Augh...posting in this thread is like butting my head against a brick wall. Here's everything I have to say about the subject.
I'm not supporting the Salvation Army this year. Other people have made the same decision. They did it for different reasons; I did it because I believe their practices encourage hate. I am a Christian too, one who believes that Jesus' teaching about love and acceptance, even of those who you disagree with, far outweigh any biblical argument used to belittle or incriminate gay people.
I understand that some of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I hope you feel justified in giving to the Salvation Army. I would not suggest that anyone boycott them if it goes against his or her conscience. But for the same reason, understand why I can't support them -- because it would go against mine.
<strong>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?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad to see you take offense at the suggestion that you are a racist. I, however, never made that suggestion. You stated that the hiring practices of the two hypothetical organizations would not be a consideration and that only the locality of them might affect which one you favored. I suspected that, from what I know of you, this wouldn't be entirely true since I don't judge you as someone likely to endorse discriminating against blacks in hiring. So the point of the question was to make you admit that you do not consider homosexual discrimination a worthy enough issue to boycott an organization. This is the case, no?
[quote]<strong>
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).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know with absolute certainty that homosexuality is not an inborn trait? Before I could get into that discussion I have to ask you the question that Sinewave has been ducking repeatedly- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society? Otherwise, there's no point in arguing this, agreed? Also, I should point out (as ShadyG did) that other "choices" like one's religion, getting married, having kids are all recognized by our society as deserving certain protections in law.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep saying this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality ISN'T inborn?
[quote]<strong>
Very rarely are answers yes or no</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep asking this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality IS inborn?
You keep saying this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality ISN'T inborn?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well if it isn't inborn.. it's either a choice.. or something Psychological.
[quote]<strong>
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I don't think if it was shown homosexuals where "born" that way aka they found a homosexual gene I don't think that should be treated any different than they are now... And guess what.. they wont be.
Don't even bother trying to bring science into this. It never ceases to depress me how little some people understand the scientific process, even as they invoke it, whether its "show me the proof that they can't change", or "show me the proof that the earth wasn't created in 4200BC".
Anyway, it's a losing cause. If "gayness" is genetic, then it's a disease, like Downs Syndrome, to be cured. If it's not at all genetic, then it's a person choice and discrimination is naturally justified. Ironically similar to the "divine hand" argument: if there's evidence for evolution, it's because God put it there to confuse us; if there's missing evidence, it's proof that evolution is wrong.
It's the choice thing that really gets to me, though. Hmm, let's see...you can have a wife and two kids and be a fully accepted member of society, OR, you can be the subject of constant scorn and hatred and subject to not-uncommon violence, you can be denied the right to legal union with the love of your life, you can be legally (in most states) discriminated against on the basis of your personal sex life, you can be denied the opportunity to raise children, you can be at greatly increased risk for certain fatal diseases (in the US anyway - tables are turned in the rest of the world), and you can be constantly bombarded by well-meaning people who claim you're going to hell and who try to convince to leave your love and commit to living the rest of your life in a lie.
Gee, people that make THAT choice must be of some weak moral fiber, huh? Slid right down the easy slope of temptation.
Well, I guess they don't have to deal with dating women. I can at least sympathize there.
Just to go off a rant, I don't understand how what Jesus told us was the most important commandment "Love thy neighbor", gets trumped by what otherwise would be a little-known instruction designed for contemporary observance like "don't move your mat on a Saturday". I seem to recall that Jesus himself upbraided the Pharisees on a regular basis, made something of a sport of it, for pretending that those silly rules trumped the Love thing. You're supposed to love people. If they try to hurt someone, of course, you stop them. But gay people don't hurt anyone. The best you might argue is that they are hurting themselves by being gay, but that is demonstrably far less important than loving people, to the point of irrelevance.
<strong>Don't even bother trying to bring science into this. It never ceases to depress me how little some people understand the scientific process, even as they invoke it, whether its "show me the proof that they can't change", or "show me the proof that the earth wasn't created in 4200BC".<hr></blockquote></strong>
Science is not the end all be all of reasoning. Science has been wrong many times. Science is modified and changed daily.. Sound familiar?
