<strong>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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Christian companies not hiring gays isn't forcing any other company to do so. It isn't forcing people to believe what they believe. They have their right to practice and belief. So making them accept homosexuality is imposing your view of morality on them .. who don't share it. It goes both ways.
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cept it's not happening throughout the country. Only certain places are doing this.. and it's 100% bully bigot ideals. They don't care what your beliefs are your going to do it their way. And state that supports this supports biggots.
<strong> [quote]
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.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Are you going to be trying to get gays in the KKK also? I mean they have rules saying you can't be homosexual and be in the KKK. They have every right to say no homosexuals. Just as the SA has. While I don't believe SA hates homosexuals. They do not want to promote homosexual activity by having homosexuals working for them. Let me ask you something. How is a employer to know if someone is homosexual? ZI didn't know you could look at a person and tell... they aren't a specific color nor height. How is a employer supposed to not hire homosexuals if they don't know they are. You'll end up getting stupid lawsuits cause John the homosexual didn't get hired and he knows it was cause he was homosexual!
There was a girl I used to work with that was fired recently for going on and on about her and her girlfriend's sexual escapades. She had been warned many times not to do that and finally got fired for it. She then tried to sue cause she claimed she was fired cause she was a lesbian. Instead of dragging it to court my employer settled out of court (It would have cost less than to pay the lawyers.)
It's situations like this that laws like your trying to pass cause. It's does more harm than good. If someone wanted to fire some one cause they where homosexual than they'd find another reason to do so. It wont stop anything really.
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure it will make homosexuals hated even more than they are now. Your kidding right?
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I defend the right for anyone to say anything they want to. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I will defend the right for the KKK to be able to march down the street full of hate. Doesn't mean I agree with them. I defend the right for Joe Christian to be able not to hire homosexuals in his company cause he feels it's against his moral beliefs. Doesn't mean I agree with him. I defend the right for you to be able to boycott SA cause you don't agree with their practices. But when your reasoning is cause they are bigots then your being hypocritical.
Sinewave, you seem to be missing the point that there are different standards for tolerance of unpopular beliefs and tolerance of actions that cause harm to people. Our society has very strong laws ensuring our right to hold whatever beliefs we want to. And you are admirably commited to upholding those laws.
But things change dramatically when you start talking about actions that harm people. Take "discrimination" against criminals, for example. Our government has the right to "discriminate" against such people by removing certain freedoms, jailing them, even killing them. But those powers are subject to incredible controls. Surely no one would argue that child sex offenders, for example, don't deserve to be discriminated against. But there's still some serious constitutional issues surrounding Meghan's Laws, for example, which effectively permit continued discrimination against convicted offenders, after they've "paid their debt to society". It's an open question whether a Meghan's Law would stand up to court challenge, despite their enormous popularity.
So there is a huge threshold that must be met to justify allowing discrimination that harms a group of people. Denying a gay person a job solely on the basis of being gay does real harm to him. Can you understand why being "tolerant" of that lies in a completely different realm than being "tolerant" of mere thoughts and beliefs?
I think you're also confusing private organizations and businesses. Private organizations have the legal and moral right to include whoever they want. That's why the KKK can't be sued for excluding blacks. Things get much cloudier when the organizations use public funds or resources (as with the Boy Scouts using public schools, or the SA soliciting donations on public grounds). Businesses are in another category altogether, and subject to much tighter restrictions because they use and profit from public resources (especially, but not only, if they receive government contracts). Then there's the government, which generally has the tightest restrictions of all due to the need for public accountability (does it make any sense for a tax-paying gay person to be denied employment at the IRS because they're gay? Of course not.)
