[quote]But There is a Jewish race no?<hr></blockquote>
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Jewish people are a member of the Semite group of races, allegedly descended from Shem. This group also includes Arameans, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Arabs.
<strong>Well if it isn't inborn.. it's either a choice.. or something Psychological...
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. :??</strong><hr></blockquote>
So to sum up your position - if it were shown that homosexuality was a choice then we should justly be able to discriminate against gays. OTOH, if it were shown that homosexuality wasn't a choice then we should STILL justly be able to discriminate against gays. Also, since you didn't respond to my question about whether you were taking a libertarian stance here, am I correct in assuming that you specifically support the discrimination against gays and not, say, blacks or disabled people?
[quote]
<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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available. Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available. Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
very good post, sounds like if you are a university teacher.
[quote]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<hr></blockquote>
Constitutional Amendments I, IV and VI are being changed and challenged under heavy artillery fire as we speak. But to track down any firearms purchases tramples the 2nd Amendment rights of all those suspected terrorists, and we can't have that, can we now?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Jewish people are a member of the Semite group of races, allegedly descended from Shem. This group also includes Arameans, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Arabs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Hitler was only burning people that believed in the Jewish religion? No he was destroying a race. Nice try though.
So to sum up your position - if it were shown that homosexuality was a choice then we should justly be able to discriminate against gays. OTOH, if it were shown that homosexuality wasn't a choice then we should STILL justly be able to discriminate against gays. Also, since you didn't respond to my question about whether you were taking a libertarian stance here, am I correct in assuming that you specifically support the discrimination against gays and not, say, blacks or disabled people?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I support the ability for someone to have certain values that their religion dictates. I support the ability for those values to be upheld. Just like the KKK.. I don't agree with their reasonings.. but I would defend their ability to form such a group. To be able to only admit certain people into their group. Just as I would tolerate a All gay group not letting heterosexuals join. Do you think if a all Gay company started up and only gays where allowed to join.. do you think heterosexuals would be matching and throwing a fuss about it? No.
[quote]<strong>
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And my point is you can't take scientific "facts" as being just that. Cause I know tons of Scientific "facts" that later are proven to be untrue. I do not base my beliefs on such things. Claiming that you are somehow right cause you do makes you look foolish.
[quote]<strong>
Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree .. organized religion as a whole is evil. You wont get a disagreement out of me here.
Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality IS inborn? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Appearantly, it doesn't matter either way to people who think homosexuals should be discriminated against and yet they still adamantly deny the possibility for some reason. Curious.
Why do I think it would matter, you ask? Well, first, let me say that I think it should matter, but whether it would matter to society at large is debatable. Our society knew for quite some time that being black was an inborn trait, but that didn't stop us from discriminating against them. Of course, the standard response to any comparison between the predicament of blacks and that of homosexuals is that blacks can't change the color of their skin, but gays can change their behavior. This assumes that we have the right to demand people change their private, consensual behavior in the first place. Also, as evidenced by Micheal Jackson it is possible for blacks to change their skin color, but - again I ask - why does anyone have the right to demand that they do? Left handed people can learn to write with their right hands, but they don't like it. We might think they're better off using their right hands, but I think such an attitude is arrogant. Also, I believe that is much easier to change your physical appearance than to decide to change who you love.
Although I can't predict the social reaction to such a discovery I can suggest some interesting technological implications. If homosexuality was shown to be the result of a specific genetic profile or even a concordance between the mother's genetics and those of the fetus, then it would be possible to prenatally test for the trait. You might very well see people getting tested to determine what their odds of having a gay child might be and then doing in vitro fertilization to select for only hetero offspring. I predict we would see a lot of fervent anti-genetic technology conservatives flip flop on that issue just to make sure they don't have gay kids. Also, when polled most homosexuals admitted that they would prefer to have heterosexual kids because they don't want their kids to have to suffer the discrimination they did. So the net effect of such a discovery might be a conservative's dream- less overall homosexuality. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this outcome is desirable. I'm just pointing out what I feel would be the inevitable (and ironic) outcome of such a discovery.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay. You would hire a homosexual. Sweet of you. HOwever let's review a few of your quotes.