[quote]<strong>
Anyway, it's a losing cause. If "gayness" is genetic, then it's a disease, like Downs Syndrome, to be cured. If it's not at all genetic, then it's a person choice and discrimination is naturally justified. Ironically similar to the "divine hand" argument: if there's evidence for evolution, it's because God put it there to confuse us; if there's missing evidence, it's proof that evolution is wrong. <hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't think anyone is claiming "God" put things there to confuse us.
[quote]<strong>
It's the choice thing that really gets to me, though. Hmm, let's see...you can have a wife and two kids and be a fully accepted member of society, OR, you can be the subject of constant scorn and hatred and subject to not-uncommon violence, you can be denied the right to legal union with the love of your life, you can be legally (in most states) discriminated against on the basis of your personal sex life, you can be denied the opportunity to raise children, you can be at greatly increased risk for certain fatal diseases (in the US anyway - tables are turned in the rest of the world), and you can be constantly bombarded by well-meaning people who claim you're going to hell and who try to convince to leave your love and commit to living the rest of your life in a lie.
Gee, people that make THAT choice must be of some weak moral fiber, huh? Slid right down the easy slope of temptation.
Well, I guess they don't have to deal with dating women. I can at least sympathize there.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Just like any other sexual deviant claims to not be able to control his/her feelings. Nothing different.
[quote]<strong>
Just to go off a rant, I don't understand how what Jesus told us was the most important commandment "Love thy neighbor", gets trumped by what otherwise would be a little-known instruction designed for contemporary observance like "don't move your mat on a Saturday". I seem to recall that Jesus himself upbraided the Pharisees on a regular basis, made something of a sport of it, for pretending that those silly rules trumped the Love thing. You're supposed to love people. If they try to hurt someone, of course, you stop them. But gay people don't hurt anyone. The best you might argue is that they are hurting themselves by being gay, but that is demonstrably far less important than loving people, to the point of irrelevance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've never claimed other wise. I was just saying legally these people have the right to do what they want. It's their beliefs/choice. If you don't respect theirs why should they respect yours? Or vice versa.
It is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee based on race, gender, or religion. More and more states are also making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You mentioned earlier that the SA was within their legal right to discriminate against hiring homosexuals. That may be true, depending on what state the SA is considered to be based in, but since this is changing, it's only a matter of time before it becomes illegal accross the US.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Countries? You mean companies, right? This is about the SA, remember? Not your personal beliefs, which of course you're entitled to. This ain't Afganistan, after all. And if you do happen to run a company that discriminates against homosexuals in a state where it's illegal to...well, good luck to you, 'cause you can bet that you will hear from the gov...and probably a dozen civil lawyers...
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Where'd this come from? And how the heck will it make it worse? You make it sound like there's some underground homosexual militia out there that's about to brainwash us with mind-control drug laced cheese popcorn or something.
The constitution was designed as a living document. Which means it can change. That the law of the land is changing is a reflection of the will of the people. As has been mentioned before, homosexuality is still a minority compared to straight people, so there's no way in hell that the impetus for change would come just from them. The law is changing becuase people--straight people--are recognizing that you can't split hairs about what is OK to discriminate against in the workplace and what isn't, especially when it has nothing to do with how they might perform in a given job.
IMO, this kind of discrimination is just plain counterproductive for business. The whole point of business is to move it forward and be profitable. Unilateral discrimination policies like the SA policy do nothing but cut itself off from employing a potentially very talented group of people. And for what? Someone's idea of morality? It's business, not the Jerry Springer Show.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Yo, you can turn down the sarcasm volume! Yeah, life does suck, but it doesn't mean you have to lay down and die for it. If you don't like something, work to affect change. That's what this country's all about.
[quote]Just like any other sexual deviant claims to not be able to control his/her feelings. Nothing different.<hr></blockquote>
But why pick on gay people? Lots of sexual behaviors are "deviant", from toe licking to s&m to bestiality to women having multiple orgasms. We ignore all of them unless there's a victim involved - thus our disdain for anything non-consentual and anything involving kids. What makes that particular sexual deviancy so awful? Even if you think it's gross, it's victimless. I think scrotum rings are gross, but I'm not gonna go make it my policy to check every job applicant for scrotum rings and not hire them if they do.
[quote]I was just saying legally these people have the right to do what they want.<hr></blockquote>
Following the letter of the law is rarely a good moral position, particularly when your actions do demonstrable harm to another human being. When the law changes, presumably your defense of SA's position will as well?
