sad. Really sad. That?s all the more I?ll say of it because I don?t want to get into raging debates about workplace hiring policies and all that bullcrap. If you don?t want to give to the SA because you think gay workers being there is more important than them feeding and clothing the homeless, good luck in life. They?re getting my money this year and every year I can give it.
This comment wasn't directed at me, but give me a break! Nothing he said defined him as a bigot, you pompous ass.<hr></blockquote>
Not entirely true. The word "bigot" simply implies a strong preference for one's own group and just as strong a rejection of any competing groups, be it race, religion, politics, etc. By this <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bigot"; target="_blank">definition</a> (ie. the actual definition of the word), most of the discussion in this thread is bigoted. The Salvation Army is bigoted against homosexuals and the boycotters are bigoted against people who are bigoted against homosexuals.
[quote]As if it is a right and not a privilege for gays to work for whomever they like, while the rest of us have to live with the choices we've made in life.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think it is a matter of "working for whomever they like," as no one except strident affirmative-action supporters would suggest it is right to hire a non-qualified person for the job. But there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding whether an otherwise qualified homosexual should be rejected on that basis alone.
[quote]Thus, as with any other choices an applicant makes (dying their hair purple, eating small rodents for lunch, standing on their head every 15 minutes?whatever?people do all kinds of unusual things in this world, and they have to live with those choices)<hr></blockquote>
...not being Christian, having children, being or not being married...yes, I can see how choices in one's personal life can and should disqualify one from a workplace position
You know, there's a damn good reason the US is not a democracy. Mob rule leads to exactly the kind of majority privilege at the expense of the minority that Sinewave -- and you by tacit agreement -- seems to propose.
-- ShadyG
This boycott, like most, is pretty stupid. Does anyone have a list of all the companies and organizations that have the same policy as the SA? If not, you're a hypocrite for boycotting one and not all of the others. Watch out! That soft drink you're about to put up to your lips might be from one of those companies!
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Homosexuals practice sex that deviates from a greater percentage of the world.. therefore they are practicing deviant sexual behavior....Like most Mac users are computer deviants</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then I asked if that would mean that people who don't have premarital sex or who practice Xianity would be considered deviant
Then you modified your definition to be...
[quote]<strong>
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, do people really consider mac users deviant? Well, even if they do, by using this definition we are talking about extremely relative and subjective evaluations. Xianity would, indeed, be considered deviant at certain times (around 1 A.D.) and in certain places (the middle east- today). Being against slavery, segregation or in favor of women getting the vote would all at one time be considered deviant. Since you seem to insist that you are using it in the most innocent terms, despite the negative connotation of it's common usage can you give me a good reason why we couldn't use a synonym like "unconventional"? I certainly would agree that abolitionists, de-segregationists, women suffragists, and early Xians were unconventional, but I wouldn't call them deviant.
[quote]<strong>It [homosexuality] would still be treated like any other deviant sexual behavior that people are "born" with. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Could I get a simple yes or no to my original question? From your response I assume that your answer is - No, if homosexuality was an inborn trait it wouldn't effect how I think homosexuals should be treated in society in any way. Also, I need to ask if you consider it ok for people to discriminate against hiring people for other inborn conditions (one's that do not effect their work performance), like skin color or disabilities. If your position is simply a libertarian one where people should be free to discriminate for whatever reason, I could respect that. There would still be the sticky matter of governmental hiring practices, however.
[quote]<strong>
No I say you have ever[y] right to boycott them! But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that. Boycotting them cause you think they should let gays work there is one thing. Calling them intolerant is another. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So let me get this strait... To be tolerant one must tolerate intolerance? Whatever. I think I get your basic meaning, that you feel "tolerance" has been unfairly co-opted by one side of the political landscape and that tolerating Xian beliefs is excluded from the list of what is to be tolerated. I'm not a big fan of misleading terms like "tolerance", "pro-life", or "family values" because they are so relative (like "deviant"). I prefer to be intolerant of opinions unsupported by objective fact and, for this reason, do not support discrimination against gays for religious reasons. It's nice to know that you entirely support my right to be intolerant of the SA.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb]No because homosexuals are not a minority.. they are not a race. I know a lot of black people that would love to smack the homosexuals comparing themselves to the Black man. Hardly the same thing</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, homosexuality is not a race, but it isn't a choice either, or a movement like the 60s, or grunge, or bell-bottom jeans. People do not choose to be attracted to the same sex; they either are, or they aren't. No, I'm not talking about people who "experiment" with the "other side of the fence." I'm talking about people who live there, permanently.
