What really bothers me, though, is that despite our general agreement on the epistemic facts, you still saw fit to put on that put-upon tone for which you're so infamous and treat my little digression as some sort of affront. When most people find something uninteresting, they ignore it.
Well, I still love you very much.
You know what gets me about the conservative movement? Rush Limbaugh has propagated a viewpoint that is, technically, largely reasoned, and emphasized this fact; and it's been passed on to the masses, who repeat it, and repeat the idea that their argument is rational... only they don't understand the reasons themselves. The average "Ditto-Head" (and this is only even more true of most of the Rush-Lite Clone Fanbase) wants credit for being logical while being incapable of understanding the actual logic behind said worldview and the logic of arguments countering it. It's irrationality in the name of logic.
Wiccan_Witch was saying that even if you believe that what other people do is immoral, you should still respect their right to do what they want rather than try and push your beliefs onto them.
And my point is that if someone belives that homosexuality is immoral, then the homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) should respect that persons right to do what they want rather than try and push their beliefs onto them.
While Evangelicals may indeed be woefully misinformed when it comes to matters of sexual orientation, I can't see anything productive about dismissing the views of such a sizeable minority as "hilarious."
What else is there to do? They're certainly not going to change their mind when presented with reasonable arguments. And luckily they don't hold any sort of influence in my country. And it's not so much the views as the arguments trying to support those views that I find hilarious. "What if some football player decided he was a girl?! Then what!? Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
Are homosexuals actively and negatively affecting other people's lives? No.
Are some Christians actively and negatively affecting other people's lives? Yes.
In a conflict of interest, it is the group that is actively and negatively affecting the other group that should be forced to make concessions.
And if you asked someone who didnt belive in homsexuality, the answers to those questions would be different.
Why should people be forced to belive in something?
Its just a matter of perspective, if someone wants to think one why and another person wants to think another, thats fine. But they shouldnt force their beliefs on others.
What else is there to do? They're certainly not going to change their mind when presented with reasonable arguments.
Some will. I did. Granted I wasn't "in too deep" with that mindset; but if, instead of well-reasoned and thorough and patient arguments, the good people of this site had met my objections to homosexuality with scornful and dismissive laughter... well, a flawed argument holds more weight than no argument at all. And simple civility and respect go a long way towards establishing moral high ground.
And it's not so much the views as the arguments trying to support those views that I find hilarious. "What if some football player decided he was a girl?! Then what!? Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
A bit exaggerated. But only a bit. The thing about sin, though, is that it's the original slippery slope. It's the story that saturates the Old Testament. One minute the Israelites are doing a little fraternizing with their heathen neighbors; the next they're suddenly ritually sacrificing their own children to idols. And if you accept the premise that homosexual behavior is in fact inherently sinful... well, then it's correct to be alarmed at its increased normality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
The criteria should be whether or not the differences negatively affect you.
In this way, homophobia and racism are the same because they both attack differences which have no impact upon the discriminator.
I'll counterargue that the criteria should be whether or not the differences negatively affect you or the target.
In this way, 'homophobia' (for lack of an adequate word) and racism are significantly different in that racists view the person as poison, while the 'homophobe' may parallel that view or may view the person as poisoned. The latter view allows for compassion, however misguided.
People have called me out before on the belief that parents should not be able to home-school their children (in place of taking them to public schools, with the exception for children that would require special schooling). On the one hand I understand the right to bring up your children how you please, but doesn't my desire for parents to not be able to remove their children from public schooling (and thus the environment within it) go against that?
I'd suggest that you go with your first instincts and not attempt to stop people from homeschooling because, frankly, attempting behavior modification of parents' children against their will is a bad, bad idea that will be met with unearthly opposition every time. As much as we would like to teach people certain beliefs that we consider essential, attempting to force that teaching through a public institution is coercive. What if, hypothetically, your parents wanted to homeschool you so that they could teach you that homosexuality was perfectly normal and the school grabbed you and forced you to sit down in classes detailing all the ways in which being gay was an abomination?
Quote from gerg »
Are homosexuals actively and negatively affecting other people's lives? No.
Are some Christians actively and negatively affecting other people's lives? Yes.
In a conflict of interest, it is the group that is actively and negatively affecting the other group that should be forced to make concessions.