I think we're talking past each other a bit here, though. We can probably agree that while SA has the legal right (and as a religious organization that right isn't likely to change soon) to do what they want in hiring people, those who disagree with them have every right not to do business with them. Right? We can understand each other's convinctions without forfeiting the right to act on our own.
[pointless baiting] I mean, it's not like the anti-SA movement is going to go start firebombing SA stores, mailing fake anthrax to SA offices, and murdering SA santas. [/pointless baiting]
Yes, discrimination in the workplace is discrimination in the workplace according to the policies we have now:
Cornell law
It is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee based on race, gender, or religion. More and more states are also making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You mentioned earlier that the SA was within their legal right to discriminate against hiring homosexuals. That may be true, depending on what state the SA is considered to be based in, but since this is changing, it's only a matter of time before it becomes illegal accross the US.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah it's only a mater of time before all gays push their views and ideals down everyone elses throats OR ELSE!
The tolerance just seeps out of that one. This is just going to not make homosexuals more equal.. but to further separate them. Guess what.. companies will find other reasons to fire these people if they want. Either way the outcome is the same. Nothing accomplished here.
[quote]<strong>
Not your personal beliefs, which of course you're entitled to. This ain't Afganistan, after all. And if you do happen to run a company that discriminates against homosexuals in a state where it's illegal to...well, good luck to you, 'cause you can bet that you will hear from the gov...and probably a dozen civil lawyers...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It's unconstitutional cause a Gov can't tell you what religion you are to practice. If you believe your religion stats that homosexuals = blasphemous then the Gov has no right to make you hire them. How hard is that to understand?
[quote]<strong>
Where'd this come from? And how the heck will it make it worse? You make it sound like there's some underground homosexual militia out there that's about to brainwash us with mind-control drug laced cheese popcorn or something.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It will make it worse cause of homosexuals trying to push their ideals onto other people that may not share the same ideals. It will cause even more of a barrier to be put in between the two. This is just a no brainer. Instead of being tolerant and letting people believe in what they want to believe and how they want to live their life (You know the American way) your forcing something on them that they don't believe in. This causes nothing but problems. How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is.
[quote]<strong>
The constitution was designed as a living document. Which means it can change. That the law of the land is changing is a reflection of the will of the people. As has been mentioned before, homosexuality is still a minority compared to straight people, so there's no way in hell that the impetus for change would come just from them. The law is changing becuase people--straight people--are recognizing that you can't split hairs about what is OK to discriminate against in the workplace and what isn't, especially when it has nothing to do with how they might perform in a given job.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I doubt the law is going to change in "our" lifetime. There are too many loopholes.. and too many other laws being broken cause of this. This has shown not to help anything. People are going to be bigots and racist no matter what law stands. You forcing your ideals on them is only going to make it worse. Understand?
[quote]<strong>
IMO, this kind of discrimination is just plain counterproductive for business. The whole point of business is to move it forward and be profitable. Unilateral discrimination policies like the SA policy do nothing but cut itself off from employing a potentially very talented group of people. And for what? Someone's idea of morality? It's business, not the Jerry Springer Show.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
If that business has beliefs that don't follow the homosexual lifestyle why should they be made to hire them? Why should the government be able to get involved and force people to do something against their religious beliefs? This is where the separation between the church and state comes in. Considering that here in the US only 1-2% of the population is gay they are not cutting themselves off from much. Someone idea of morality? Why should they let you? Someone idea of their own morality? You want to force your morality on someone cause you don't think theirs is right? How nice of you. If it was the other way around you'd be screaming and kicking.
But why pick on gay people? Lots of sexual behaviors are "deviant", from toe licking to s&m to bestiality</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well um I wasn't picking on gays.. this is what this thread is about no?
<strong> [quote]
to women having multiple orgasms</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong> [quote]
We ignore all of them unless there's a victim involved</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? There are state laws that say otherwise... but yes n one peeps in another ones window.
<strong> [quote]
- thus our disdain for anything non-consentual and anything involving kids. What makes that particular sexual deviancy so awful? Even if you think it's gross, it's victimless. I think scrotum rings are gross, but I'm not gonna go make it my policy to check every job applicant for scrotum rings and not hire them if they do</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't go along with someone's religion, beliefs, values. Something that everyone in this country is allowed to have. Your basically wanting to make yours the standard and everyone has to follow.. OR ELSE. You guys complain about Christians forcing their views on everyone. Your doing the SAME THING. Except cause you think your right.. it's ok. Don't you see what I am trying to say now? Are you so blinded for your cause you don't see what your doing? Your being the very same people that you disdain.
