147 replies to this topic

[Tony Stark]

Capt'n Marth, on Feb 19, 2012 - 05:25, said:

It's all jumbled in my head. I was told it was naturally wrong, biologically wrong etc. Perhaps because there weren't as many homosexuals before. I'm not sure actually; but I think there has never been as many non-heterosexuals as there are today and onwards, or were they all just suppressed before?

Not a history buff, but I think at some point in time there the non-hetero population was close to zero. So something might have happened? Could it have been some sort of evolution? I think it might have been a stickiness to the old traditions...

But you've convinced me there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as they are happy and not forcing anything upon anyone, I think things should be fine.

Maybe far back in evolutionary history (i.e. pre-history) that may be true, but the middle-ages prosecution of homosexuality was certainly not how it always was. One need only look to the ancient Greeks, where homosexuality was very common (I'm not certain of numbers, but it may even have been as prominent as heterosexuality amongst men).

[krakaton]

Ethics is one of the most subjective AoK's for the simple reason that ethical norms have varied in different cultures across the centuries and resulted in conflicting opinions. The path that ethics take when developing is often convoluted as is the case in India. As the country from whence Kamasutra came and as the country with the second largest population on earth, one would expect society to be somewhat relaxed and open about sex and sexuality. Instead, the very word 'sex' is taboo and children are never given 'the talk'.

The primary WoK that affects people's opinion on homosexuality is emotion. At a basic, emotional level, most people have been indoctrinated into believing that love can only occur between a man and a woman. While occasionally purposeful, this indoctrination has been largely the byproduct of modern culture. Almost every piece of entertaining material available today contains at the least a minor romantic subplot - always a heterosexual romance. In fact, it is perhaps not the fact that homosexuals engage in intercourse with one another that so alarms people but rather the fact that they can feel 'love' or 'romance' towards others of the same gender. This indoctrination is in fact the root cause of many homosexuals still remaining 'in the closet' as they are ashamed of their own emotions and feel that something is terribly wrong with them.

Applying reasoning, the other main WoK for this issue results in several arguments against homosexuality. Considering that the primary function of human sexual organs is reproduction, it seems logical that homosexual intercourse violates the laws of nature. However, as an extension of the same logic, one might also come to the conclusion that oral sex (whether hetero- or homosexual) violates the laws of nature and that anal sex is the same. Taking the logic one step further, one might even say that any form of birth control such as condoms or 'unwanted-72' is a violation of said laws. But is it truly a violation of these laws at all? Nearly all animal species that have been observed for significant periods of time display an occurrence of homosexuality that ranges from 1% to (in certain cases) almost 50%. No species that has been observed has yet displayed any kind of social stigmata towards homosexuals. The only species that we know of that does this is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Finally, from a ethical standpoint, it seems logical that one person should not have a say in the life of another unless the other person is damaging the lives of other human beings. Homosexuality does no damage to other peoples' lives - indeed it can enrich them by expanding their horizons and (if the 'other person' is homosexual and attracted) perhaps even lead to an enhancement of their life.

[The Economist]

Tony Stark, on Apr 24, 2012 - 05:05, said:

But, what I disagree with is the modern obsession with political correctness and anti-discrimination laws in terms of the government regulating PRIVATE views. Just as homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, homophobes DO have the right to their own opinion, and freedom of speech/expression. Just as Does that give them an excuse to target homosexuals for consistent and traumatising bullying? No, but they DO have the right to say they don't like the idea of homosexuality and whatnot. If they say it, they will bear consequences in terms of loss of respect etc, however for them to be legally punished impugns on their freedom of thought and speech. Just as homosexuals have the right to choose a partner as they wish, others have the right to judge (preferably keeping it to themselves, however) the relationship - just as they are allowed to believe that it's a bad match for countless other reasons, they should be allowed to believe that the same-sex nature of the relationship is a bad thing, if they so wish. Prosecuting beliefs legally simply because they are considered 'offensive' is a slippery and dangerous slope towards Statism. We may as well prosecute people simply for saying

As for discrimination? A PRIVATE religious organisation has the right to admit whomever they wish, just as a PRIVATE firm should have the right to hire as they please. This applies to gender discrimination as well. If a manager or owner of a company doesn't wish to hire someone based on personal discrimination, they have the right to exercise their judgement as they wish - they don't have to pay anyone they don't want to. Is it stupid? Most definitely. But if they choose to turn away more qualified applicants on the basis of something irrelevant to their skills and suitability for employment, ultimately it will be THEIR business that will suffer for it. In Australia in particular it's ridiculously hypocritical - if a private company refuses to hire someone on grounds of them being homosexual, a massive discrimination lawsuit can be launched; yet the government still refuses to right of marriage to someone based on their sexual orientation. Private individuals and firms may say and do as they wish, provided they do not directly intrude on the liberties of others (so, they cannot harass, bully or abuse others; but they can choose to hire and think as they wish); however the government's job is to represent and protect the entirety of the population, thus discrimination on their part is wholly inexcusable.