[quote]You'll end up getting stupid lawsuits cause John the homosexual didn't get hired and he knows it was cause he was homosexual!<hr></blockquote>
Much more likely, you'll have long-time, valued employees suddenly fired for "poor performance" after a boss discovers that he's gay. And those employees should absolutely have a recourse to legal action if that happens. If nothing else, it helps prevent such behavior in the future. It's like women who get asked at a law firm job interview "are you planning to have kids? how will you balance your work and family? do you have a husband?" etc etc. Questions like that constitute sexual discrimination, but what's a woman to do? She can refuse to answer, but that reduces her chances of getting a job. She can sue, but then she sure as hell won't get a job, and probably will be "black-listed" among similar firms. But at least if she does sue, it makes employers think about changing their practices, because one suit is a headache but hundreds are a real problem.
[quote]If someone wanted to fire some one cause they where homosexual than they'd find another reason to do so. ... Sure it will make homosexuals hated even more than they are now.<hr></blockquote>
You do realize that these are, word for word, two of the most popular arguments used against the idea of effective non-discrimination laws for blacks. Just change "homosexual" to black. In the past 40 years those arguments have been completely discredited. And we're not even talking at all about affirmative action here, just non-discrimination.
People, we really need to stop comparing blacks to homosexuals (sorry if the word offends you, give me a better one). The comparison is just another way to say, look at us, we are discriminated against just like all those poor black people.
Say this with me slowly. Gay/Homosexual people are not a race, religion, or otherwise protected minority. Period. Until you are stop with the "just put negro in there instead of gay". If you have a persecution complex then fine, but don't try to guilt me into it.
I'm sorry was that too blunt. I must be a bigot too. Words are so easy to say, especially inflammatory words. They make many people roll over and forget what they believe don't they... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No minds are being changed here, people are getting upset and the SA needs some donations, so get up, go to the mall and drop some loose change in the bucket. Or not...
[quote]You do realize that these are, word for word, two of the most popular arguments used against the idea of effective non-discrimination laws for blacks. Just change "homosexual" to black. In the past 40 years those arguments have been completely discredited. And we're not even talking at all about affirmative action here, just non-discrimination.<hr></blockquote>
Clarification: the point here isn't to equate blacks and gays but to note that Sinewave's arguments for opposing gay protection against discrimination were discredited when used to oppose black civil rights (namely, the "people will do it anyway" and "they'll just be more hated" arguments). In other words, he needs to come up with better arguments to defend his position.
<strong>People, we really need to stop comparing blacks to homosexuals (sorry if the word offends you, give me a better one). The comparison is just another way to say, look at us, we are discriminated against just like all those poor black people.
Say this with me slowly. Gay/Homosexual people are not a race, religion, or otherwise protected minority. Period. Until you are stop with the "just put negro in there instead of gay". If you have a persecution complex then fine, but don't try to guilt me into it.
I'm sorry was that too blunt. I must be a bigot too. Words are so easy to say, especially inflammatory words. They make many people roll over and forget what they believe don't they... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No minds are being changed here, people are getting upset and the SA needs some donations, so get up, go to the mall and drop some loose change in the bucket. Or not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen.
Intolerance is intolerance Just because you think your brand of tolerance is better doesn't make you any less of a Bigot.
Bunch of fucking hypocrites
Oh and Towel what about the harm it causes the people that have such beliefs? There is harm that comes out of it either way. Your just trying to somehow justify your Bigotness.
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, refining theories is a never ending process (not a cycle as we do not "start from scratch" each time). I guess I'll have to repeat this again- this is the very power of science- it isn't dogmatic, it is open to challenge, it MUST accomodate new facts, theories are based on the best of what can be known. Are you suggesting that because relativity showed Newtonian physics to be incorrect in certain situations that Newtonian physics was useless? Your implication that this lack of dogma somehow negates the informative power of science is amusing because you, no doubt, enjoy the many benefits this supposedly impotent process has produced (medicine, computers, cell phones, etc.). Are you prepared to throw out all the current theories about disease, biology, computer design, information processing, etc.. simply because they might be refined at some point? Or can you (through the fact-independent, superior reasoning process you've yet to elaborate on) divine which theories are true and which are not?
[quote]I said:
<strong>
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]and then you said...
<strong>
And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]completely forgetting that in the very same post I said...