As urweak pointed out, try taking the other point of view. As those certain Christians see it, we're trying to indoctrinate their children into believing that a terrible sin is perfectly normal, which, to them, is harmful. Now, they're sure as hell harming gays and lesbians by raising a group of kids to believe that we all metaphorically deserve to be stoned to death, but again coercion is both unethical and ineffectual.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hide myself within my flower
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
What if, hypothetically, your parents wanted to homeschool you so that they could teach you that homosexuality was perfectly normal and the school grabbed you and forced you to sit down in classes detailing all the ways in which being gay was an abomination?
And now turn this argument around. What if people started to home school their kids because they don't like the things they're being taught at school? Hell, they could just teach them anything when home schooled. What if they decided that their children should learn that the earth is flat, or that all people except christians are unworthy?
Anyway, even if christians think that homosexual/bi/lesians are tainted, how does it influence their lives? Why should they actively search en destroy those people's rights (marriage etc)? Doesn't the bible say; "Love your enemy."? So, if you think that those people are evil, you shouldn't hate them for it, but embrace them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
On the one hand I understand the right to bring up your children how you please, but doesn't my desire for parents to not be able to remove their children from public schooling (and thus the environment within it) go against that?
Of course it goes against it, but your claim has no legitimacy. You rightfully cannot control the way other people raise their children.
And my point is that if someone belives that homosexuality is immoral, then the homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) should respect that persons right to do what they want rather than try and push their beliefs onto them.
Lets all agree to disagree.
I don't agree with that. People should always make reasonable attempts to convince other people of things they perceive to be correct, as long as that perception is tempered by criticism and satisfies the burden of demonstration.
A second poll determined that parents were far more apprehensive about the depiction of sex in videogames than of violence. Covering 1266 participants, the survey found that a man and a woman having sex was cited as the most offensive videogame content by 37 percent of respondents, followed by two men kissing, counted as the worst possible thing their kids could ever see by 27 percent of parents. A "graphically severed head" earned "Most Offensive" status from only 25 percent of parents, while nine percent said multiple uses of the F-bomb in videogames generated the greatest offense.
/sigh
I think that's really, really sad....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Well, I agree that the mindset is stupid. Although, I think that something that feeds into the whole "graphic sex is worse than graphic violence" ideology may be the fact that, as they grow up, kids are inevitably going to want to have actual sex; whereas the desire to kill and mutilate will hopefully (very hopefully) be constrained within the realm of fantasy. So, basically: letting kids see stuff that could fuel mere fantasies, no matter how obscene those fantasies might be, is preferable to letting them see stuff that could fuel even modestly undesirable fantasies which they will want toactualize.
Also, among other things, there's millennia of history telling us that the profession of a soldier is more honorable by far than the profession of a prostitute.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Well, I agree that the mindset is stupid. Although, I think that something that feeds into the whole "graphic sex is worse than graphic violence" ideology may be the fact that, as they grow up, kids are inevitably going to want to have actual sex; whereas the desire to kill and mutilate will hopefully (very hopefully) be constrained within the realm of fantasy. So, basically: letting kids see stuff that could fuel mere fantasies, no matter how obscene those fantasies might be, is preferable to letting them see stuff that could fuel even modestly undesirable fantasies which they will want toactualize.
Also, among other things, there's millennia of history telling us that the profession of a soldier is more honorable by far than the profession of a prostitute.
The problem with this is that the idea that children will not think about sex or desire to be sexually active if they are not exposed to any sexually explicit material is myth. A sixteen year-old boy is going to think about sex, no matter what videogames he plays or TV shows he watches.
Also, sexuality is a natural part of humanity that is part of a healthy and normal life, whereas violence is decidedly not.
I wasn't clear. I felt that I don't see why parents should want to take their children out of school in order to home-school.
Sometimes it's for religious reasons. Sometimes it's because they don't see public school as adequate. Sometimes it's because the child has special needs. It's not a decision to be made lightly, but nevertheless it may be justified.
People have called me out before on the belief that parents should not be able to home-school their children (in place of taking them to public schools, with the exception for children that would require special schooling). On the one hand I understand the right to bring up your children how you please, but doesn't my desire for parents to not be able to remove their children from public schooling (and thus the environment within it) go against that?
Yes, it does. You seem to be arguing against yourself here.
It's all nice and dandy in theory to believe in a world where all views can co-exist. But a tolerant society should not be tolerant of intolerance.
I mean, you're basically saying that we should allow active terrorists into our country because hey, it's their beliefs and we should not try to force our own onto them.
There exists a slight distinction between intolerance and violence.