"NO ONE knows what the original Bible said.. no one knows how old it is."
So you admit that you are not basing your belief on the word of God, but the word of man.
"Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs)"
But those beliefs are based upon a book that in your own estimation is not the word of God.
"I don't think anyone is claiming "God" put things there to confuse us."
See above
"First off it's not what I think. Homosexual sexIS a deviant... behavior"
It IS what you think. You can't be narrowly specific in the meaning of certain words and phrases to support your narrow view, and not on others. You think that it is deviant. Others do not. Get over it.
"I've seen it from both sides. I just don't sugar coat things. I see them for what they are. I am not going to delusion myself just to adapt to your views."
Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you in the Flat Earth Society by any chance?
"Having homosexuals boycotting your cause isn't always a bad thing."
Then what is your problem? This thread was about boycotts. You were the one tossing the term "deviant" about and then hiding behind the dictionary when called on it
"So your going to .. what boycott them till they come around to your way of thinking? How tolerant is that?
It isn't. I can choose to have no tolerance for injustice
"Go ahead boycott them! They wont know the difference."
Thanks, I will.
"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"
It IS the other way around. And I am not trying to create any institutionalised anti-Christianity that would allow you to be fired because of your "deviant" (since Christians are NOT the majority on this planet) beliefs.
"Go ahead boycott them! They wont know the difference."
"They don't hate homosexuals. This isn't a hate thing."
"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."
"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?"
"Yeah it's only a mater of time before all gays push their views and ideals down everyone elses throats OR ELSE!"
"This is just going to not make homosexuals more equal.. but to further separate them."
"It will make it worse cause of homosexuals trying to push their ideals onto other people that may not share the same ideals."
Okay. Just for a second here, I would like you to insert the perjorative "Negroes" for homosexual. Because, the gay community looks upon the word "homosexual" when use outside of a clinical context to be bigoted. Hmm, how does it sound?
"How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is."
I never said it was more important. And when, in America, it is legal to be evicted from one's home, refused work, or jailed because you are religious, then things will be square. But I don't really want that to happen. Do you?
I don't see Christians claiming God puts things here to confuse us. As a matter of fact the Bible does indeed tell who the king of confusion is.
[quote]<strong>It IS what you think. You can't be narrowly specific in the meaning of certain words and phrases to support your narrow view, and not on others. You think that it is deviant. Others do not. Get over it.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Homosexuality is not the norm sexual practice. Nor is it generally accepted as being normal. There for it deviates from normal practices. Therefore it's deviant behavior. My view isn't the one that is narrow. Mine is more widely accepted than yours. But how many people that believes in such a thing doesn't make it right or wrong on it's on. Calling something Deviant doesn't say it's right or wrong. It just says it's deviates from normal views or behavior that is most accepted.
[quote]<strong>
Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you in the Flat Earth Society by any chance?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Can anyone say extreme bizarro situations?
[quote]<strong>Then what is your problem? This thread was about boycotts.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My problem is people threatening to boycott the SA cause they where bigots and intolerant. And until they come along to their way of thinking they will be bigots. These same people are being bigots. They are being the very same way they are complaining about. They are being hypocritical. That is my beef.
[quote]<strong>
You were the one tossing the term "deviant" about and then hiding behind the dictionary when called on it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't hiding behind any dictionary son. The meaning i gave you is the way I was using it.
[quote]<strong>It isn't. I can choose to have no tolerance for injustice<hr></blockquote></strong>
And forcing your beliefs on someone is justice how?
[quote]<strong>
It IS the other way around. And I am not trying to create any institutionalised anti-Christianity that would allow you to be fired because of your "deviant" (since Christians are NOT the majority on this planet) beliefs.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Right both sides need to just stay out of trying to force values on people I agree. But you complain about them doing it.. when you do .. is it any better? No.
[quote]<strong>
Okay. Just for a second here, I would like you to insert the perjorative "Negroes" for homosexual. Because, the gay community looks upon the word "homosexual" when use outside of a clinical context to be bigoted. Hmm, how does it sound?<hr></blockquote></strong>
More bizarro extremes I see. Homosexuals are NOT a race. And cannot be compared as such.
