I saw this in the MX, a local BS paper today (one to which I attribute no real strength of analysis, only something to read on the train - which is its express purpose):
Controversial TV celebrity Sam Newman could face six months in jail for anti-gay comments he made on television last month. Sydney gay activist Gary Burns has lodged a complaint with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, saying Newman had "crossed the line" with his "below the belt" gay slanging.It goes on about the comment, surrounding the Melbourne deputy mayor's idea to turn the city into the gay capital of Australia (title currently held by Sydney). Newman's incitement of anti-homosexual hatred was allegedly his comment about how this could be achieved:
"We could organise a cottage industry called sphincter-bleaching or something."Burns sees this as stereotyping gay men as dirty, perverted and violent, and has recently won a case against two Sydney radio talkback commentators about anti-homosexual comments made about a gay couple on a home improvement reality show. Asked about the case, Burns said:
...he would not accept an apology from Newman, saying he deserves what he gets. "I will flush Sam Newman down the same lavatory Mr. Laws and Mr. Price went down," he said.When I read about this (having seen the actual broadcast last month), my response was mixed. Sure, Newman went overboard and made a stupid comment, but to face potential jail time for a comment like that seems absurd. This is not a thread about homosexuality - it's about the nature of a response to "offensive comments". I find a certain irony in a previously-oppressed section of the community now turning around and punishing any comment they feel is offensive by using the full force of legal mechanisms. That Burns seems so full of anger and vitriol is disturbing as well - my overwhelming reaction is that this guy has no concept of when to laugh something off and when to act on it. Somehow, to him, such an extreme response is always justified due to the past and existing prejudices in society. For a stupid, throwaway comment, a man faces a substantial fine or jail time.

Any thoughts, folks?

It is one thing to have someone accuse you of somethng and trying to get your convicted than to really be convicted and sentenced.

...he would not accept an apology from Newman, saying he deserves what he gets. "I will flush Sam Newman down the same lavatory Mr. Laws and Mr. Price went down," he said.That hardly strikes me as a non-offensive neutral comment. As a matter of fact, I believe a lawsuit is due here.

The problem with gay activists is that they see anti-gay comments, which term is used by them equally for anti-gay-movement comments, as offensive, but they don't see their own prolonged rants on "bigots", "Christian bigots", "homophobes" etc as offensive. When I'm done with my law studies (two years still ahead) and obtaining practice rights, I intend to take cases against such comments pro bono.

Why is this man facing possible jail time? What law has be broken? It isn't slander because he wasn't directing this comment at a particular person. Unless that comment was made in specific regards to Burns, I don't see how he can possibly even get this to court.

For example, if someone said that all male Italian-American chemists are egg-headed nerds, I couldn't sue that person could I? Even if I found his comments offensive, I couldn't sue him just because I'm a male Italian-American chemist. Even if he went on to say, "I think we could start a cottage industry on getting these poeple's brains scanned to find out why so many of them wear pocket protectors," I still don't think I'd have a case.

This is almost the reverse of the other on-going thread about Alabama's oppressive attempts to censor the topic on homosexuality in their schools. Again, my feelings are exactly the same: Freedom of speech and expression are what Jefferson termed as "natural rights." We may not agree with what is being said, but every individual has the right to freedom of speech.

As in Alabama, this is an attempt by government to "coerce" (another Jeffersonian term) its citizens into conformity of opinion and thought on a particular issue.

This is the problem that we, who don't support gay rights face. We are considered to be oppressors if we don't tell them that there is nothing wrong with what they do. The problem is that we DO believe that there is something wrong with what they do. They would try to tell me that my attitude must be changed. That is an insult to the notion of freedom of speech. My hat is off to the Mr. Newman, and I think that Mr. Burns is a hypocrite for tryint to deny a fellow citizen his freedom of speech.

Why is this man facing possible jail time? What law has be broken? It isn't slander because he wasn't directing this comment at a particular person. Unless that comment was made in specific regards to Burns, I don't see how he can possibly even get this to court.
@ Aldeth: This isn't a civil suit - this is an anti-discrimination board complaint. It doesn't follow the standard jurisprudence or rules, since it is more akin to a tribunal than a court, although with greater power to impose sanctions. Also, Burns likened the use of the term "cottage" to an English slang word for a lavatory used by some to solicit sex.

@ Chandos: Sadly, it's not strictly the government censuring people. Tribunals in Australia tend to attract people who are passionate about that issue, and it is they who make rulings and decide. Laws and statutes aside, it is their interpretation of how the law should apply that is central here. I agree, though - it sounds every bit as unfair as the Alabama thread; proof that no-one has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

@ Gnarfflinger: Good point. The problem with many extremists (maybe I'm using the wrong word) is that they refuse to believe that anyone else could have a point if they do not concur. I happen to disagree with your perspective on homosexuality, but you've as much right to your views as I have to mine.