It all boils down to the tolerant v. the intolerant. Public schools are pretty tolerant at the moment, therefore home-schooling should not be allowed. Yes, I agree that there may be a scenario whereby a parents wants to home-school their child and still teach them as a school would, but then I would see no reason why a school would not be as good. Ultimately, if allowing home-schooling perpetuates the spread of intolerance, then as there are no conceivable ways to regulate it, the few "good" people out there would ultimately have to make a sacrifice in order to stop such a spread.
On the other hand, if the official line was one of intolerance (or not of increasing tolerance), homeschooling would be "all-right".
A tolerant society should be intolerant of home-schoolers, but an intolerant society should be tolerant of them?
And again, I'm not trying to say that all home-schooling is wrong (which is why my sentence before this sounds odd to me, as in theory I think that home-schooling is "all-right" anyway), but that as it helps perpetuate intolerance as a substitute for sending children to a tolerant environment, it should not be allowed.
So we should indoctrinate children by force, against their parents' will?
In theory, yes, we should all hold hands and accept everyone, but our society, as a tolerant one, should stop at being tolerant of intolerance (where such intolerance poses an active threat to others).
Which is somewhere way beyond merely teaching your children that homosexuality is a sin. Standard Christian doctrine, after all, does not say to commit violence against sinners.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A society that doesn't tolerate intolerance cannot claim to be itself tolerant, by the word's very definition.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that in order for a person or society to be tolerant they must tolerate anything and everything. Certainly tolerant societies mustn't tolerate murder, rape, or theft, but intolerance is an idea, and no free or tolerant society ought to restrict the way anyone thinks.
Actions, independent of their cause, can be intolerable, but it is completely unacceptable to persecute thought.
Along those lines, the idea of a 'hate crime' is utter nonsense.
Hating a person is not a crime. Murdering them is. Is the difference clear?
Parents do and ought to have the right to teach their children whatever they want. Of course, as they grow older, other people also have the right (and some would argue, the obligation) to encourage that child to question what they have been taught by their parents.
The problem with this is that the idea that children will not think about sex or desire to be sexually active if they are not exposed to any sexually explicit material is myth. A sixteen year-old boy is going to think about sex, no matter what videogames he plays or TV shows he watches.
That's kind of my point. Concerned parents don't want their teenagers thinking any more about sex than they are already inevitably going to. Also, it really doesn't help that the majority of depicted sex-acts in the media insinuate that sex is a risk-free and inherently glamorous thing which can be divorced from any larger or more meaningful human relationship without consequence.
Also, sexuality is a natural part of humanity that is part of a healthy and normal life, whereas violence is decidedly not.
Violence has been a natural and normal part of humanity since, well, ever. (Do you think prehistoric hunters gently euthanized the mammoths they ate?) Human-on-human violence is just as ancient, but rightly reprehensible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
That's kind of my point. Concerned parents don't want their teenagers thinking any more about sex than they are already inevitably going to. Also, it really doesn't help that the majority of depicted sex-acts in the media insinuate that sex is a risk-free and inherently glamorous thing which can be divorced from any larger or more meaningful human relationship without consequence.
You bring up a very good point. Whether it be the depiction of a murder without blood and that person coming right back to fight again, or of no-strings, promiscuous sexual activity, I think we can both agree that such unrealistic content can be harmful.
Violence has been a natural and normal part of humanity since, well, ever. (Do you think prehistoric hunters gently euthanized the mammoths they ate?) Human-on-human violence is just as ancient, but rightly reprehensible.
I guess my use of the word natural was a little odd in my last post. By natural I meant that it is a normal and desirable part of human life, without which life is less enriching.
I'm not entirely convinced. I may have been wrong with my wording, but I would say that the current laws we have in the UK against advocating terrorism aren't wrong. But perhaps I should have then have said that as a society we should not tolerate those who advocate violence, rather than intolerance in and of itself.
Which means, given that Evangelicals generally don't advocate violence, you're left without a leg to stand on for this particular issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, among other things, there's millennia of history telling us that the profession of a soldier is more honorable by far than the profession of a prostitute.
And we are a lot more lenient with the sexually promiscuous than with murderers. I think that's a fairer way to put it, as most prostitutes aren't under the employ of the state.
I just read the OP and haven't read much in between but I thought I would share my view on why this situation is the way it is.
