Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Anti-gay fundaMENTALism strikes again
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 6:02PM #11
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Aug 16, 2011 -- 4:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


 What's "a normal behaviour"?  Define it.


And what does "should [not] be publicly accepted in society" mean?




I think what's meant by that is that the kinds of behavior Most People exhibit is normal. You know, most people who are normal people -- like us.


Some people, however, such as Them, are abnormal, unlike Most People, and do behaviors that are not normal, nor average, plus God don't like 'em, as some would say.


What it comes down to is Most People and Some People, and tha fact that Some People aren't like Most People.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 6:04PM #12
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:36PM, watcher59 wrote:


I do not believe that homosexuality is a normal behaviour that should be publicly accepted in society, but I would like to hear your view on why it is and why it should be.


Here is why I think it should be;


"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —"


Add to this the subsequent ammendments that more broadly define who is protected.


If you object to homosexuality, don't participate in homosexual activity. Join Sunday morning social clubs that agree with you. Talk as much as you wish about how evil it is.


Be very cautious about whose Constitutional protections you deny. The day will come when someone will want to deny yours.






I am not trying to deny anyone their Constitutional rights, and I disagree with your interpretation that homosexuality is necessarily a Constituitonal right.  Besides, didn't you agree with me that rights do not come from the Constitution anyway?  Why do you say "Constitutional rights" in the first place.


I have simply asked Do Unto why he believes homosexuality is normal and should be publicly accepted by society. 


Let me take this opportunity to respond to his argument.  He argued that homosexuality should be accepted because homosexuals are productive members of society.  Sounds good, except that all sorts of people who engage in all sorts of unacceptable behaviours contribute to society.  This argument, in and of itself, is insufficient.  The point is that there is more to being acceptable to society than performing a job of some sort, isn't there?




"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 6:07PM #13
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Aug 16, 2011 -- 4:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Aug 16, 2011 -- 4:43PM, simonzur wrote:


Do unto,


I do not believe that homosexuality is a normal behaviour that should be publicly accepted in society, but I would like to hear your view on why it is and why it should be.


 



What's "a normal behaviour"?  Define it.


And what does "should [not] be publicly accepted in society" mean?




Well, a hammer is a tool used to pound on things.  Different kinds of things depending on the hammer.  This is its normal use.  If someone tried to use a hammer as a wrench for example, that would be an abnormal usage.  Now, I am not going to stop someone from using a hammer as a wrench, but I would think there is something abnormal about that.  Wouldn't you?

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 6:10PM #14
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,894

Let us look at the term 'unacceptable behaviors' and what it means, Constitutionally.


Since We The People retain ALL the rights not delegated to the Federal Government and the Several States, the right to engage in a behavior that does not impose on the rights of others would be among them.


Please, elucidate precisely what Constitutional Right is imposed upon by engaging in homosexual behavior. If you cannot, then you must therefore agree that regardless of your opinion, such behavior is Constitutionally protected, just as any behaviors you engage in that others may not find 'acceptable'.

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 6:18PM #15
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:36PM, watcher59 wrote:


If you object to homosexuality, don't participate in homosexual activity. Join Sunday morning social clubs that agree with you. Talk as much as you wish about how evil it is.






I find this statement of yours surprising.  It seems a somewhat polite way of saying, "Keep your opinions on this subject among those who agree with you."  Was this your intent Watcher?  If so, why would you attempt to stifle my "Constitutional rights" while cautioning against the very same behaviour? 


Really, you are one of the most intelligent people on this board.  I can't believe you would fail so miserably.  I must have misunderstood you.

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 7:07PM #16
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:04PM, simonzur wrote:


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:36PM, watcher59 wrote:


I do not believe that homosexuality is a normal behaviour that should be publicly accepted in society, but I would like to hear your view on why it is and why it should be.


Here is why I think it should be;


"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —"


Add to this the subsequent ammendments that more broadly define who is protected.


If you object to homosexuality, don't participate in homosexual activity. Join Sunday morning social clubs that agree with you. Talk as much as you wish about how evil it is.


Be very cautious about whose Constitutional protections you deny. The day will come when someone will want to deny yours.






I am not trying to deny anyone their Constitutional rights, and I disagree with your interpretation that homosexuality is necessarily a Constituitonal right.  Besides, didn't you agree with me that rights do not come from the Constitution anyway?  Why do you say "Constitutional rights" in the first place.


I have simply asked Do Unto why he believes homosexuality is normal and should be publicly accepted by society. 


