ku Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 If you are for freedom, does that necesarily mean you must be for the freedom of people to be homosexuals? And does the opposite apply: if you are against homosexuals you are against freedom? When I say against homosexuals, I should distinguish between two types of homosexual aversion. One is when you find homosexuality not to your taste but you don't mind if others engage in gay acts because you respect their freedom. The other is when you believe gay acts should be punished, jailed, etc. I'm talking about the latter not the former because the former is pro-freedom but the latter is obviously anti-freedom.
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 "...then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. It also must be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, teach that in your classrooms... THEN you can stand up and sing of the land of the free..." My personal opinion... the government has no right to punish people from being gay. I can see not allowing gay marrage (because then two guys living together, who aren't in love, but will live together for a long time could get married, and share in the benifits (such as health coverage, tax break, etc...)). But to say being gay is a crime, is just utter bull-sh*t. If being gay is a crime, than being in love must also be a crime. And being happy. If the government starts punishing gay people for having emotions (which they can't control), My theory about how the conseratives are pushing us back into the dark ages will be confermed. But here in America, we talk about how we're the land of the free, but they restrict that freedom... Which is good, because someone could say "land of the free, so I'm free to steal, shoot, and rape at will." But there's a fine line between protecting and attempting to conform... another quote from the movie I quoted above (5 points if someone can name it) "How can you stand people who claim to love America but clearly can't stand Americans?" Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a hard-core liberal... I do believe in many conserative policies, but they come off as more of "you must be a certain way, or you will be punished by us calling you un-patriotic." It's utter bull-sh*t. Abortion, I can see, because you're stealing life from another being (although there's a debate about when the child has life of it's own). /rant anyway, to answer your question, it is absolutly a restriction of freedom to say that gay people need to be punished for their gayness.
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 surely "Punishment" would be Taking Away something that they already have and enjoy? the health coverage, tax break, etc... denying them legal marriage isn`t a punishment unless it were already legal. so I don`t think "Punishment" is the correct word to be using.
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 when I say punish, I mean like jailing... But marrage is supposed to be for two people who love eachother, and well many men and women get married just for the benifits (and not because they're in love). I do not believe that the government should restrict it, but I can see where they're comming from. The church can restrict it all they want, just go to Vegas to get married (or come to me... I'm an ordanded minister and can perform such acts of marrige ). I don't mean puinish as in "take something away" as the behavioral psychological definition of the word...
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 ok, we`ll use you word "restrict" then. If I go to a bar and it`s Ladies hour, and they get to drink for free and I still have to pay for mine I`m being "restricted", you could even push it further and claim sex discrimination, I`de feel really stupid complaining about it though, in fact I don`t know of any male that would!
The Peon Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 Attacking or punishing homosexuals is moronic. They cant even reproduce, so what gives? Are people that dense they need to attack something that isnt exactly like them (oh wait STUPID question)
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 ok' date=' we`ll use you word "restrict" then. If I go to a bar and it`s Ladies hour, and they get to drink for free and I still have to pay for mine I`m being "restricted", you could even push it further and claim sex discrimination, I`de feel really stupid complaining about it though, in fact I don`t know of any male that would! [/quote'] Yea, because if ladies drink free, there'll be more ladies there... but, as I said, there's a fine line between restrict and protect... and some of it has to do with perspective... Such as... Not being able to smoke in public restaraunts (which is law in my state). Smokers say it's unnessecary restrictions of their rights to smoke wherever they want. Non-smokers say, thank you for stopping second hand smoke from killing me earlier than my time. So my question here is, by punishing (restricting) homosexuals, who are they protecting? EDIT: PS: you are not being restricted, others are being rewarded for not being male (although in turn, as I said, males are being rewarded becaused more females will be there). And besides, that's a personal buisness (as I don't believe the govt' owns any bars... I hope not anyway.), which, here in the good ole, US of A under the Free Enterprise system, they're free to charge whatever they want, which includes making something free (even to a select population...)
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink? you see, what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis? what make their case "So Special"? they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free!
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 Attacking or punishing homosexuals is moronic. They cant even reproduce, so what gives? Are people that dense they need to attack something that isnt exactly like them (oh wait STUPID[/b'] question) Ahhh... but they can reproduce. Women homosexuals have been known to be artificially inceminated or have a man impregnate them. Male homosexuals are known to pay a woman to bear their child for them. Thus, if it is indeed genetic, the genes as it were can be passed on. As for your comment of attacking something that isn't exactly like them.. "How can you stand people who claim to love America but clearly can't stand Americans." In this social-cultural melting pot of America, everyone is different. If scrutenized, conservatives are mildly against most minorities (except christianity). Yet another reason to be liberal.