First and foremost I am a christian male who adamantly doesn't go to church as I don't need someone telling what to find in the bible. I can find it on my own and will only use that community to help those in need or share what I have found not "Preach" to them as it isn't what I found the bible to be about. However most christians can't see things that way. They read the bible (not really very many but there are a few that do), and then turn to their spiritual leader to be told what they should have gained from certain passages. This is true in several religions (I know as I have at one point or another been atheist, wiccan, christian, and catholic and have read on most others). People have lost faith in themselves and put it all in God and spiritual leaders. So when It comes to things like homosexuality people can no longer stand up and say, "I think what your doing is wrong and wish better for you, but I love you just the same and will always be here for you if you ever need me. I won't bash you or constantly berate you for your choice simply live my life as an example of how we all should live and if your interested in this path I will talk with you and we will make that transition together."
I personally think homosexuality is wrong. I think it is a sin that will have to be atoned for. I don't think it is evil or the work of the devil. Much like swearing which I know to be a sin but I do it anyway. I will atone for that and is my choice regaurdless of what others say. My swearing doesn't hurt anyone and is sometimes the only verbage that properly expresses my pain or angst. I will always love all those around me as we won't get far if we don't learn tolerence (which I feel is sorely lacking in society). I have went to clubs with gay men and women, I have seen a drag show and consuled ex's from homosexual relationships. I had fun in all situations because I was with friends who have a different lifestyle than I. But I'm there always living my life as an example to them and always available should they decide they want that lifestyle as well.
Thats my rant. It is what it is and I don't ask that you agree or disagree just entitle me the right to believe what I wan't wether it's right or wrong just as you have the right to believe the opposite or the same or something entirely different wether it is right or wrong.
I don't think Homosexuality is a sin, and saying that sex outside of wanting to procreate is a sin is also stupid (notice im an atheist) cause it's proven sex is good for the body, I don't think homosexuality is immoral. It's not immoral because it's not something you want and chose, it's like taste for food kinda. There should not be discrimination against homosexuals, but they should stop trying to convince evreyone it's normal.
Which means, given that Evangelicals generally don't advocate violence, you're left without a leg to stand on for this particular issue.
Well, that's where a lot of these things get fiddly. Generally, one of the reasons we have protections against hate speech is that even you get people virulently angry at/about the existence of a particular group, there's a strong possibility that they'll go out and attempt physical violence against said people. I mean, when certain evangelicals preach that homosexuals are abominations against God and have no right to exist, don't you think that some listeners are going to treat them as such? I'm not certain how you deal with this problem without recourse to such unethical and counterproductive tools as censorship, but there's a problem nonetheless.
Quote from SSJ Alakazam »
Actions, independent of their cause, can be intolerable, but it is completely unacceptable to persecute thought.
Along those lines, the idea of a 'hate crime' is utter nonsense.
Hating a person is not a crime. Murdering them is. Is the difference clear?
Yes...theoretically. But there are cases where people are beaten or murdered (not to mention more psychological forms of violence) simply because they are of such-and-such minority group. The normal legal distinctions for murder get fuzzy, because the criminal's motivation boils down simply to an irrational hatred of that group. Surely there should be some sort of legal category to encompass this sort of a crime. Also, what would you say about speech that incites someone to commit a crime against a specific group? Does that deserve its own special category, or should it be grouped with subornation in general?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hide myself within my flower
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
Advocate, no. Stand around looking pious and claiming that the victim brought it down upon himself, sinning against God like that, yes.
I've been told over and over again that inaction is neither morally nor legally the same as action. So you can watch a child drown and can't be charged with a crime*. Or you can watch some people beat the hell out a drag queen and not be morally responsible, long as you do not help. Doing nothing to intervene is not the same as helping or advocating.
*Parents are required by law to at least attempt to save their minor children from harm.
Well, I still love you very much.
You know what gets me about the conservative movement? Rush Limbaugh has propagated a viewpoint that is, technically, largely reasoned, and emphasized this fact; and it's been passed on to the masses, who repeat it, and repeat the idea that their argument is rational... only they don't understand the reasons themselves. The average "Ditto-Head" (and this is only even more true of most of the Rush-Lite Clone Fanbase) wants credit for being logical while being incapable of understanding the actual logic behind said worldview and the logic of arguments countering it. It's irrationality in the name of logic.
And my point is that if someone belives that homosexuality is immoral, then the homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) should respect that persons right to do what they want rather than try and push their beliefs onto them.
Lets all agree to disagree.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
What else is there to do? They're certainly not going to change their mind when presented with reasonable arguments. And luckily they don't hold any sort of influence in my country. And it's not so much the views as the arguments trying to support those views that I find hilarious. "What if some football player decided he was a girl?! Then what!? Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!"