You guys are all being hypocrites. You claim you want to be treated equal and with respect .. but you don't treat others that way yourself. You don't care about how someone might feel about you feel about. You don't care about their differences or beliefs in the ones you have.It's all ME ME ME what *I* want.. what *I* think is best. People should respect *MY* beliefs and lifestyles but *I* don't have to respect theirs.
If you don't understand this.. your blind to your cause and are truly brainwashed.
The Right? thing to do is to let people live how they want. If they run a business then they should be able to run it the way they want to. You don't make a big fuss about it.. and rally around trying to get them to change their ways and try to get them to forcibly go against their standards or beliefs just to appease yours. You just don't support them if you feel indignant.
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
Homosexuals are a minority. You said so yourself, they are 1% of the population. Since you are so enmoured of the dictionary, perhaps you should look that up. And under you above criterion, Christians and Jews should not be allowed the constitutional protections that they enjoy, since they are not a race.
If someone is going to quote the scriptures as a reason for their bigotry, then they better be ready to live by ALL of those scriptures. If the bible is the word of law, then you cannot threat it as a buffet that you can pick and choose from. If you had the surf and turf, gave your parents lip, or had sex for other than the purpose of procreation, you will going to hell with the rest of us. Sorry.
And you can roll your eyes 'till you get whiplash, you are still a bigot.
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. QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is a hate thing. What else would it be? A love thing?
And in many cities and some states it is against the law.
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....
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Well, this is directed at you.
FU CK OFF!
First off it is a "Mochacchino"> Second, There are no coffee shops on Rodeo Drive. Third, everything he said defines him as a bigot, just as your snotty-a$$ comment about where I choose to and can afford to live make you an a$$.
I love how people can get all whiney and hyped up about "oh those awful liberals that just won't let us roam free and lump us together as horrible people" can in the same freakin' sentence are so quick to lump together the "socially elite"
Homosexuals are a minority. You said so yourself, they are 1% of the population. Since you are so enmoured of the dictionary, perhaps you should look that up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Left handers are a minority too. They are not protected
[quote]<strong>
And under you above criterion, Christians and Jews should not be allowed the constitutional protections that they enjoy, since they are not a race.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Jewish people are not a race
[quote]<strong>
If someone is going to quote the scriptures as a reason for their bigotry, then they better be ready to live by ALL of those scriptures. If the bible is the word of law, then you cannot threat it as a buffet that you can pick and choose from. If you had the surf and turf, gave your parents lip, or had sex for other than the purpose of procreation, you will going to hell with the rest of us. Sorry.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was that some sort of incoherent blabble?
<strong> [quote]
And you can roll your eyes 'till you get whiplash, you are still a bigot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a bigot? I said I WOULD hire a homosexual if he/she was right for the job. I am just proving that you militants are being hypocrites.
Yes, it is a hate thing. What else would it be? A love thing?
And in many cities and some states it is against the law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not a HATE thing. I know companies that do this.. they do NOT hate homosexuals. But of course.. you know better then the very person doing this right?
<strong>Oh and.. not respecting someone's elses believes is being a bigot too.
big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You guys are also BIGOTS.
So if your allowed to be Bigots why can't someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Judaism is a religion, like Christanity. Or do you consider Christanity a race?
You can, and apparently are, just as bigoted in your own way as I am. I am, however, willing to admit it. I am bigoted towards people I consider idiots. You are bigoted towards people whose sexuality you find "deviant".
Judaism is a religion, like Christanity. Or do you consider Christanity a race?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
But There is a Jewish race no? No I don't consider Christianity a race. If they want to not give Christians special rights I would be all for that.
[quote]<strong>
You can, and apparently are, just as bigoted in your own way as I am.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
All except I said I WOULD hire homosexuals therefore I am NOT a biggot. Even though I might not agree with their lifestyle I WOULD hire according to their ability. I am not the one being a biggot.
[quote]<strong>
I am, however, willing to admit it. I am bigoted towards people I consider idiots. You are bigoted towards people whose sexuality you find "deviant".