[quote]<strong>I never said it was more important. And when, in America, it is legal to be evicted from one's home, refused work, or jailed because you are religious, then things will be square. But I don't really want that to happen. Do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I say if the person who owns that home doesn't want any Christians to live there he has ever right not to let them. Esp if it goes against his beliefs.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Constitutional Amendments I, IV and VI are being changed and challenged under heavy artillery fire as we speak. But to track down any firearms purchases tramples the 2nd Amendment rights of all those suspected terrorists, and we can't have that, can we now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is OT, but here's what the second amendment says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to bear arms was written with the intention of having a country defended by militias made up of ordinary citizens. One of the arguments against this ammendment is that since the US is now defended by standing armies, it renders the amendment's original intention moot. It was only later that the right to bear arms was re-interpreted as the "personal" right to bear arms.
I don't know what this has to do with the thread, but for what it's worth, there it is.
The "extreme bizzoro" situation here is that I have been wasting my time debating with simply the stupidest person I have ever met. And I am now going to stop.
And btw- if you are going to quote something, get it right: it is "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make them think"-Dorothy Parker
I support the ability for someone to have certain values that their religion dictates. I support the ability for those values to be upheld. Just like the KKK.. I don't agree with their reasonings.. but I would defend their ability to form such a group. To be able to only admit certain people into their group. Just as I would tolerate a All gay group not letting heterosexuals join. Do you think if a all Gay company started up and only gays where allowed to join.. do you think heterosexuals would be matching and throwing a fuss about it? No. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe we've been through this before. I and everyone in this thread, AFAIK, supports the right of the SA to say what they want and hire who they want (at least until they start asking for my tax dollars). Some of us, however, do not agree with their position and feel that it is the morally right thing to deny them financial support (just as we all deny the KKK financial support). As for anti-homosexuals (you never gave me a better term) boycotting gay charities (businesses is a different matter) I don't think you will find much difference in this respect.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
And my point is you can't take scientific "facts" as being just that. Cause I know tons of Scientific "facts" that later are proven to be untrue. I do not base my beliefs on such things. Claiming that you are somehow right cause you do makes you look foolish. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, strictly speaking facts are facts. Sometimes theories can be misrepresented as fact, but this is usually due to the general scientific illiteracy of the media or, sometimes, as a deliberate attempt to cast scientists as arrogant. Also, on very rare occasions data has been falsified. Fortunately, because science relies on independent testing and confirmation, incorrect data and overstated conclusions don't survive for long. The same cannot be said for "mis-interpretations" of scripture by people supposedly guided by deities (that usually takes centuries to correct). I don't argue with your right to believe in deities, but when it comes to making laws that limit the rights of others I demand that you base your arguments on objective fact and testable conclusions. Because of this you accuse me of being arrogant and foolish, yet you admit that facts are irrelevant to you and that you are right simply because you believe you are right.
Are we done, yet? I don't know about you, but I've only been spending an inordinate amount of time on this thread only because I'm home with a cold. But I'm starting to feel better.
The "extreme bizzoro" situation here is that I have been wasting my time debating with simply the stupidest person I have ever met. And I am now going to stop.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yeah you sure showed me talk about the intolerance.
[quote]<strong>
And btw- if you are going to quote something, get it right: it is "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make them think"-Dorothy Parker</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a joke on a word.. it's not meant to be deep.
I believe we've been through this before. I and everyone in this thread, AFAIK, supports the right of the SA to say what they want and hire who they want (at least until they start asking for my tax dollars). Some of us, however, do not agree with their position and feel that it is the morally right thing to deny them financial support (just as we all deny the KKK financial support). As for anti-homosexuals (you never gave me a better term) boycotting gay charities (businesses is a different matter) I don't think you will find much difference in this respect.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I said I had no problem with people not giving to the SA. All I said is the people that claim they aren't giving money to SA cause they where bigots are being hypocrites.