And if you asked someone who didnt belive in homsexuality, the answers to those questions would be different.
Why should people be forced to belive in something?
Its just a matter of perspective, if someone wants to think one why and another person wants to think another, thats fine. But they shouldnt force their beliefs on others.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Some will. I did. Granted I wasn't "in too deep" with that mindset; but if, instead of well-reasoned and thorough and patient arguments, the good people of this site had met my objections to homosexuality with scornful and dismissive laughter... well, a flawed argument holds more weight than no argument at all. And simple civility and respect go a long way towards establishing moral high ground.
A bit exaggerated. But only a bit. The thing about sin, though, is that it's the original slippery slope. It's the story that saturates the Old Testament. One minute the Israelites are doing a little fraternizing with their heathen neighbors; the next they're suddenly ritually sacrificing their own children to idols. And if you accept the premise that homosexual behavior is in fact inherently sinful... well, then it's correct to be alarmed at its increased normality.
I'll counterargue that the criteria should be whether or not the differences negatively affect you or the target.
In this way, 'homophobia' (for lack of an adequate word) and racism are significantly different in that racists view the person as poison, while the 'homophobe' may parallel that view or may view the person as poisoned. The latter view allows for compassion, however misguided.
I'd suggest that you go with your first instincts and not attempt to stop people from homeschooling because, frankly, attempting behavior modification of parents' children against their will is a bad, bad idea that will be met with unearthly opposition every time. As much as we would like to teach people certain beliefs that we consider essential, attempting to force that teaching through a public institution is coercive. What if, hypothetically, your parents wanted to homeschool you so that they could teach you that homosexuality was perfectly normal and the school grabbed you and forced you to sit down in classes detailing all the ways in which being gay was an abomination?
As urweak pointed out, try taking the other point of view. As those certain Christians see it, we're trying to indoctrinate their children into believing that a terrible sin is perfectly normal, which, to them, is harmful. Now, they're sure as hell harming gays and lesbians by raising a group of kids to believe that we all metaphorically deserve to be stoned to death, but again coercion is both unethical and ineffectual.
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
And now turn this argument around. What if people started to home school their kids because they don't like the things they're being taught at school? Hell, they could just teach them anything when home schooled. What if they decided that their children should learn that the earth is flat, or that all people except christians are unworthy?
Anyway, even if christians think that homosexual/bi/lesians are tainted, how does it influence their lives? Why should they actively search en destroy those people's rights (marriage etc)? Doesn't the bible say; "Love your enemy."? So, if you think that those people are evil, you shouldn't hate them for it, but embrace them.
It was? Uch.... I hate myself for trying to use my brain for the first half hour after getting out of my bed...
Of course it goes against it, but your claim has no legitimacy. You rightfully cannot control the way other people raise their children.
I don't agree with that. People should always make reasonable attempts to convince other people of things they perceive to be correct, as long as that perception is tempered by criticism and satisfies the burden of demonstration.
/sigh
I think that's really, really sad....
Also, among other things, there's millennia of history telling us that the profession of a soldier is more honorable by far than the profession of a prostitute.
The problem with this is that the idea that children will not think about sex or desire to be sexually active if they are not exposed to any sexually explicit material is myth. A sixteen year-old boy is going to think about sex, no matter what videogames he plays or TV shows he watches.
Also, sexuality is a natural part of humanity that is part of a healthy and normal life, whereas violence is decidedly not.
Sometimes it's for religious reasons. Sometimes it's because they don't see public school as adequate. Sometimes it's because the child has special needs. It's not a decision to be made lightly, but nevertheless it may be justified.
Yes, it does. You seem to be arguing against yourself here.
We know. Is there a basis for your dislike? Not really.
You're being sneaky with your quantifiers here. Bad form.
There exists a slight distinction between intolerance and violence.
A tolerant society should be intolerant of home-schoolers, but an intolerant society should be tolerant of them?
So we should indoctrinate children by force, against their parents' will?
Which is somewhere way beyond merely teaching your children that homosexuality is a sin. Standard Christian doctrine, after all, does not say to commit violence against sinners.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that in order for a person or society to be tolerant they must tolerate anything and everything. Certainly tolerant societies mustn't tolerate murder, rape, or theft, but intolerance is an idea, and no free or tolerant society ought to restrict the way anyone thinks.
Actions, independent of their cause, can be intolerable, but it is completely unacceptable to persecute thought.