If I was in the mood I would write a more extensive response, but please answer me this. Do you not know what hate speech is? If people came up to you every day and told you that you should die, you are an abomination, you will rot in hell, you shouldn't even be alive, it would be better if you killed yourself, etc. is fine? No, mate, it's not. There is a line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Since physical abuse is not permitted by the law then why allow hate speech? You may not be physically hurting a person but words have an impact too. They leave scars behind (and no this is not melodramatic) especially to 7,8,9 year old kids growing up hating themselves. You seem to have a vociferous opinion without ever having experience hate towards you.

And when it comes to discrimination, I'm not even going to comment on that. It's like you are saying that you could fire people because they are left handed and you don't like it. Please don't flaunt your views like they are right and it is logical to permit discrimination and hate speech because it simply IS NOT. Above everything else, we are all humans and as your libertarian fellows should have taught you, we are all equal.

[Tony Stark]

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

[The Economist]

Tony Stark, on May 22, 2012 - 09:43, said:

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

1. Targeted abuse like the "attacks" by groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (here is a link to their website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/) yes, I do believe should be censored. Especially when they go to funerals of dead soldiers and say that God killed them on purpose because some of them were gay. It's like, bitch please.

2. No no, mate, we are not talking about who to employ but who to fire. If you have an astonishing CV, you are hired but then your boss finds out you are gay and fires you then I do believe that it should not be permitted. If that is, then employers should be able to fire people based on their religion, color, etc.

3. I never asked you to hide your views. Stop "crying".

4. So we are not equal? Being individual human being and being equal is not the same. Treating everyone with the same civil rights has nothing to do with your viewpoints. Don't confuse the two.

Oh and fyi, asking you not to flaunt your views is not asking you to not express them at all.


Btw you are telling me that you wouldn't want that man to stop preaching? http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/pastors-anti-gay-anti-obama-sermon/?hpt=ac_bn2

'

Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church went on to preach his solution to "get rid of all the lesbians and queers."'

"

"Build a great, big, large fence 150 or 100 mile long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified 'til they can't get out and feed them. And you know what, in a few years they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce," he said."

These places he is suggesting are no different than Hitler's camps and there are people listening to him saying "amen". You really wouldn't want to stop that guy? He also suggested to people cracking the wrists of their sons if they displayed effeminate behavior and several similar practices. Some people would be dumb enough to listen to him and their kids would suffer.

[MT SOL]

It's all a double standard. It's all tyranny of the majority. If homosexuals were in the majority and heterosexuals were in the minority, then there would likely be prevalent hetereophobia.

[Edwina Wong]

I think we should all be given equal rights no matter what. Anyone is hardly going to be affected negatively by the sexual orientation of someone else. Sure, it can be uncomfortable witnessing gay acts but people find it uncomfortable for anyone to show any public display of affection either. A lot of people go ahead and claim, "They can be gay they just have to keep their gayness to themselves and I'm fine," but they don't say any of those comments when an unfavorable person goes ahead and flirts with them. Just because they're gay they experience a greater negative impact. It's something they're not accustomed to seeing and thus, we experience dismay.

In my opinion, gay people should have the same rights as any couple who ties the knot with one another. If society doesn't want to call it "marriage" then go ahead, whatever one calls it doesn't really matter in the end. What does matter is if they do not have the same benefits as married couples do even though they are bonded as such just because they are homosexual.

Homophobia defaces humanity.

[Tony Stark]

The Economist, on May 22, 2012 - 12:23, said:

Tony Stark, on May 22, 2012 - 09:43, said:

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

1. Targeted abuse like the "attacks" by groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (here is a link to their website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/) yes, I do believe should be censored. Especially when they go to funerals of dead soldiers and say that God killed them on purpose because some of them were gay. It's like, bitch please.

2. No no, mate, we are not talking about who to employ but who to fire. If you have an astonishing CV, you are hired but then your boss finds out you are gay and fires you then I do believe that it should not be permitted. If that is, then employers should be able to fire people based on their religion, color, etc.

3. I never asked you to hide your views. Stop "crying".

4. So we are not equal? Being individual human being and being equal is not the same. Treating everyone with the same civil rights has nothing to do with your viewpoints. Don't confuse the two.

Oh and fyi, asking you not to flaunt your views is not asking you to not express them at all.


Btw you are telling me that you wouldn't want that man to stop preaching? http://ac360.blogs.c...../><br />&#39;

Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church went on to preach his solution to "get rid of all the lesbians and queers."'

"

"Build a great, big, large fence 150 or 100 mile long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified 'til they can't get out and feed them. And you know what, in a few years they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce," he said."

These places he is suggesting are no different than Hitler's camps and there are people listening to him saying "amen". You really wouldn't want to stop that guy? He also suggested to people cracking the wrists of their sons if they displayed effeminate behavior and several similar practices. Some people would be dumb enough to listen to him and their kids would suffer.

How on earth does it appear that I'm "crying"? This has devolved well beyond any reasoned debate, and I shall take no further part in this farce.