[quote]<strong>
Well, strictly speaking facts are facts. Sometimes theories can be misrepresented as fact, but this is usually due to the general scientific illiteracy of the media or, sometimes, as a deliberate attempt to cast scientists as arrogant. Also, on very rare occasions data has been falsified. Fortunately, because science relies on independent testing and confirmation, incorrect data and overstated conclusions don't survive for long.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes and many times we find no matter how right we think we are.. we find something new that disproves it. It's a neverending cycle.
[quote]<strong>
The same cannot be said for "mis-interpretations" of scripture by people supposedly guided by deities (that usually takes centuries to correct). I don't argue with your right to believe in deities, but when it comes to making laws that limit the rights of others I demand that you base your arguments on objective fact and testable conclusions. Because of this you accuse me of being arrogant and foolish, yet you admit that facts are irrelevant to you and that you are right simply because you believe you are right.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well.
[quote]<strong>
Are we done, yet? I don't know about you, but I've only been spending an inordinate amount of time on this thread only because I'm home with a cold. But I'm starting to feel better.
Once again, and on my way out the door to my company holiday party (where we intolerant knee-jerk liberals were collecting food items for the homeless), and for the last freaking time, I NEVER SAID I WAS TOLERANT.
I am certainly not very tolerant of you, and I hope that when the nyquil wears off, maybe your brain will start to work again.
<strong>Once again, and on my way out the door to my company holiday party (where we intolerant knee-jerk liberals were collecting food items for the homeless), and for the last freaking time, I NEVER SAID I WAS TOLERANT.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well when your not tolerant don't expect anyone else to be.
[quote]<strong>
I am certainly not very tolerant of you, and I hope that when the nyquil wears off, maybe your brain will start to work again.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing wrong with my thought process. Just because I don't agree with the way you see things I am brain dead?
I think we can clearly see in this thread where the intolerance and bigot-ness comes from. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote] How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is. <hr></blockquote>
Oh my. It isn't. I never said it was. Separation between church and state does not give the church (or any church) absolute immunity, and certainly does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of others, nor does it give them the authority to impose their view of morality on people who don't share it. Which is what you're arguing for.
[quote] You forcing your ideals on them is only going to make it worse. <hr></blockquote>
You give me to much credit. I can't even force my ideals on my goldfish, let alone "them." I'm not the one rewriting laws; legislators are. They answer to voters, as in you and me. That they are changing the laws means they are being told to change them by voters. A LOT of voters. A lot of straight voters. Times are changing. It happens.
[quote] And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well. <hr></blockquote>
No, this isn't affirmative action for gays. It isn't "requiring" companies to hire them. It's leveling the playing field so that gays cannot be discriminated against for being gay. If you don't want to hire someone that you don't feel is qualified but happens to be gay, that's perfectly fine. But if you don't want to hire someone JUST BECAUSE that person is gay, it's called discrimination. See the difference? Now unless you're affraid of a little competition, I fail to see how giving everyone the same opportunity qualifies as "limiting the rights of others."
That whole "will make things worse" argument is just silly. Since this country hasn't self-destructed over Roe v Wade, then I'm sure it'll survive no matter what the verdict for hiring policies about gays is.
One last thing, 'cause I just want to make sure I understand your position here. You claim that you would not personally discriminate against a gay employee for being gay, yet you defend the actions of an organization that does (yes, ACTIONS. The SA actually does this, so it isn't in the hypothetical realm of "right to do so" anymore). Got that dictionary handy? Good, 'cause I want you to look up the word "hypocritical" again.
<strong>I think we can clearly see in this thread where the intolerance and bigot-ness comes from. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Jewish people are a member of the Semite group of races, allegedly descended from Shem. This group also includes Arameans, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Arabs.
<strong>Well if it isn't inborn.. it's either a choice.. or something Psychological...
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. :??</strong><hr></blockquote>
So to sum up your position - if it were shown that homosexuality was a choice then we should justly be able to discriminate against gays. OTOH, if it were shown that homosexuality wasn't a choice then we should STILL justly be able to discriminate against gays. Also, since you didn't respond to my question about whether you were taking a libertarian stance here, am I correct in assuming that you specifically support the discrimination against gays and not, say, blacks or disabled people?