Let me take this opportunity to respond to his argument.  He argued that homosexuality should be accepted because homosexuals are productive members of society.  Sounds good, except that all sorts of people who engage in all sorts of unacceptable behaviours contribute to society.  This argument, in and of itself, is insufficient.  The point is that there is more to being acceptable to society than performing a job of some sort, isn't there?








If they are not accepted in society, they are ostracized by it. Ostracization opens the door for discrimination and discrimination violates their right to pursuit of happiness. I say Constitutional rights because the Constitution is the supreme law of this land. If an obscure religious prohibition causes you to feel homosexuality is unacceptable, fine. But it does not give you the authority to determine what is, and is not, acceptable in society. We don't live in a theocracy. While they are Constitutionally guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, you have no such guarantee against being made uncomfortable. The only reasonable cause for impeding someone's rights is that they are violating someone else's. So, whose rights are homosexuals violating?

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 9:45PM #17
Merope
Posts: 10,196

This thread was moved from US News & Politics.


 

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 10:28PM #18
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:


Aug 16, 2011 -- 4:57PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


You are welcome to your beliefs, even if they are misinformed. But homosexuality is perfectly normal - for homosexual persons. Not everyone is heterosexual. And homosexuality abounds in ALL of nature.


Also, homosexuality is NOT a "behavior". It is the innate (and most scientists believe immutable) characteristic of being attracted to others of the same gender. Your attempt to dis-inform with this illogic is intolerable - because it is based in untruths.


Homosexuals most certainly should be "publicly accepted in society" since we, too, are citizens and participants in and contributors to society. (Despite TENAC's unfounded claims to the contrary on another board.)


Since you insist on confusing homosexuals, homosexuality and homosexual behavior, I don't believe I'll further dignify your insulting post with more of an answer.


Meanwhile, back to the actual topic ...




Two points.


1.  You say that my views are intolerable, why then should I be tolerant of yours?



I said no such thing. The word "intolerable" appears no where in my reply. In fact, I said you were "welcome to your beliefs". I didn't offer my views; I stated facts.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:


2.  The above points to some sort of phobia for the views of others with whom you disagree.



My "phobia", if one there be, would be of lies and the lying liars who tell them.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:


Finally, what exactly was insulting about my post. 



The mistruths, the dis-information, the ignorance, the confusion you insist on promulgating.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:


All I did was voice my opinion in a civil way. 



Bearing false witness is hardly "civil".


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:


I had honestly hoped we could have a decent conversation on a subject that we disagree. 



Then why come to the "conversation" with insults and lies?


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:

Apparently civil discussion is impossible.



It certainly is, but it won't include mistruths and insults.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:

What is left, but for me to be intolerant of you?



You already stated I/my orientation was not to be tolerated in society. your intolerance is nothing new to me.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:

Unless of course you would like to revise your statements.



My statements were factual. Now you want ME to start lying? Not. A. Chance.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 5:15PM, simonzur wrote:

You see, you can't go around claiming to believe in the golden rule while your actions speak differently, at least not credibly among the very people that you want to accept your cause.



My "cause" is gay citizens achieving legal equality. Those that don't "accept" that that is something supposed to be guaranteed in and by the Constitution do not interest me.


And you miss the irony in my nom de plume. I tend to do to others exactly as they have done unto me. You reap what you yourself have sewn.


^    ^    ^


And now, back to the topic ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 10:41PM #19
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:04PM, simonzur wrote:

I am not trying to deny anyone their Constitutional rights, and I disagree with your interpretation that homosexuality is necessarily a Constituitonal right.



Again, you apparently conflate the innate characteristic ("homosexuality") with homosexual behavior. And, if you actually DO believe that private, consenting homosexual behavior is not Constitutionally protected, then you haven't read/understood Lawrence V. Texas. You. Are. Wrong.


Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:04PM, simonzur wrote:

 [i] argued that homosexuality should be accepted because homosexuals are productive members of society.  Sounds good, except that all sorts of people who engage in all sorts of unacceptable behaviours contribute to society. 



You are (again) conflating persons with acts and innate orientations.


*****


Now, once again, could you please address the topic of this thread or I'll simply ask the moderators to delete your posts. They have nothing to do with the premise of the OP.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2011 - 10:46PM #20
Do_unto_others
Posts: 9,020

Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:10PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Let us look at the term 'unacceptable behaviors' and what it means, Constitutionally.





No, Father Oblivion, please let's DON'T. Let us instead discuss the premise in the OP and ignore off-topic trolling behavior.


Thanx in advance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook