Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
65 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Sarah Bellum, Tangle (5 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,344 Year: 11,092/23,288 Month: 344/1,763 Week: 311/390 Day: 32/99 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 13 of 313 (377933)
01-19-2007 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rob
01-19-2007 12:25 AM


Re: Descrimination...
Rob writes:

"... we are against the altering of God’s pattern and purpose for sexuality."

That presupposes that they have a @#$%ing clue what "God's purpose" is.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 12:25 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 1:26 AM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 313 (377939)
01-19-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rob
01-19-2007 1:26 AM


Re: Descrimination...
Rob writes:

Human beings are heterosexual.

Clearly not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Don't confuse one purpose with "only" purpose.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 1:26 AM Rob has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 313 (378248)
01-19-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
01-19-2007 11:14 PM


Re: You Said It
Rob writes:

there are two sides to a mirror; the image and the real.

You can have the image if you choose.

I'll take the real...

The mirror analogy is getting kinda silly. Exactly what is the image and what is the real?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 11:14 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 11:58 PM ringo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 90 of 313 (378343)
01-20-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by anastasia
01-20-2007 12:33 AM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

You say slavery was part of the natural order. No, it wasn't.

The point is that people claimed that slavery was part of the natural order - just like people continue to claim that heterosexuality is part of the natural order. The "natural order" might not change, but our ideas about it do change.

Do you think an 'inalienable right' is supposed to change?

The men who wrote about "inalienable rights" owned slaves and denied women the vote. So, yes, "inalienable rights" do change.

We recognize the same natural law looking backwards as that which we have in the present.

Obviously not.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 12:33 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 12:27 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 92 of 313 (378360)
01-20-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by anastasia
01-20-2007 12:27 PM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

So, yes, "inalienable rights" do change.

They didn't change. They were ignored.

I put "inalienable rights" in quotes for a reason. "Inalienable rights" means what were perceived as inalienable rights at the time. :)

Our ability to understand how things 'should be' is an ongoing process.

Which is precisely why concepts such as "inalienable rights" do change.

What should be is the natural order.

Maybe so. And when we are fully appraised as to what should be, we will understand the natural order. Until that time, we are left with our changing ideas of what "should be" and "natural order".

So, to aim in the general direction of the topic: What "should be", with regard to discrimination against homosexuals? What is the "natural order" with respect to homosexuals? What "inalienable rights" do homosexuals have?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 12:27 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:11 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 95 of 313 (378366)
01-20-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by anastasia
01-20-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

Having a right to marriage is a bit more tricky, only because that right is denied to other folks based on the same reasoning.

But the reasoning isn't really the same, is it?

Relatives can't marry mostly for biological reasons. Since homosexuals can't have children (together), the biological resoning is moot. If anything, homosexuals should be allowed incestuous marriages too. :)

As for plural marriages, there's no "natural" reason to eliminate them. Many societies have gotten along just fine for centuries with them.

Bottom line: there doesn't seem to be any "reason" for discriminating against homosexuals except plain, old, ugly discrimination.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:11 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:35 PM ringo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 104 of 313 (378385)
01-20-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by anastasia
01-20-2007 2:03 PM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

In that case, why can't people have civil unions as brother and sister? Benefits, the whole nine?

Why not scrap the whole "civil union" and base benefits on what the beneficiaries want?

If somebody lives with his father, why can't his father be a part of his dental plan? If somebody lives with his brother, why can't he get time off to take care of him when he's sick? (For that matter, why do they even have to live together?)

Why not divorce the whole concept of "benefits" from marriage?

Then "traditionalists" wouldn't have to boo-hoo about not being allowed to discriminate.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 2:03 PM anastasia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2007 3:19 AM ringo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 157 of 313 (378678)
01-21-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:31 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob writes:

I do not discriminate against homosexuals. I descriminate against homosexuality....

So, as per the topic, you don't agree with discrimination against homosexuals in blood donations? After all, blood donation doesn't involve homosexuality, does it?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:31 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:50 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 168 of 313 (378695)
01-21-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:50 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob writes:

I think the whole world shoul do everything in it's power to cater to the prefered lifestyle of (what? 2- 6% of the poplulation).

Yes, I agree that we should do everything in our power to accomodate minorities.

No matter the cost.

You just said that "Aids has nothing to do with homosexuality," so what "cost" are you talking about?

No matter the inconvenience....

If it's "inconvenient" to do what's right, boo hoo. Do it anyway.

... or danger.

@#$% the danger.

quote:
Counting on help from above
Trusting the power of love
We must be fearless

- the Neville Brothers


If blood supplies have to cost a fortune to process then that is the cost we must pay....

Agreed.

We will change the world just for you...

Thanks. I appreciate it. :)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:50 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 186 of 313 (378729)
01-21-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:31 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob writes:

Well then be consistent. Homosexuals are not the only minority . You do understand that do you not?

I am consistent. I say let any consenting adult members of any minority marry.

Are you willing to provide that same courtiousy to those who wish to court their pets?

Pets are not a "minority".

What about theiving politicians?

Yes, thieving politicians should be allowed to marry the person of their choice, thieving or non-thieving.

I really can't believe how utterly selfish all of you are....

How does not forcing my views on others constitute selfishness?

You might as well say, I could give a damn about logic and reason. I want it my way and I intend to have it. I could care less what anyone else thinks!

When it comes to human rights, I don't give a damn about your brand of "logic and reason". Once we have decided that it is "reasonable" to treat all human beings as equals, the rest of your "logic and reason" go out the window.

I despise you and your end will be what you deserve. You've gone down to the pit.

Mighty "Christian" of you. :)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM Rob has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 216 of 313 (378961)
01-22-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 2:19 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

You'd think I'd said something that was politically incorrect around here.

"Political correctness" has nothing to do with it. It's about a basic understanding of human rights.

In case the concept is new to you: All humans have the same rights - regardless of skin colour, sex, age, religious affiliation, who they sleep with, what their favourite ice cream is....

As soon as you start categorizing who has what rights, the whole concept goes out the window.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 2:19 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 224 of 313 (379023)
01-22-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 5:12 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Hoot Mon writes:

Somewhere along the way the gays decided to claim their "civil rights" and demand equal access to straight culture.

No.

Gay people have always wanted equal access to their rights. If you knew a few gay people who didn't want to marry, that doesn't mean they didn't want equal rights.

... I'm not a bigot because I support cilvil unions for gays.

That's like saying, "I'm not a bigot because I support concentration camps for Jews." It's separating out gay people for "civil unions" that makes it unequal. And it's supporting unequal treatment that makes one a bigot.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 5:12 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:03 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 228 of 313 (379058)
01-22-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:03 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Hoot Mon writes:

What are you smokin' up there in Canuckistan? Buffalo chips?

You should have quoted the rest of my post:

quote:
It's separating out gay people for "civil unions" that makes it unequal. And it's supporting unequal treatment that makes one a bigot.

Respond to that instead of wasting posts.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:03 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:36 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 231 of 313 (379067)
01-22-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:36 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Hoot Mon writes:

Why am I a bigot for holding that opinion?

What part of "unequal" do you not understand?

You might as well say, "I have a clearly stated my opinion that marriage is between white people. Black 'marriage' doesn't qualify."

The opinion is bigoted.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:36 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:54 PM ringo has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 236 of 313 (379079)
01-22-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:54 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Hoot Mon writes:

What is bigoted about me if I support equal civil-union rights for gays?

There is nothing "equal" about civil unions for gays. It segregates them.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:54 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 8:16 PM ringo has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020