[quote]
<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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available. Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.
<strong>
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available. Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
very good post, sounds like if you are a university teacher.
Constitutional Amendments I, IV and VI are being changed and challenged under heavy artillery fire as we speak. But to track down any firearms purchases tramples the 2nd Amendment rights of all those suspected terrorists, and we can't have that, can we now?
<strong>
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Jewish people are a member of the Semite group of races, allegedly descended from Shem. This group also includes Arameans, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Arabs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Hitler was only burning people that believed in the Jewish religion? No he was destroying a race. Nice try though.
<strong>
So to sum up your position - if it were shown that homosexuality was a choice then we should justly be able to discriminate against gays. OTOH, if it were shown that homosexuality wasn't a choice then we should STILL justly be able to discriminate against gays. Also, since you didn't respond to my question about whether you were taking a libertarian stance here, am I correct in assuming that you specifically support the discrimination against gays and not, say, blacks or disabled people?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I support the ability for someone to have certain values that their religion dictates. I support the ability for those values to be upheld. Just like the KKK.. I don't agree with their reasonings.. but I would defend their ability to form such a group. To be able to only admit certain people into their group. Just as I would tolerate a All gay group not letting heterosexuals join. Do you think if a all Gay company started up and only gays where allowed to join.. do you think heterosexuals would be matching and throwing a fuss about it? No.
[quote]<strong>
Statements like this belie the need for better science education in this country. First, "science" refers to a specific methodology of reasoning in which hypothesis are tested. There certainly are other methodologies of reasoning, such as mathematics, in which logical arguments are assembled to make logical conclusions. So even a scientist wouldn't argue that "science" is the end all be all of reasoning. Second, of course science requires that theories be changed to accommodate new facts. This is the beauty of science- all knowledge is considered tentative, no theory is beyond challenge, and all arguments must be supported by objective fact and testable hypotheses. Science is, effectively, the ethic of making the best judgments with the most knowledge available.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And my point is you can't take scientific "facts" as being just that. Cause I know tons of Scientific "facts" that later are proven to be untrue. I do not base my beliefs on such things. Claiming that you are somehow right cause you do makes you look foolish.
[quote]<strong>
Most religions, by comparison, demand that facts be changed to fit dogma. When mixed with politics the second type of "reasoning" leads to things like the Spanish inquisition and the Taliban.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I agree .. organized religion as a whole is evil. You wont get a disagreement out of me here.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
Why, pray tell, would it matter if it were shown that homosexuality IS inborn?
Appearantly, it doesn't matter either way to people who think homosexuals should be discriminated against and yet they still adamantly deny the possibility for some reason. Curious.
Why do I think it would matter, you ask? Well, first, let me say that I think it should matter, but whether it would matter to society at large is debatable. Our society knew for quite some time that being black was an inborn trait, but that didn't stop us from discriminating against them. Of course, the standard response to any comparison between the predicament of blacks and that of homosexuals is that blacks can't change the color of their skin, but gays can change their behavior. This assumes that we have the right to demand people change their private, consensual behavior in the first place. Also, as evidenced by Micheal Jackson it is possible for blacks to change their skin color, but - again I ask - why does anyone have the right to demand that they do? Left handed people can learn to write with their right hands, but they don't like it. We might think they're better off using their right hands, but I think such an attitude is arrogant. Also, I believe that is much easier to change your physical appearance than to decide to change who you love.
Although I can't predict the social reaction to such a discovery I can suggest some interesting technological implications. If homosexuality was shown to be the result of a specific genetic profile or even a concordance between the mother's genetics and those of the fetus, then it would be possible to prenatally test for the trait. You might very well see people getting tested to determine what their odds of having a gay child might be and then doing in vitro fertilization to select for only hetero offspring. I predict we would see a lot of fervent anti-genetic technology conservatives flip flop on that issue just to make sure they don't have gay kids. Also, when polled most homosexuals admitted that they would prefer to have heterosexual kids because they don't want their kids to have to suffer the discrimination they did. So the net effect of such a discovery might be a conservative's dream- less overall homosexuality. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this outcome is desirable. I'm just pointing out what I feel would be the inevitable (and ironic) outcome of such a discovery.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay. You would hire a homosexual. Sweet of you. HOwever let's review a few of your quotes.