Along those lines, the idea of a 'hate crime' is utter nonsense.
Hating a person is not a crime. Murdering them is. Is the difference clear?
Parents do and ought to have the right to teach their children whatever they want. Of course, as they grow older, other people also have the right (and some would argue, the obligation) to encourage that child to question what they have been taught by their parents.
That's kind of my point. Concerned parents don't want their teenagers thinking any more about sex than they are already inevitably going to. Also, it really doesn't help that the majority of depicted sex-acts in the media insinuate that sex is a risk-free and inherently glamorous thing which can be divorced from any larger or more meaningful human relationship without consequence.
Violence has been a natural and normal part of humanity since, well, ever. (Do you think prehistoric hunters gently euthanized the mammoths they ate?) Human-on-human violence is just as ancient, but rightly reprehensible.
You bring up a very good point. Whether it be the depiction of a murder without blood and that person coming right back to fight again, or of no-strings, promiscuous sexual activity, I think we can both agree that such unrealistic content can be harmful.
I guess my use of the word natural was a little odd in my last post. By natural I meant that it is a normal and desirable part of human life, without which life is less enriching.
Which means, given that Evangelicals generally don't advocate violence, you're left without a leg to stand on for this particular issue.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And we are a lot more lenient with the sexually promiscuous than with murderers. I think that's a fairer way to put it, as most prostitutes aren't under the employ of the state.
First and foremost I am a christian male who adamantly doesn't go to church as I don't need someone telling what to find in the bible. I can find it on my own and will only use that community to help those in need or share what I have found not "Preach" to them as it isn't what I found the bible to be about. However most christians can't see things that way. They read the bible (not really very many but there are a few that do), and then turn to their spiritual leader to be told what they should have gained from certain passages. This is true in several religions (I know as I have at one point or another been atheist, wiccan, christian, and catholic and have read on most others). People have lost faith in themselves and put it all in God and spiritual leaders. So when It comes to things like homosexuality people can no longer stand up and say, "I think what your doing is wrong and wish better for you, but I love you just the same and will always be here for you if you ever need me. I won't bash you or constantly berate you for your choice simply live my life as an example of how we all should live and if your interested in this path I will talk with you and we will make that transition together."
I personally think homosexuality is wrong. I think it is a sin that will have to be atoned for. I don't think it is evil or the work of the devil. Much like swearing which I know to be a sin but I do it anyway. I will atone for that and is my choice regaurdless of what others say. My swearing doesn't hurt anyone and is sometimes the only verbage that properly expresses my pain or angst. I will always love all those around me as we won't get far if we don't learn tolerence (which I feel is sorely lacking in society). I have went to clubs with gay men and women, I have seen a drag show and consuled ex's from homosexual relationships. I had fun in all situations because I was with friends who have a different lifestyle than I. But I'm there always living my life as an example to them and always available should they decide they want that lifestyle as well.
Thats my rant. It is what it is and I don't ask that you agree or disagree just entitle me the right to believe what I wan't wether it's right or wrong just as you have the right to believe the opposite or the same or something entirely different wether it is right or wrong.
Well, that's where a lot of these things get fiddly. Generally, one of the reasons we have protections against hate speech is that even you get people virulently angry at/about the existence of a particular group, there's a strong possibility that they'll go out and attempt physical violence against said people. I mean, when certain evangelicals preach that homosexuals are abominations against God and have no right to exist, don't you think that some listeners are going to treat them as such? I'm not certain how you deal with this problem without recourse to such unethical and counterproductive tools as censorship, but there's a problem nonetheless.
Yes...theoretically. But there are cases where people are beaten or murdered (not to mention more psychological forms of violence) simply because they are of such-and-such minority group. The normal legal distinctions for murder get fuzzy, because the criminal's motivation boils down simply to an irrational hatred of that group. Surely there should be some sort of legal category to encompass this sort of a crime. Also, what would you say about speech that incites someone to commit a crime against a specific group? Does that deserve its own special category, or should it be grouped with subornation in general?
That, wearing on your breast,
You, unsuspecting, wear me too -
And angels know the rest.
I've been told over and over again that inaction is neither morally nor legally the same as action. So you can watch a child drown and can't be charged with a crime*. Or you can watch some people beat the hell out a drag queen and not be morally responsible, long as you do not help. Doing nothing to intervene is not the same as helping or advocating.
*Parents are required by law to at least attempt to save their minor children from harm.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Do you have a point, or are you just taking a potshot?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.