<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 </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you like going in circles? Also, I've given you numerous opportunities to state whether or not you're taking a libertarian position in that people should be free to discriminate against people in business, charity, housing, service, etc... for whatever reason (including race and religion) that they want. You've never answered this. Even if you take a Libertarian position then you would still have to justify why rights should be denied to gays in other areas, say government employment (the government has no religious rights to argue in not hiring gays) or with respect to social contracts (adoption, marriage, etc..). So even the Libertarian defense becomes moot and we are back to the question of what standard we require for applying the force of law over others? Is it one based on objective fact and testable hypotheses or is it based on mass, subjective opinion? Or should it just be based on your opinion?
[quote]<strong>
Yes I as well have a cold.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we have the same bug and it has a side effect causing the afflicted to bang their head against a wall. Ya know, I believe there is a theory about colds being caused by a retrovirus. There's even some medications being developed to attack the retrovirus directly. Of course, it's only a theory.
Intolerance is intolerance Just because you think your brand of tolerance is better doesn't make you any less of a Bigot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd enjoy the column by John Leo in this week's USNews. Maybe it's online too. He called it "Undecking the halls". A brief quote:
[quote]"In plain English the term inclusion has come to mean exclusion. In New York's Central Park, we have a Christian Nativity scene, a Jewish menorah, and a Muslim star and crescent, all privately paid for and displayed on public property. That's inclusion. Banning all signs of religion from schools and public property (neither of which is called for by the Constitution or the Supreme Court) is exclusion posturing as inclusiveness."<hr></blockquote>
He could have substituted "tolerance" or "sensitivity" there at the end, and it would have made more sense, but you get the idea. And of course, only three religions are represented in the display he mentions, but hey, a park is only so big.
No matter what you believe there is some idiot trying to tell you your wrong and their right. And to not follow along with their beliefs makes you intolerant.
The irony is thick in here. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[QUOTE=Nordstrodamus;156675][quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
[quote]<strong>
BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short). PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote]<strong>Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
[quote]<strong>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection, neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
Quote:
<strong>
But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed. There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults. Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
Ok, heres my bit. I might not be as old or worldly knowledgeable as some of you here but I think I can make a valid point. Many of you are preaching on about how the Salvation Army is "intolerant". It is your belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and they have the view that there is. Why not leave it at face value. Your not going to change their opinion. Would it make you happier if they changed their public stance to suit the masses? It doesn't change how they really feel. Why not accept the fact that other people have different views and be more "tolerant" yourself. Tolerant of a different belief.
Also, on the pedophile bit. That is a relative term and different societies have different views. Remember, not that long ago even in America some things that would be considered pedophilia today would have been commonplace then. You view it as wrong and immoral but by another persons view it was fine for a 30-something year old male to marry a 13 year old girl. In some societies, moderately succesful societies at that, practices such as this are fine. So are you now again being intolerant of other beliefs? You, like the people your arguing against, are CHOOSING which practices are allowed and moral. Which practices are right.
Comments
<strong>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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Christian companies not hiring gays isn't forcing any other company to do so. It isn't forcing people to believe what they believe. They have their right to practice and belief. So making them accept homosexuality is imposing your view of morality on them .. who don't share it. It goes both ways.
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cept it's not happening throughout the country. Only certain places are doing this.. and it's 100% bully bigot ideals. They don't care what your beliefs are your going to do it their way. And state that supports this supports biggots.
<strong> [quote]
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.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Are you going to be trying to get gays in the KKK also? I mean they have rules saying you can't be homosexual and be in the KKK. They have every right to say no homosexuals. Just as the SA has. While I don't believe SA hates homosexuals. They do not want to promote homosexual activity by having homosexuals working for them. Let me ask you something. How is a employer to know if someone is homosexual? ZI didn't know you could look at a person and tell... they aren't a specific color nor height. How is a employer supposed to not hire homosexuals if they don't know they are. You'll end up getting stupid lawsuits cause John the homosexual didn't get hired and he knows it was cause he was homosexual!
There was a girl I used to work with that was fired recently for going on and on about her and her girlfriend's sexual escapades. She had been warned many times not to do that and finally got fired for it. She then tried to sue cause she claimed she was fired cause she was a lesbian. Instead of dragging it to court my employer settled out of court (It would have cost less than to pay the lawyers.)
It's situations like this that laws like your trying to pass cause. It's does more harm than good. If someone wanted to fire some one cause they where homosexual than they'd find another reason to do so. It wont stop anything really.
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Sure it will make homosexuals hated even more than they are now. Your kidding right?
[quote]<strong>
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.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I defend the right for anyone to say anything they want to. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I will defend the right for the KKK to be able to march down the street full of hate. Doesn't mean I agree with them. I defend the right for Joe Christian to be able not to hire homosexuals in his company cause he feels it's against his moral beliefs. Doesn't mean I agree with him. I defend the right for you to be able to boycott SA cause you don't agree with their practices. But when your reasoning is cause they are bigots then your being hypocritical.
But things change dramatically when you start talking about actions that harm people. Take "discrimination" against criminals, for example. Our government has the right to "discriminate" against such people by removing certain freedoms, jailing them, even killing them. But those powers are subject to incredible controls. Surely no one would argue that child sex offenders, for example, don't deserve to be discriminated against. But there's still some serious constitutional issues surrounding Meghan's Laws, for example, which effectively permit continued discrimination against convicted offenders, after they've "paid their debt to society". It's an open question whether a Meghan's Law would stand up to court challenge, despite their enormous popularity.
So there is a huge threshold that must be met to justify allowing discrimination that harms a group of people. Denying a gay person a job solely on the basis of being gay does real harm to him. Can you understand why being "tolerant" of that lies in a completely different realm than being "tolerant" of mere thoughts and beliefs?
I think you're also confusing private organizations and businesses. Private organizations have the legal and moral right to include whoever they want. That's why the KKK can't be sued for excluding blacks. Things get much cloudier when the organizations use public funds or resources (as with the Boy Scouts using public schools, or the SA soliciting donations on public grounds). Businesses are in another category altogether, and subject to much tighter restrictions because they use and profit from public resources (especially, but not only, if they receive government contracts). Then there's the government, which generally has the tightest restrictions of all due to the need for public accountability (does it make any sense for a tax-paying gay person to be denied employment at the IRS because they're gay? Of course not.)
[quote]You'll end up getting stupid lawsuits cause John the homosexual didn't get hired and he knows it was cause he was homosexual!<hr></blockquote>
Much more likely, you'll have long-time, valued employees suddenly fired for "poor performance" after a boss discovers that he's gay. And those employees should absolutely have a recourse to legal action if that happens. If nothing else, it helps prevent such behavior in the future. It's like women who get asked at a law firm job interview "are you planning to have kids? how will you balance your work and family? do you have a husband?" etc etc. Questions like that constitute sexual discrimination, but what's a woman to do? She can refuse to answer, but that reduces her chances of getting a job. She can sue, but then she sure as hell won't get a job, and probably will be "black-listed" among similar firms. But at least if she does sue, it makes employers think about changing their practices, because one suit is a headache but hundreds are a real problem.
[quote]If someone wanted to fire some one cause they where homosexual than they'd find another reason to do so. ... Sure it will make homosexuals hated even more than they are now.<hr></blockquote>
You do realize that these are, word for word, two of the most popular arguments used against the idea of effective non-discrimination laws for blacks. Just change "homosexual" to black. In the past 40 years those arguments have been completely discredited. And we're not even talking at all about affirmative action here, just non-discrimination.
Say this with me slowly. Gay/Homosexual people are not a race, religion, or otherwise protected minority. Period. Until you are stop with the "just put negro in there instead of gay". If you have a persecution complex then fine, but don't try to guilt me into it.
I'm sorry was that too blunt. I must be a bigot too. Words are so easy to say, especially inflammatory words. They make many people roll over and forget what they believe don't they... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No minds are being changed here, people are getting upset and the SA needs some donations, so get up, go to the mall and drop some loose change in the bucket. Or not...