It isn't an exclusively societal or human practice either. Evidence of homosexuality can be found in the earliest societies, and recent work in zoological studies has shown that animals also engage in homosexual activity (rare, though it is).
Yes, there is no comparison to the black experience. Homosexuals were never sold into slavery. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's directed at homosexuals, the handicapped, blacks, jews, or asians.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb] I am saying the SA has every right to do what it's doing. It's not doing anything illegal. So just because they don't believe in what you do they are wrong? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it is illegal...in certain states. There's no federal statute, but states like California do have laws that makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation. Which, of course, complicates the issue since the SA operates in every state...
Also, as history shows, "legal" does not equate "right." Fifty years ago, it was legal to have "separate but equal" treatment of blacks, which basically resulted in sanctioned racism. A hundred years ago, it was legal for only men to have the right to vote, and illegal for women to. Before the civil war, it was legal to own slaves.
No, they shouldn't have any "special" rights, but I think they should--morally and legally--be allowed to enjoy the same rights that we all have. Like being evaulated for a job based on your abilities and acomplishments, not on whether you're straight or gay.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>[/qb] But you can't boycott them claiming them to be intolerant when boycotting them is being just that. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. Personally, I've found that people who claim to be tolerant are actually the most intolerant of other people's opinions. Boycotting the sA isn't the answer, since I doubt they'd even notice losing a few quarters here and there anyway. A better way to protest is to save your spare change and write a nice fat check to your charity of choice at tax time. That way, you can make sure your money gets used how you want it to, and get a nice tax write off to boot. If you're really upset, you should write to the SA to implore them to change their hiring practices (legitimate email, not DoS attacks).
I'm drafting my letter as I'm typing this.
<strong>As to your hypothetical scenario of two charity organizations with the exact same resources and reach, one which hired gays and one which didn't...I would probably give my money to whichever one was located / active in my community. I wouldn't care really about the hiring policies.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if one of the organizations decided to discriminate against blacks (in hiring not in whom they help) you would still favor them if they were the shorter walk down the block?
<strong>
So if one of the organizations decided to discriminate against blacks (in hiring not in whom they help) you would still favor them if they were the shorter walk down the block?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jeez.
I never expected you (of all people) to take what I said out of context and twist it to involve something no one has even mentioned. Yah that's me all right...Mr. Racist Lazy Man who cares less about fairness than walking the provrbial extra mile. What the hell?!
Maybe instead of assuming you and everyone else here knew the context in which I was speaking (about the hiring policies as they applied to homosexuals ONLY), I should list every possible type of person or habit that could be used as a basis for judging and applicant, and then state in each case whether I agree with it or not. Hope you don't mind, the thread might take about 4 days to load into your browser....
Obviously the color of one's skin is something one is born with and thus has no control over. When did I ever say organizations should be free to discriminate on that type of basis? Never. In fact I explicitly tried to make the point that homosexuality is seen by many (some homosexuals included) as a CHOICE...and hence the SA as an organization should be free to evaluate that lifestyle choice, as to whether it is consistent with their values (or not).
Please don't make ugly implications about me like that again, lest I lose faith in you as a thinking person, which I don't want to do since we've had some interesting debates....[edit]
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>First you said...
Then I asked if that would mean that people who don't have premarital sex or who practice Xianity would be considered deviant
Then you modified your definition to be...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Are you arguing semantics?
[quote]<strong>
Hmm, do people really consider mac users deviant? Well, even if they do, by using this definition we are talking about extremely relative and subjective evaluations.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ever try to hook a Mac up to a PC only Company's network?