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 oi... dont' read something too fast... delete this post...
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink? you see' date=' what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis? what make their case "So Special"? they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free![/quote'] I can see your point here, but we're not talking about gay marrige, we're talking about the conservative view on gays, which is that gayness should be punished by jail. You're talking about an action that is in no way any worse than "normal" heterosexual sex, but they want to say, "do it (and get caught), and go to jail." Gay people are discriminated against more than most other minorities. And other minorities are protected by affermitive action... Also, gay people used to be able to get married all across the US (if a willing paster was found). Now they can only in MA. You can't say that isn't restricting.
j_p Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink? you see' date=' what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis? what make their case "So Special"? they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free![/quote'] What makes their case 'so special' that they should be denied legal rights that 90% of the population have? Marriage is a legal institution with lots and lots of legal rights and protections; it is absurd to deny them. I live in Massachusetts, and I was a strong proponent of legal civil unions; I was even planning on getting unionized with my current [other gender] spouse when they became legal. I thought them a reasonable compromise, given the strength of some cultural prejudices. Not anymore; I think the homophobes had their chance, and missed it. But you are right about Ladies' Night; if I were in that bar, I would insist on paying for your drink. BTW, there is no tax break for the married in the U.S.
Pangloss Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 I believe I read somewhere recently that something like 10 million children have been adopted into gay families.
j_p Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 "...then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. It also must be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that' date=' defend that, teach that in your classrooms... THEN you can stand up and sing of the land of the free..."[/quote'] It's from a movie? I was trying to figure out when the Reverend Doctor would have said it ... Oh, wait; was it 'An American President'?
YT2095 Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 1) What makes their case 'so special' that they should be denied legal rights that 90% of the population have? 2) Marriage is a legal institution with lots and lots of legal rights and protections; it is absurd to deny them. 3) I live in Massachusetts' date=' and I was a strong proponent of legal civil unions; I was even planning on getting unionized with my current [other gender'] spouse when they became legal. I thought them a reasonable compromise, given the strength of some cultural prejudices. Not anymore; I think the homophobes had their chance, and missed it. 4) But you are right about Ladies' Night; if I were in that bar, I would insist on paying for your drink. BTW, there is no tax break for the married in the U.S. 1. so I should protest next time it`s Ladies hour, because they outnumber the males here, by about 55 to 45???? 2. says who? You? 3. yeah, Spam, whatever Zzzzz.... 4. ^^^see above^^^ now then, care to answer the Questions I asked?
5614 Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 If you are for freedom, does that necesarily mean you must be for the freedom of people to be homosexuals? if you are against homosexuals you are against freedom? NO! I am for freedom, but I am not for murder. Now I'm not comparing murder/homosexuality in any way, understand, no relation, I was merely pointing out (using a common example that many can relate to) that you may support freedom but that doesn't mean that anyone can do anything ie. murder. So saying that if you support freedom you must support something else (in your case homosexuality) is a flawed argument as it's using a fact (support freedom = support something you can do if you are free) which is incorrect. I'm talking about the latter not the former because the former is pro-freedom but the latter is obviously anti-freedom. Similarly here the latter is not anti-freedom, it is anti a specific thing. Just like someone is pro freedom and anti murder, so they can be pro freedom and anti homosexual. (again not linking murder/homosexual, just using it as an example).
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 It's from a movie? I was trying to figure out when the Reverend Doctor would have said it ... Oh' date=' wait; was it 'An American President'?[/quote'] Yes, it was... NO! I am for freedom' date=' but I am not for murder. Now I'm not comparing murder/homosexuality in any way, understand, no relation, I was merely pointing out (using a common example that many can relate to) that you may support freedom but that doesn't mean that anyone can do anything ie. murder.[/quote'] As I stated, it's a fine line between protecting and restricting freedom. BTW, there is no tax break for the married in the U.S. Not directly, but it makes things a lot easier and simpler, because married couples can file jointly, people who live together and are not married cannot. 2. says who? You? Says the United States Constitiution.