Clarification: the point here isn't to equate blacks and gays but to note that Sinewave's arguments for opposing gay protection against discrimination were discredited when used to oppose black civil rights (namely, the "people will do it anyway" and "they'll just be more hated" arguments). In other words, he needs to come up with better arguments to defend his position.
<strong>People, we really need to stop comparing blacks to homosexuals (sorry if the word offends you, give me a better one). The comparison is just another way to say, look at us, we are discriminated against just like all those poor black people.
Say this with me slowly. Gay/Homosexual people are not a race, religion, or otherwise protected minority. Period. Until you are stop with the "just put negro in there instead of gay". If you have a persecution complex then fine, but don't try to guilt me into it.
I'm sorry was that too blunt. I must be a bigot too. Words are so easy to say, especially inflammatory words. They make many people roll over and forget what they believe don't they... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No minds are being changed here, people are getting upset and the SA needs some donations, so get up, go to the mall and drop some loose change in the bucket. Or not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amen.
Intolerance is intolerance Just because you think your brand of tolerance is better doesn't make you any less of a Bigot.
Bunch of fucking hypocrites
Oh and Towel what about the harm it causes the people that have such beliefs? There is harm that comes out of it either way. Your just trying to somehow justify your Bigotness.
I give thee all the BIG roll eyes
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, refining theories is a never ending process (not a cycle as we do not "start from scratch" each time). I guess I'll have to repeat this again- this is the very power of science- it isn't dogmatic, it is open to challenge, it MUST accomodate new facts, theories are based on the best of what can be known. Are you suggesting that because relativity showed Newtonian physics to be incorrect in certain situations that Newtonian physics was useless? Your implication that this lack of dogma somehow negates the informative power of science is amusing because you, no doubt, enjoy the many benefits this supposedly impotent process has produced (medicine, computers, cell phones, etc.). Are you prepared to throw out all the current theories about disease, biology, computer design, information processing, etc.. simply because they might be refined at some point? Or can you (through the fact-independent, superior reasoning process you've yet to elaborate on) divine which theories are true and which are not?
[quote]I said:
<strong>
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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]and then you said...
<strong>
And by making laws that require you to hire homosexuals is limiting the rights of others as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]completely forgetting that in the very same post I said...
<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 </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you like going in circles? Also, I've given you numerous opportunities to state whether or not you're taking a libertarian position in that people should be free to discriminate against people in business, charity, housing, service, etc... for whatever reason (including race and religion) that they want. You've never answered this. Even if you take a Libertarian position then you would still have to justify why rights should be denied to gays in other areas, say government employment (the government has no religious rights to argue in not hiring gays) or with respect to social contracts (adoption, marriage, etc..). So even the Libertarian defense becomes moot and we are back to the question of what standard we require for applying the force of law over others? Is it one based on objective fact and testable hypotheses or is it based on mass, subjective opinion? Or should it just be based on your opinion?
[quote]<strong>
Yes I as well have a cold.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we have the same bug and it has a side effect causing the afflicted to bang their head against a wall. Ya know, I believe there is a theory about colds being caused by a retrovirus. There's even some medications being developed to attack the retrovirus directly. Of course, it's only a theory.
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
<strong>
Intolerance is intolerance Just because you think your brand of tolerance is better doesn't make you any less of a Bigot.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd enjoy the column by John Leo in this week's USNews. Maybe it's online too. He called it "Undecking the halls". A brief quote:
[quote]"In plain English the term inclusion has come to mean exclusion. In New York's Central Park, we have a Christian Nativity scene, a Jewish menorah, and a Muslim star and crescent, all privately paid for and displayed on public property. That's inclusion. Banning all signs of religion from schools and public property (neither of which is called for by the Constitution or the Supreme Court) is exclusion posturing as inclusiveness."<hr></blockquote>
He could have substituted "tolerance" or "sensitivity" there at the end, and it would have made more sense, but you get the idea. And of course, only three religions are represented in the display he mentions, but hey, a park is only so big.