[quote]<strong>
Xianity would, indeed, be considered deviant at certain times (around 1 A.D.) and in certain places (the middle east- today). Being against slavery, segregation or in favor of women getting the vote would all at one time be considered deviant. Since you seem to insist that you are using it in the most innocent terms, despite the negative connotation of it's common usage can you give me a good reason why we couldn't use a synonym like "unconventional"? I certainly would agree that abolitionists, de-segregationists, women suffragists, and early Xians were unconventional, but I wouldn't call them deviant.<hr></blockquote></strong>
And what negative connotation of it's common usage is that? As far as i can remember that is what Deviant meant, But if it makes you feel better if I used "unconventional" then ok.
[quote]<strong>
Could I get a simple yes or no to my original question?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Very rarely are answers yes or no.
<strong> [quote]
From your response I assume that your answer is - No, if homosexuality was an inborn trait it wouldn't effect how I think homosexuals should be treated in society in any way. Also, I need to ask if you consider it ok for people to discriminate against hiring people for other inborn conditions (one's that do not effect their work performance), like skin color or disabilities. If your position is simply a libertarian one where people should be free to discriminate for whatever reason, I could respect that. There would still be the sticky matter of governmental hiring practices, however.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For all we know now there is no homosexual gene being passes on. There is no physical way of telling some one is homosexual or not. There have been homosexuals that changed to heterosexual. There has been proof that this isn't something that is permanent. Until they can.. it wont get treated as such IMHO.
True, homosexuality is not a race, but it isn't a choice either, or a movement like the 60s, or grunge, or bell-bottom jeans. People do not choose to be attracted to the same sex; they either are, or they aren't. No, I'm not talking about people who "experiment" with the "other side of the fence." I'm talking about people who live there, permanently. <hr></blockquote></strong>
There is no proof that people are born that way either.
[quote]<strong>
It isn't an exclusively societal or human practice either. Evidence of homosexuality can be found in the earliest societies,
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And saying homosexuality has been going on for a long time proves what?
[quote]<strong>
and recent work in zoological studies has shown that animals also engage in homosexual activity (rare, though it is).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No you'll never see one gorilla let another gorilla sodomize him. I bet you that.
[quote]<strong>
Yes, there is no comparison to the black experience. Homosexuals were never sold into slavery. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's directed at homosexuals, the handicapped, blacks, jews, or asians.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not according the the policies we have now I guess. And in this country people have the right to have their own view on things. You can't just push your views on them because you think your right. You should also respect that they have their own views. Like it or not. That is what tolerance is.
[quote]<strong>
Actually, it is illegal...in certain states. There's no federal statute, but states like California do have laws that makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation. Which, of course, complicates the issue since the SA operates in every state...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well those countries are being unconstitutional then. Shame on them. If I run a company and run it according to how my religious beliefs are then the Gov constitutionally have a right to tell me other wise.
[quote]<strong>
Also, as history shows, "legal" does not equate "right." Fifty years ago, it was legal to have "separate but equal" treatment of blacks, which basically resulted in sanctioned racism. A hundred years ago, it was legal for only men to have the right to vote, and illegal for women to. Before the civil war, it was legal to own slaves.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh I am sure homosexuals will force themselves to be widely accepted or else! Sooner or later this will happen. Again.. it will just make things worse. And again.. this isn't about hate.
[quote]<strong>
No, they shouldn't have any "special" rights, but I think they should--morally and legally--be allowed to enjoy the same rights that we all have. Like being evaulated for a job based on your abilities and acomplishments, not on whether you're straight or gay.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
To some people that says a lot about you. That is just a fact a life. Life sucks doesn't it? It's full of prickly wooden sharp object that poke at you. Pretending they aren't there isn't going to make them hurt less.
[quote]<strong>
You're right. Personally, I've found that people who claim to be tolerant are actually the most intolerant of other people's opinions. Boycotting the sA isn't the answer, since I doubt they'd even notice losing a few quarters here and there anyway. A better way to protest is to save your spare change and write a nice fat check to your charity of choice at tax time. That way, you can make sure your money gets used how you want it to, and get a nice tax write off to boot. If you're really upset, you should write to the SA to implore them to change their hiring practices (legitimate email, not DoS attacks).
I'm drafting my letter as I'm typing this.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I see that as sensible.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>