"NO ONE knows what the original Bible said.. no one knows how old it is."
So you admit that you are not basing your belief on the word of God, but the word of man.
"Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs)"
But those beliefs are based upon a book that in your own estimation is not the word of God.
"I don't think anyone is claiming "God" put things there to confuse us."
See above
"First off it's not what I think. Homosexual sexIS a deviant... behavior"
It IS what you think. You can't be narrowly specific in the meaning of certain words and phrases to support your narrow view, and not on others. You think that it is deviant. Others do not. Get over it.
"I've seen it from both sides. I just don't sugar coat things. I see them for what they are. I am not going to delusion myself just to adapt to your views."
Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you in the Flat Earth Society by any chance?
"Having homosexuals boycotting your cause isn't always a bad thing."
Then what is your problem? This thread was about boycotts. You were the one tossing the term "deviant" about and then hiding behind the dictionary when called on it
"So your going to .. what boycott them till they come around to your way of thinking? How tolerant is that?
It isn't. I can choose to have no tolerance for injustice
"Go ahead boycott them! They wont know the difference."
Thanks, I will.
"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"
It IS the other way around. And I am not trying to create any institutionalised anti-Christianity that would allow you to be fired because of your "deviant" (since Christians are NOT the majority on this planet) beliefs.
"Go ahead boycott them! They wont know the difference."
"They don't hate homosexuals. This isn't a hate thing."
"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."
"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?"
"Yeah it's only a mater of time before all gays push their views and ideals down everyone elses throats OR ELSE!"
"This is just going to not make homosexuals more equal.. but to further separate them."
"It will make it worse cause of homosexuals trying to push their ideals onto other people that may not share the same ideals."
Okay. Just for a second here, I would like you to insert the perjorative "Negroes" for homosexual. Because, the gay community looks upon the word "homosexual" when use outside of a clinical context to be bigoted. Hmm, how does it sound?
"How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is."
I never said it was more important. And when, in America, it is legal to be evicted from one's home, refused work, or jailed because you are religious, then things will be square. But I don't really want that to happen. Do you?
<strong>
So you admit that you are not basing your belief on the word of God, but the word of man.<hr></blockquote></strong>
No.. I never said such a thing.
[quote]<strong>
But those beliefs are based upon a book that in your own estimation is not the word of God.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Again I never said any such things.
[quote]<strong>See above<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't see Christians claiming God puts things here to confuse us. As a matter of fact the Bible does indeed tell who the king of confusion is.
[quote]<strong>It IS what you think. You can't be narrowly specific in the meaning of certain words and phrases to support your narrow view, and not on others. You think that it is deviant. Others do not. Get over it.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Homosexuality is not the norm sexual practice. Nor is it generally accepted as being normal. There for it deviates from normal practices. Therefore it's deviant behavior. My view isn't the one that is narrow. Mine is more widely accepted than yours. But how many people that believes in such a thing doesn't make it right or wrong on it's on. Calling something Deviant doesn't say it's right or wrong. It just says it's deviates from normal views or behavior that is most accepted.
[quote]<strong>
Riiiiiiiiiight. Are you in the Flat Earth Society by any chance?<hr></blockquote></strong>
Can anyone say extreme bizarro situations?
[quote]<strong>Then what is your problem? This thread was about boycotts.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
My problem is people threatening to boycott the SA cause they where bigots and intolerant. And until they come along to their way of thinking they will be bigots. These same people are being bigots. They are being the very same way they are complaining about. They are being hypocritical. That is my beef.
[quote]<strong>
You were the one tossing the term "deviant" about and then hiding behind the dictionary when called on it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I wasn't hiding behind any dictionary son. The meaning i gave you is the way I was using it.
[quote]<strong>It isn't. I can choose to have no tolerance for injustice<hr></blockquote></strong>
And forcing your beliefs on someone is justice how?