I guess that makes you the better man.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice way of twisting things to try to justify your biggotness. A Bigot is a Bigot. No way to look at it differently. No one Bigot is better than another. Your not only a Bigot but a Hypocritical Bigot.
Comments
I'm not supporting the Salvation Army this year. Other people have made the same decision. They did it for different reasons; I did it because I believe their practices encourage hate. I am a Christian too, one who believes that Jesus' teaching about love and acceptance, even of those who you disagree with, far outweigh any biblical argument used to belittle or incriminate gay people.
I understand that some of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I hope you feel justified in giving to the Salvation Army. I would not suggest that anyone boycott them if it goes against his or her conscience. But for the same reason, understand why I can't support them -- because it would go against mine.
<strong>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?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad to see you take offense at the suggestion that you are a racist. I, however, never made that suggestion. You stated that the hiring practices of the two hypothetical organizations would not be a consideration and that only the locality of them might affect which one you favored. I suspected that, from what I know of you, this wouldn't be entirely true since I don't judge you as someone likely to endorse discriminating against blacks in hiring. So the point of the question was to make you admit that you do not consider homosexual discrimination a worthy enough issue to boycott an organization. This is the case, no?
[quote]<strong>
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).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know with absolute certainty that homosexuality is not an inborn trait? Before I could get into that discussion I have to ask you the question that Sinewave has been ducking repeatedly- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated by society? Otherwise, there's no point in arguing this, agreed? Also, I should point out (as ShadyG did) that other "choices" like one's religion, getting married, having kids are all recognized by our society as deserving certain protections in law.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep saying this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality ISN'T inborn?
[quote]<strong>
Very rarely are answers yes or no</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?
<strong>
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep asking this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality IS inborn?
<strong>
You keep saying this as if it might mean something? Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality ISN'T inborn?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well if it isn't inborn.. it's either a choice.. or something Psychological.
[quote]<strong>
Granted. In this case one could answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". You could answer "I don't know", although it would seem quite strange that someone doesn't know their own opinion. I'll repeat it- If it were shown that homosexuality was an inborn trait would it affect in ANY way how you think homosexuals should be treated in society? Yes, no, or I don't know?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No I don't think if it was shown homosexuals where "born" that way aka they found a homosexual gene I don't think that should be treated any different than they are now... And guess what.. they wont be.
Anyway, it's a losing cause. If "gayness" is genetic, then it's a disease, like Downs Syndrome, to be cured. If it's not at all genetic, then it's a person choice and discrimination is naturally justified. Ironically similar to the "divine hand" argument: if there's evidence for evolution, it's because God put it there to confuse us; if there's missing evidence, it's proof that evolution is wrong.
It's the choice thing that really gets to me, though. Hmm, let's see...you can have a wife and two kids and be a fully accepted member of society, OR, you can be the subject of constant scorn and hatred and subject to not-uncommon violence, you can be denied the right to legal union with the love of your life, you can be legally (in most states) discriminated against on the basis of your personal sex life, you can be denied the opportunity to raise children, you can be at greatly increased risk for certain fatal diseases (in the US anyway - tables are turned in the rest of the world), and you can be constantly bombarded by well-meaning people who claim you're going to hell and who try to convince to leave your love and commit to living the rest of your life in a lie.
Gee, people that make THAT choice must be of some weak moral fiber, huh? Slid right down the easy slope of temptation.
Well, I guess they don't have to deal with dating women. I can at least sympathize there.
Just to go off a rant, I don't understand how what Jesus told us was the most important commandment "Love thy neighbor", gets trumped by what otherwise would be a little-known instruction designed for contemporary observance like "don't move your mat on a Saturday". I seem to recall that Jesus himself upbraided the Pharisees on a regular basis, made something of a sport of it, for pretending that those silly rules trumped the Love thing. You're supposed to love people. If they try to hurt someone, of course, you stop them. But gay people don't hurt anyone. The best you might argue is that they are hurting themselves by being gay, but that is demonstrably far less important than loving people, to the point of irrelevance.
<strong>Don't even bother trying to bring science into this. It never ceases to depress me how little some people understand the scientific process, even as they invoke it, whether its "show me the proof that they can't change", or "show me the proof that the earth wasn't created in 4200BC".<hr></blockquote></strong>
Science is not the end all be all of reasoning. Science has been wrong many times. Science is modified and changed daily.. Sound familiar?
[quote]<strong>
Anyway, it's a losing cause. If "gayness" is genetic, then it's a disease, like Downs Syndrome, to be cured. If it's not at all genetic, then it's a person choice and discrimination is naturally justified. Ironically similar to the "divine hand" argument: if there's evidence for evolution, it's because God put it there to confuse us; if there's missing evidence, it's proof that evolution is wrong. <hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't think anyone is claiming "God" put things there to confuse us.
[quote]<strong>
It's the choice thing that really gets to me, though. Hmm, let's see...you can have a wife and two kids and be a fully accepted member of society, OR, you can be the subject of constant scorn and hatred and subject to not-uncommon violence, you can be denied the right to legal union with the love of your life, you can be legally (in most states) discriminated against on the basis of your personal sex life, you can be denied the opportunity to raise children, you can be at greatly increased risk for certain fatal diseases (in the US anyway - tables are turned in the rest of the world), and you can be constantly bombarded by well-meaning people who claim you're going to hell and who try to convince to leave your love and commit to living the rest of your life in a lie.
Gee, people that make THAT choice must be of some weak moral fiber, huh? Slid right down the easy slope of temptation.
Well, I guess they don't have to deal with dating women. I can at least sympathize there.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Just like any other sexual deviant claims to not be able to control his/her feelings. Nothing different.
[quote]<strong>
Just to go off a rant, I don't understand how what Jesus told us was the most important commandment "Love thy neighbor", gets trumped by what otherwise would be a little-known instruction designed for contemporary observance like "don't move your mat on a Saturday". I seem to recall that Jesus himself upbraided the Pharisees on a regular basis, made something of a sport of it, for pretending that those silly rules trumped the Love thing. You're supposed to love people. If they try to hurt someone, of course, you stop them. But gay people don't hurt anyone. The best you might argue is that they are hurting themselves by being gay, but that is demonstrably far less important than loving people, to the point of irrelevance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've never claimed other wise. I was just saying legally these people have the right to do what they want. It's their beliefs/choice. If you don't respect theirs why should they respect yours? Or vice versa.
Yes, discrimination in the workplace is discrimination in the workplace according to the policies we have now:
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/employment_discrimination.html"; target="_blank">Cornell law</a>
It is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee based on race, gender, or religion. More and more states are also making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You mentioned earlier that the SA was within their legal right to discriminate against hiring homosexuals. That may be true, depending on what state the SA is considered to be based in, but since this is changing, it's only a matter of time before it becomes illegal accross the US.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Where'd this come from? And how the heck will it make it worse? You make it sound like there's some underground homosexual militia out there that's about to brainwash us with mind-control drug laced cheese popcorn or something.
The constitution was designed as a living document. Which means it can change. That the law of the land is changing is a reflection of the will of the people. As has been mentioned before, homosexuality is still a minority compared to straight people, so there's no way in hell that the impetus for change would come just from them. The law is changing becuase people--straight people--are recognizing that you can't split hairs about what is OK to discriminate against in the workplace and what isn't, especially when it has nothing to do with how they might perform in a given job.
IMO, this kind of discrimination is just plain counterproductive for business. The whole point of business is to move it forward and be profitable. Unilateral discrimination policies like the SA policy do nothing but cut itself off from employing a potentially very talented group of people. And for what? Someone's idea of morality? It's business, not the Jerry Springer Show.
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>
Yo, you can turn down the sarcasm volume! Yeah, life does suck, but it doesn't mean you have to lay down and die for it. If you don't like something, work to affect change. That's what this country's all about.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
But why pick on gay people? Lots of sexual behaviors are "deviant", from toe licking to s&m to bestiality to women having multiple orgasms. We ignore all of them unless there's a victim involved - thus our disdain for anything non-consentual and anything involving kids. What makes that particular sexual deviancy so awful? Even if you think it's gross, it's victimless. I think scrotum rings are gross, but I'm not gonna go make it my policy to check every job applicant for scrotum rings and not hire them if they do.
[quote]I was just saying legally these people have the right to do what they want.<hr></blockquote>
Following the letter of the law is rarely a good moral position, particularly when your actions do demonstrable harm to another human being. When the law changes, presumably your defense of SA's position will as well?
I think we're talking past each other a bit here, though. We can probably agree that while SA has the legal right (and as a religious organization that right isn't likely to change soon) to do what they want in hiring people, those who disagree with them have every right not to do business with them. Right? We can understand each other's convinctions without forfeiting the right to act on our own.
[pointless baiting] I mean, it's not like the anti-SA movement is going to go start firebombing SA stores, mailing fake anthrax to SA offices, and murdering SA santas. [/pointless baiting]
<strong>
Yes, discrimination in the workplace is discrimination in the workplace according to the policies we have now:
Cornell law
It is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee based on race, gender, or religion. More and more states are also making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You mentioned earlier that the SA was within their legal right to discriminate against hiring homosexuals. That may be true, depending on what state the SA is considered to be based in, but since this is changing, it's only a matter of time before it becomes illegal accross the US.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah it's only a mater of time before all gays push their views and ideals down everyone elses throats OR ELSE!
The tolerance just seeps out of that one. This is just going to not make homosexuals more equal.. but to further separate them. Guess what.. companies will find other reasons to fire these people if they want. Either way the outcome is the same. Nothing accomplished here.
[quote]<strong>
Not your personal beliefs, which of course you're entitled to. This ain't Afganistan, after all. And if you do happen to run a company that discriminates against homosexuals in a state where it's illegal to...well, good luck to you, 'cause you can bet that you will hear from the gov...and probably a dozen civil lawyers...
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It's unconstitutional cause a Gov can't tell you what religion you are to practice. If you believe your religion stats that homosexuals = blasphemous then the Gov has no right to make you hire them. How hard is that to understand?
[quote]<strong>
Where'd this come from? And how the heck will it make it worse? You make it sound like there's some underground homosexual militia out there that's about to brainwash us with mind-control drug laced cheese popcorn or something.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
It will make it worse cause of homosexuals trying to push their ideals onto other people that may not share the same ideals. It will cause even more of a barrier to be put in between the two. This is just a no brainer. Instead of being tolerant and letting people believe in what they want to believe and how they want to live their life (You know the American way) your forcing something on them that they don't believe in. This causes nothing but problems. How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is.
[quote]<strong>
The constitution was designed as a living document. Which means it can change. That the law of the land is changing is a reflection of the will of the people. As has been mentioned before, homosexuality is still a minority compared to straight people, so there's no way in hell that the impetus for change would come just from them. The law is changing becuase people--straight people--are recognizing that you can't split hairs about what is OK to discriminate against in the workplace and what isn't, especially when it has nothing to do with how they might perform in a given job.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I doubt the law is going to change in "our" lifetime. There are too many loopholes.. and too many other laws being broken cause of this. This has shown not to help anything. People are going to be bigots and racist no matter what law stands. You forcing your ideals on them is only going to make it worse. Understand?
[quote]<strong>
IMO, this kind of discrimination is just plain counterproductive for business. The whole point of business is to move it forward and be profitable. Unilateral discrimination policies like the SA policy do nothing but cut itself off from employing a potentially very talented group of people. And for what? Someone's idea of morality? It's business, not the Jerry Springer Show.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
If that business has beliefs that don't follow the homosexual lifestyle why should they be made to hire them? Why should the government be able to get involved and force people to do something against their religious beliefs? This is where the separation between the church and state comes in. Considering that here in the US only 1-2% of the population is gay they are not cutting themselves off from much. Someone idea of morality? Why should they let you? Someone idea of their own morality? You want to force your morality on someone cause you don't think theirs is right? How nice of you. If it was the other way around you'd be screaming and kicking.
Get over it all ready.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
But why pick on gay people? Lots of sexual behaviors are "deviant", from toe licking to s&m to bestiality</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well um I wasn't picking on gays.. this is what this thread is about no?
<strong> [quote]
to women having multiple orgasms</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong> [quote]
We ignore all of them unless there's a victim involved</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? There are state laws that say otherwise... but yes n one peeps in another ones window.
<strong> [quote]
- thus our disdain for anything non-consentual and anything involving kids. What makes that particular sexual deviancy so awful? Even if you think it's gross, it's victimless. I think scrotum rings are gross, but I'm not gonna go make it my policy to check every job applicant for scrotum rings and not hire them if they do</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't go along with someone's religion, beliefs, values. Something that everyone in this country is allowed to have. Your basically wanting to make yours the standard and everyone has to follow.. OR ELSE. You guys complain about Christians forcing their views on everyone. Your doing the SAME THING. Except cause you think your right.. it's ok. Don't you see what I am trying to say now? Are you so blinded for your cause you don't see what your doing? Your being the very same people that you disdain.
If you don't understand this.. your blind to your cause and are truly brainwashed.
The Right? thing to do is to let people live how they want. If they run a business then they should be able to run it the way they want to. You don't make a big fuss about it.. and rally around trying to get them to change their ways and try to get them to forcibly go against their standards or beliefs just to appease yours. You just don't support them if you feel indignant.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<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
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Homosexuals are a minority. You said so yourself, they are 1% of the population. Since you are so enmoured of the dictionary, perhaps you should look that up. And under you above criterion, Christians and Jews should not be allowed the constitutional protections that they enjoy, since they are not a race.
If someone is going to quote the scriptures as a reason for their bigotry, then they better be ready to live by ALL of those scriptures. If the bible is the word of law, then you cannot threat it as a buffet that you can pick and choose from. If you had the surf and turf, gave your parents lip, or had sex for other than the purpose of procreation, you will going to hell with the rest of us. Sorry.
And you can roll your eyes 'till you get whiplash, you are still a bigot.
[QB]
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. QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is a hate thing. What else would it be? A love thing?
And in many cities and some states it is against the law.
[QB]
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....
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Well, this is directed at you.
FU CK OFF!
First off it is a "Mochacchino"> Second, There are no coffee shops on Rodeo Drive. Third, everything he said defines him as a bigot, just as your snotty-a$$ comment about where I choose to and can afford to live make you an a$$.
I love how people can get all whiney and hyped up about "oh those awful liberals that just won't let us roam free and lump us together as horrible people" can in the same freakin' sentence are so quick to lump together the "socially elite"
<strong>
Homosexuals are a minority. You said so yourself, they are 1% of the population. Since you are so enmoured of the dictionary, perhaps you should look that up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Left handers are a minority too. They are not protected
[quote]<strong>
And under you above criterion, Christians and Jews should not be allowed the constitutional protections that they enjoy, since they are not a race.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Jewish people are not a race
[quote]<strong>
If someone is going to quote the scriptures as a reason for their bigotry, then they better be ready to live by ALL of those scriptures. If the bible is the word of law, then you cannot threat it as a buffet that you can pick and choose from. If you had the surf and turf, gave your parents lip, or had sex for other than the purpose of procreation, you will going to hell with the rest of us. Sorry.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was that some sort of incoherent blabble?
<strong> [quote]
And you can roll your eyes 'till you get whiplash, you are still a bigot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a bigot? I said I WOULD hire a homosexual if he/she was right for the job. I am just proving that you militants are being hypocrites.
<strong>
Yes, it is a hate thing. What else would it be? A love thing?
And in many cities and some states it is against the law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not a HATE thing. I know companies that do this.. they do NOT hate homosexuals. But of course.. you know better then the very person doing this right?
big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You guys are also BIGOTS.
So if your allowed to be Bigots why can't someone else?
<strong>Oh and.. not respecting someone's elses believes is being a bigot too.
big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
You guys are also BIGOTS.
So if your allowed to be Bigots why can't someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Judaism is a religion, like Christanity. Or do you consider Christanity a race?
You can, and apparently are, just as bigoted in your own way as I am. I am, however, willing to admit it. I am bigoted towards people I consider idiots. You are bigoted towards people whose sexuality you find "deviant".
I guess that makes you the better man.
<strong>
Judaism is a religion, like Christanity. Or do you consider Christanity a race?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
But There is a Jewish race no?
[quote]<strong>
You can, and apparently are, just as bigoted in your own way as I am.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
All except I said I WOULD hire homosexuals therefore I am NOT a biggot. Even though I might not agree with their lifestyle I WOULD hire according to their ability. I am not the one being a biggot.
[quote]<strong>
I am, however, willing to admit it. I am bigoted towards people I consider idiots. You are bigoted towards people whose sexuality you find "deviant".
I guess that makes you the better man.
Nice way of twisting things to try to justify your biggotness. A Bigot is a Bigot. No way to look at it differently. No one Bigot is better than another. Your not only a Bigot but a Hypocritical Bigot.