The irony is thick in here. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
The Salvation Army has been banned from Moscow because they reckon it's a "paramilitary organisation" !!!!?????
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1722000/1722624.stm"; target="_blank">BBC News Link</a>
<strong>
Small differences in words between different interpretations DO NOT take away from the main teachings in the Bible. I see people making this point all the time. It just shows that they really don't know about the Bible and it's history. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So your stipulating to the bible being dependent on interpretation then? Or are you, instead, counting yourself as one of the people I alluded too who think that the bible was chiseled into stone by lightning and despite all the compilation, editing, and translations they are able to interpret it without error? I'm guessing you fall more into the second category because of your backhanded inference that only people who don't correctly interpret the bible may find fault with it (circular reasoning at it's best). I don't have time, or desire, to explore the twisted loops of reasoning that always come up in explaining away biblical inconsistencies (I've road that ride before). I'd suggest you might try exploring the web for better examples than the strawman arguments xian sites present.
[quote]<strong>
BTW thinking homosexuality is a deviant behavior does not make one a homophobe. Only when there is a irrational fear of homosexual can you use the homophobe label.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, can you suggest a better label for whatever you would call yourself as a person who thinks homosexuality is deviant (anti-homic, homo-sensitive, homo-impaired- really I don't care as long as it's short). PC is employed by conservatives and liberals and it's equally annoying. Second, if you carefully read my post you will notice that I'm not casting all people of your ilk as homophobes, but instead specifically sighted the most extreme case to highlight how convincing a thoughtful examination of medical science can be with respect to the matter. Third, given that most objections to homosexuality are based on erroneous connections made to pedophilia, aides, rape, and child abuse it would seem that most -insert your label here- fit your definition of homophobes.
[quote]<strong>Being a homosexual isn't evil. Practicing homosexual sexual practices is however a sin (according the the Christian beliefs) Just as having premarital sex, Using the Lord's name in vain.. etc. Everyone is a sinner. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Evil, sinful, yucky- use whatever subjective term you like. I don't subscribe to your theology so I only judge people on whether they help or harm other people. Fortunately, I live in a country where "sin" has no force in law, so it's really quite irrelevant to me.
[quote]<strong>
No one knows how homosexuality comes in ones life. There is no proof that people are born this way. There isn't any homosexual gene that gets passed on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, first you say no-one knows and then you say that there definitely isn't a gene. No doubt your proceeding on a shallow understanding of nature selection, neglecting kin-selection models and the simple fact that homosexuals tend to have as much kids as heterosexuals.
<strong>
But if there was proof that homosexuality was something someone could be born with this doesn't make it a valid or non-deviant sexual practice. I guess the same could be said about people who like to have sex with young kids. They have feeling towards them.. they lust after them .. should we then say their thoughts are equal with the norm?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just drop the pedophile thing, you're making yourself look silly and uninformed. There's no connection between the two and you can't possibly compare the rape of a child to the sexual activities of two consenting adults. Given your position that even if homosexuality were inborn it would still be wrong, why should any reasonable person waste their time arguing the point? Too bad, it's an interesting discussion especially if you frame it in terms of your own loved ones.
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
Ok, heres my bit. I might not be as old or worldly knowledgeable as some of you here but I think I can make a valid point. Many of you are preaching on about how the Salvation Army is "intolerant". It is your belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and they have the view that there is. Why not leave it at face value. Your not going to change their opinion. Would it make you happier if they changed their public stance to suit the masses? It doesn't change how they really feel. Why not accept the fact that other people have different views and be more "tolerant" yourself. Tolerant of a different belief.
Also, on the pedophile bit. That is a relative term and different societies have different views. Remember, not that long ago even in America some things that would be considered pedophilia today would have been commonplace then. You view it as wrong and immoral but by another persons view it was fine for a 30-something year old male to marry a 13 year old girl. In some societies, moderately succesful societies at that, practices such as this are fine. So are you now again being intolerant of other beliefs? You, like the people your arguing against, are CHOOSING which practices are allowed and moral. Which practices are right.