[quote]<strong>
It IS the other way around. And I am not trying to create any institutionalised anti-Christianity that would allow you to be fired because of your "deviant" (since Christians are NOT the majority on this planet) beliefs.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Right both sides need to just stay out of trying to force values on people I agree. But you complain about them doing it.. when you do .. is it any better? No.
[quote]<strong>
Okay. Just for a second here, I would like you to insert the perjorative "Negroes" for homosexual. Because, the gay community looks upon the word "homosexual" when use outside of a clinical context to be bigoted. Hmm, how does it sound?<hr></blockquote></strong>
More bizarro extremes I see.
[quote]<strong>I never said it was more important. And when, in America, it is legal to be evicted from one's home, refused work, or jailed because you are religious, then things will be square. But I don't really want that to happen. Do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I say if the person who owns that home doesn't want any Christians to live there he has ever right not to let them. Esp if it goes against his beliefs.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<strong>
Constitutional Amendments I, IV and VI are being changed and challenged under heavy artillery fire as we speak. But to track down any firearms purchases tramples the 2nd Amendment rights of all those suspected terrorists, and we can't have that, can we now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is OT, but here's what the second amendment says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to bear arms was written with the intention of having a country defended by militias made up of ordinary citizens. One of the arguments against this ammendment is that since the US is now defended by standing armies, it renders the amendment's original intention moot. It was only later that the right to bear arms was re-interpreted as the "personal" right to bear arms.
I don't know what this has to do with the thread, but for what it's worth, there it is.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Can anyone say extreme bizarro situations?
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "extreme bizzoro" situation here is that I have been wasting my time debating with simply the stupidest person I have ever met. And I am now going to stop.
And btw- if you are going to quote something, get it right: it is "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make them think"-Dorothy Parker
<strong>
I support the ability for someone to have certain values that their religion dictates. I support the ability for those values to be upheld. Just like the KKK.. I don't agree with their reasonings.. but I would defend their ability to form such a group. To be able to only admit certain people into their group. Just as I would tolerate a All gay group not letting heterosexuals join. Do you think if a all Gay company started up and only gays where allowed to join.. do you think heterosexuals would be matching and throwing a fuss about it? No. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe we've been through this before. I and everyone in this thread, AFAIK, supports the right of the SA to say what they want and hire who they want (at least until they start asking for my tax dollars). Some of us, however, do not agree with their position and feel that it is the morally right thing to deny them financial support (just as we all deny the KKK financial support). As for anti-homosexuals (you never gave me a better term) boycotting gay charities (businesses is a different matter) I don't think you will find much difference in this respect.
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
And my point is you can't take scientific "facts" as being just that. Cause I know tons of Scientific "facts" that later are proven to be untrue. I do not base my beliefs on such things. Claiming that you are somehow right cause you do makes you look foolish. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, strictly speaking facts are facts. Sometimes theories can be misrepresented as fact, but this is usually due to the general scientific illiteracy of the media or, sometimes, as a deliberate attempt to cast scientists as arrogant. Also, on very rare occasions data has been falsified. Fortunately, because science relies on independent testing and confirmation, incorrect data and overstated conclusions don't survive for long. The same cannot be said for "mis-interpretations" of scripture by people supposedly guided by deities (that usually takes centuries to correct). I don't argue with your right to believe in deities, but when it comes to making laws that limit the rights of others I demand that you base your arguments on objective fact and testable conclusions. Because of this you accuse me of being arrogant and foolish, yet you admit that facts are irrelevant to you and that you are right simply because you believe you are right.
Are we done, yet? I don't know about you, but I've only been spending an inordinate amount of time on this thread only because I'm home with a cold. But I'm starting to feel better.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
The "extreme bizzoro" situation here is that I have been wasting my time debating with simply the stupidest person I have ever met. And I am now going to stop.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yeah you sure showed me
[quote]<strong>
And btw- if you are going to quote something, get it right: it is "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make them think"-Dorothy Parker</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a joke on a word.. it's not meant to be deep.
<strong>
I believe we've been through this before. I and everyone in this thread, AFAIK, supports the right of the SA to say what they want and hire who they want (at least until they start asking for my tax dollars). Some of us, however, do not agree with their position and feel that it is the morally right thing to deny them financial support (just as we all deny the KKK financial support). As for anti-homosexuals (you never gave me a better term) boycotting gay charities (businesses is a different matter) I don't think you will find much difference in this respect.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And I said I had no problem with people not giving to the SA. All I said is the people that claim they aren't giving money to SA cause they where bigots are being hypocrites.
[quote]<strong>
Well, strictly speaking facts are facts. Sometimes theories can be misrepresented as fact, but this is usually due to the general scientific illiteracy of the media or, sometimes, as a deliberate attempt to cast scientists as arrogant. Also, on very rare occasions data has been falsified. Fortunately, because science relies on independent testing and confirmation, incorrect data and overstated conclusions don't survive for long.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes and many times we find no matter how right we think we are.. we find something new that disproves it. It's a neverending cycle.
[quote]<strong>
The same cannot be said for "mis-interpretations" of scripture by people supposedly guided by deities (that usually takes centuries to correct). I don't argue with your right to believe in deities, but when it comes to making laws that limit the rights of others I demand that you base your arguments on objective fact and testable conclusions. Because of this you accuse me of being arrogant and foolish, yet you admit that facts are irrelevant to you and that you are right simply because you believe you are right.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well.
[quote]<strong>
Are we done, yet? I don't know about you, but I've only been spending an inordinate amount of time on this thread only because I'm home with a cold. But I'm starting to feel better.
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I as well have a cold.
I am certainly not very tolerant of you, and I hope that when the nyquil wears off, maybe your brain will start to work again.
Happy Kwaanza, sonny
<strong>Once again, and on my way out the door to my company holiday party (where we intolerant knee-jerk liberals were collecting food items for the homeless), and for the last freaking time, I NEVER SAID I WAS TOLERANT.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well when your not tolerant don't expect anyone else to be.
[quote]<strong>
I am certainly not very tolerant of you, and I hope that when the nyquil wears off, maybe your brain will start to work again.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bigot.
[quote] How is you being a homosexual more important than someone being a certain religion? It's not.. but somehow you claim it is. <hr></blockquote>
Oh my. It isn't. I never said it was. Separation between church and state does not give the church (or any church) absolute immunity, and certainly does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of others, nor does it give them the authority to impose their view of morality on people who don't share it. Which is what you're arguing for.
[quote] You forcing your ideals on them is only going to make it worse. <hr></blockquote>
You give me to much credit. I can't even force my ideals on my goldfish, let alone "them." I'm not the one rewriting laws; legislators are. They answer to voters, as in you and me. That they are changing the laws means they are being told to change them by voters. A LOT of voters. A lot of straight voters. Times are changing. It happens.
[quote] And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well. <hr></blockquote>
No, this isn't affirmative action for gays. It isn't "requiring" companies to hire them. It's leveling the playing field so that gays cannot be discriminated against for being gay. If you don't want to hire someone that you don't feel is qualified but happens to be gay, that's perfectly fine. But if you don't want to hire someone JUST BECAUSE that person is gay, it's called discrimination. See the difference? Now unless you're affraid of a little competition, I fail to see how giving everyone the same opportunity qualifies as "limiting the rights of others."
That whole "will make things worse" argument is just silly. Since this country hasn't self-destructed over Roe v Wade, then I'm sure it'll survive no matter what the verdict for hiring policies about gays is.
One last thing, 'cause I just want to make sure I understand your position here. You claim that you would not personally discriminate against a gay employee for being gay, yet you defend the actions of an organization that does (yes, ACTIONS. The SA actually does this, so it isn't in the hypothetical realm of "right to do so" anymore). Got that dictionary handy? Good, 'cause I want you to look up the word "hypocritical" again.
Take care of that cold. I'm out.
<strong>I think we can clearly see in this thread where the intolerance and bigot-ness comes from. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
And the lack of grammar
<strong>
And the lack of grammar</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oohoooh grammer attack. your hurt me feelings