BobbyJoeCool Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 If you are for freedom' date=' does that necesarily mean you must be for the freedom of people to be homosexuals? And does the opposite apply: if you are against homosexuals you are against freedom? When I say against homosexuals, I should distinguish between two types of homosexual aversion. One is when you find homosexuality not to your taste but you don't mind if others engage in gay acts because you respect their freedom. The other is when you believe gay acts should be punished, jailed, etc. I'm talking about the latter not the former because the former is pro-freedom but the latter is obviously anti-freedom.[/quote'] At any rate... this thread does seem to have been started by a liberal... as this is anti-conservative propaganda...
Bio-Hazard Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 I'm for freedom, so since i've turned to a type of anarcho-communist belief, I say I support it all. I stopped caring because I feel that I'm more powerful than most dumbies walking the street so I don't care. I hope people understand that sexual harassment still exists under current U.S. law. In my view all laws are based on religion and morals. Morals being people shouldn't have sex left and right because that may lead to judgement day or else the corruption of caring for one another. If I've kept up on my psychology, it's said that homosexuals are more likely to engage in sexual activity. I'm guessing this is because they can't impregnate one another. Either way, maybe we should just raise taxes on them. If I wanted to be evil I'd say raise taxes because they aren't going to be having kids anytime soon.
j_p Posted September 17, 2005 Posted September 17, 2005 1. so I should protest next time it`s Ladies hour' date=' because they outnumber the males here, by about 55 to 45???? 2. says who? You? 3. yeah, Spam, whatever Zzzzz.... 4. ^^^see above^^^ now then, care to answer the Questions I asked?[/quote'] No; I think your premises are all invalid.
john5746 Posted September 18, 2005 Posted September 18, 2005 well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink? you see' date=' what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis? what make their case "So Special"? they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free![/quote'] A bar is a private company. That is different from a government entity. Homosexuals are not different from any other minority that has or is fighting for thier rights. I think they really want more acceptance from society. While the government can't do that, giving them the same status as heterosexual couples is a start.
ku Posted September 19, 2005 Author Posted September 19, 2005 A friend of mine believed it is okay for religious people to influence government (as they do) and attempt to effect laws that punish homosexuality. He argued that they are just following normal legislative procedure. The person who argued this was religious, so I argued that this is analogous to an anti-religious person who influences government to establish laws that punish religious people (in a similar way that Hitler slaughtered Jews).
rthmjohn Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 Whoa, bio-hazard. You say you're for freedom yet you would tax the homosexual population. Are you saying you don't have morals? And besides, nobody would sign a legal document stating their sexual orientation just so that they could pay a discriminitive fee for not being able to produce offspring. Who says they're more likely to engage in sexual activity? Did they mean with one partner or many? And heterosexuals are just as capable of sexually harrassment...
YT2095 Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 A bar is a private company. That is different from a government entity. Homosexuals are not different from any other minority that has or is fighting for thier rights. a bar is still a political Microcosm, with it`s rules and regulations, the only difference is Size. a minority that fights for Rights... I can think of a few instances of that situation where even the most liberal would think it`s wrong to give them that. does this constitution mention gays rights at all? what part in there gives them this "Right"? and no, I`m NOT attacking them (or anybody), I`m trying to boil this all down to clear concise definitions with which to debate the issue. else all gets lost in fluff and interpretational args
john5746 Posted September 20, 2005 Posted September 20, 2005 a bar is still a political Microcosm, with it`s rules and regulations, the only difference is Size. One big difference is ownership. One is private, the other government. A better example would be the military. a minority that fights for Rights... I can think of a few instances of that situation where even the most liberal would think it`s wrong to give them that. does this constitution mention gays rights at all? what part in there gives them this "Right"? The constitution and Bill of Rights are for the rights of ALL citizens. It doesn't have to explicitly state every minority group. You asked what made them "special"' date=' nothing makes them special. Interracial marriage was unlawful in some states up into the 60's. and no, I`m NOT attacking them (or anybody), I`m trying to boil this all down to clear concise definitions with which to debate the issue. else all gets lost in fluff and interpretational args The original question was can you be against homosexuality, but pro-freedom. I say you can, because certain freedoms can be curtailed if they are deemed damaging to society. Drugs, prostitution, guns, etc are some that are banned or controlled. So, if someone really thinks homosexuality is damaging to society, they can be against it, but for freedom. Only being against it because of religion would be hypocritical.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now