Simply saying "fail" doesn't cut it in a politically-oriented conversation. I know it's the cool thing to do nowadays and makes you appear like you've achieved some sort of victory, but it doesn't magically attach logic to your previously unfounded statements.
You claimed that the "last time you checked," sexual proclivities were an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. I merely asked you where you checked this at, to which you didn't answer. If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when asked.
And you checked where? Last time I checked, you provided nothing on which to base your comments but the glib phrase (and attempt to score points) "last time I checked". If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when it was flipped back on you.
It doesn't matter why or when you flaunt something. My point is that freedom of speech is a right of every person. If you can flaunt your moral views (whether provoked or unprovoked), others can flaunt their views as well. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't have a provocation requirement to it.
It most certainly DOES matter. Timing and context are extremely important. If I don't make any public comment until and unless the topic is raised in a public setting, I'm hardly "flaunting" anything. I'm simply minding my own business -- which is EXACTLY what I ask of people who wish to engage in sexual perversion. Mind their own business and keep it to themselves.
First, a church is a private organization. If you choose to deny someone access to your church for whatever reason, then that is your prerogative. This discussion had nothing to do with private organizations outside of the government; it had to do with the government creating laws that altered a person's rights and privileges.
Sorry, pal. You should know the rules. You opened that door when you made the comment (and attempt to score points) about gays breaking down the door of my church. You brought that into the debate, I merely answered it. Objection overruled.
Second, the fact that they wanted to be in the choir didn't necessarily mean they were going to flaunt anything. Unless, of course, you fully expected them to wear an "I Suck Dick" sign around their neck while singing in the choir. Again, your church and you can decide to do whatever you want, but there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual only wants to do something so as to bring attention to their homosexuality. You seem to believe that homosexuality makes a human no longer a person, but instead that they are some uncontrollable exhibition of gayness that will spontaneously erupt in radiant flamboyancy and glamorous glitter at any given moment, bringing gay shame upon you and your congregation. Again, completely your choice, but unrealistic nonetheless.
When you know what you're talking about you have the right to open your mouth. When you don't, perhaps you should keep it shut. First, the homosexual couple was lesbian. Second, they were openly affectionate during the service and after, holding hands and other outward displays to make it obvious that they were more than just friends. Third, this "couple" was on a mission and trying to prove a point. Their intent was never to quietly fit in and worship, their entire agenda (admitted during discussions with the preacher and the board) was to see how tolerant and accepting the church would be toward practicing homosexuals.
You were bitching about them voicing their sexuality and how it affected your right to religion. I'm sorry, but if you don't like someone voicing their opinion, you can turn off the TV, browse to another website, switch the radio station, etc. Someone else's free speech does not affect your rights. Gays aren't knocking down your door to tell you about how a penis feels in their butt while you're trying to have quiet time with Jesus.
This is, and I apologize for being blunt, but the most ignorant argument in a long line of ignorant arguments. The "turn off the TV" defense is pathetic. If it were as simple as that, then there should be no restriction at all on content of any kind ever.
As much as they may annoy you, they are not altering your rights in any way by voicing an opinion. Creating laws that prevent a person from doing something, however, is altering rights. If you're going to deny something, then you typically have to have a legitimate reason behind the denial. I have not heard one legitimately supported reason yet; the only reason I've heard is that homosexuality is immoral. As I've pointed out, the morality of a person is not only a subjective opinion that differs from person to person, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether a person can efficiently serve in the military.
And as I've stated, the ability to openly express their sexual preference is also irrelevant to the issue of whether a person can serve efficiently in the military. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to demand the right to express such preference in a public manner. End of story there.
Nice straw man argument; I never set the line anywhere. I clearly stated that the age issue was up for debate. I then went on to use the five year old as an example of a person which we all would agree is too young to consent. You wanted to dance around the iffy ages of 16 or 17 and derail the conversation; I'm trying to point out to you with an extreme example that age does play a part in consent. People do mature as they get older. At what age are they mature enough to consent? Again, it's up for debate, but a five year old is certainly one who can not be expected to have the intellectual capacity to knowingly consent to sex.
You said five, not me. Age does play a role in consent. But if you're going to make those kind of choices, my point was that this too will eventually be challenged.
Way to avoid the question asking if you view the rapist of a five year old the same as you do a gay man in a consensual, adult relationship.
And there you go again. Five year old. Okay, I view a rapist of a five year old as a sick predator bastard. But what about ten? What about twelve? I once met a 13 year old girl in a bar in Tuscaloosa. She looked 21 to me. Is that okay?
I view a child molester as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on preference. I view a homosexual as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on sick preference. In terms of their behaviors, no, there is no difference to me. They are both sick.
That does not mean, however, that the consequences for acting on those illnesses should be the same and it's a fraudulent argument on your part to equate the two.
Speeders and drunk drivers are both violators of vehicular laws. As such I view them both as a danger on the roadways. But I don't advocate the same consequences. People who speed don't bother me unless they are driving exceedingly fast or recklessly. People who are intoxicated behind the wheel should be incarcerated and their right to drive taken away. Same category, different consequences.
Umm, no. Reread my last response to you. I quoted your portion about bigamy and stated the following immediately after:
"It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you."
Free. Speech.
Yes, realized you were addressing bigamy in passing after I had posted the response.
I have no problem accepting people who believe differently. My problem, again, comes when it is demanded that I alter MY thinking to accommodate theirs.
Free speech my ass. That's a bullshit blanket that's used to justify all manner of offenses. It was never the intent for that amendment to be interpreted in the way it has been warped today.
You can be concerned with their actions all you want, but you can not prevent a person from making a "public spectacle" by protesting laws or announcing in public that they are gay. It doesn't matter what the vast majority of the public thinks about anything; free speech applies to everyone.
Yes, we've lost the concept of majority rule. That's just awesome.
And free speech my ass, again.
As I've stated before and will state again, my intent is not to sway people's minds when it comes to topics of subjectivity. Morals are far too subjective for me to look a person dead in the eye and say, "My morals are right. Yours are wrong." Maybe you can do that, but I can not. Nor have I called anyone narrow-minded or unenlightened. I am only pointing out that for every Christian who is annoyed by a gay talking about his homosexuality, there is a homosexual who is annoyed by a Christian talking about his Christianity.
If you can point to a reason why immorality is a reason to be barred from joining the military, then that is applicable to the discussion. Otherwise, the fact that you are annoyed by a gay person's free speech is pretty much moot. It is a personal opinion that you hold dearly, and no one can take that away from you, but that personal opinion can't be forced upon everyone else in the form of "curing" all gays, forcing them to keep certain speech private, or barring them from the military.
And you've STILL failed to grasp the most simple concept.
I don't give a flying fuck at a surf-boarding squirrel if they want to choke on dicks or take it up the ass and serve in the military. That never has been and never will be the issue. The issue is not whether they can serve -- because they already can and already do. The issue is whether they should have the right to parade around and openly declare their gayness.
As you've stated eloquently, being gay has no impact on their ability to serve. If that's the case, then why is there a need to point out those who are?
Don't ask. Don't tell. Mind your own fucking business. Pretty simple.
338 Replies
59210 Views