Here's a link to a news item about the French "anti-homophobia law" project:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=57053

It also seems that gay organisations wanted to be able to participate in trials of individual persons accused of "homophobic" "crimes" in some capacity.

You know, you use the word "fag", they sue you, and you face a dozen of gay movement lawyers accompanying the random plaintiff.

A couple more:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901041101-733764,00.html

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10719

http://www.ifex.org/es/content/view/full/59660/

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/59660/

[ December 10, 2004, 00:19: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Of course, before we all start crying in our milk for oppressed heterosexuals, lets just remember:

1) all of the taunting straight males get in high schools around the world from beefy homosexual jocks: "f***in' hetero, I'm gonna kick your a**";
2) the fear that heterosexual couples have of displaying affection in public, as angry homosexual bigots might be disgusted and beat the s*** out of them;
3) the fact that heterosexual males aren't allowed to openly serve in our gay armed forces; and
4) the fact that heterosexual couples prevented from marrying by the same homosexuals that complain that "heterosexuals are sexual deviants that can never commit to one partner."

Granted, the gay rights movement might be a bit strident at times, and might be a little unwise sometimes about freedom of speech issues, but let's have a little perspective here, shall we?

Actually, I don't advocate hating homosexuals, but I don't condone what they do. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, not a normal thing. As a result, I don't think they should have the right to marry, and should never have been given the right to adopt. I also don't think they should have the right to deny me the right to speak freely.

Even if everyone was free to choose homo- or heterosexuality, I wouldn't see how this alone stands in the way of homo-marriages or adoptions. It's like saying that since driving a car is a choice, cars are evil and should be banned. So, what's the issue with homosexuality anyway? There's love, there's affection, there are close relationships between persons who are being true to each other. What else do you need?

Oh, and there's great sex as well. Full House!

Now I'm just waiting for Foradasthar to chime in...

But there isn't religeous doctorines that preach that cars are evil. There are religeous doctorines that state that Homosexuality is a great sin. There are a number of people that not only believe in God, but try to follow His doctorines that are offended by the whole Gay rights schmozzle. Do they have less freedom to speak than the gay community?

So everything you have against homosexuality is not reason but religious doctrine. Well, how about dragging those doctrines into the light then?

Of course, before we all start crying in our milk for oppressed heterosexuals, lets just remember:

1) all of the taunting straight males get in high schools around the world from beefy homosexual jocks: "f***in' hetero, I'm gonna kick your a**";
2) the fear that heterosexual couples have of displaying affection in public, as angry homosexual bigots might be disgusted and beat the s*** out of them;
3) the fact that heterosexual males aren't allowed to openly serve in our gay armed forces; and
4) the fact that heterosexual couples prevented from marrying by the same homosexuals that complain that "heterosexuals are sexual deviants that can never commit to one partner."Instead, you can go to prison and receive a criminal record banning you from employment in certain sectors for criticising homosexuality. There's a Lutheran pastor in Sweden who is currently serving a month term for saying that homosexuality was cancer on the flesh of the land or some such.

Taunts you also get and you get called a homophobe, a Catholic Trollock, a Bible thumper, a bigot... whatever.

As for armed forces, armed forces aren't the place for having crushes, flirting and hitting on people. You don't need any sexual overtones in most of military units.

And there are more reasons for refusal to extend marriage to include same gender couples (marriage per se doesn't include same gender couples and needs to be extended to do so), than simply the fact homosexuals tend to switch partners more often. Deviants? Yes. Majority vote of a group of psychiatrists threatened and intimidated into submission by rampant groups of violent gay rights activists (I'm sure I described the process in the last homosexuality flame war, I mean thread), can't change the fact that homosexualism is not on the same level as heterosexuality and is not an equal alternative.

@Darkthrone: One thing escapes you: adoption is for the good of the child, not for the comfort of the adoptive parents. A normal family consists of a mother, father and children. Mother, by definition, is female. Father, by definition, is male. I don't want little kiddies to have two mummies or two daddies just because a couple of people place their own comfort above the needs of the society and its youngest generation.

[ December 12, 2004, 15:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Instead, you can go to prison and receive a criminal record banning you from employment in certain sectors for criticising homosexuality. There's a Lutheran pastor in Sweden who is currently serving a month term for saying that homosexuality was cancer on the flesh of the land or some such.Maybe, but are you beaten up for that?

As for armed forces, armed forces aren't the place for having crushes, flirting and hitting on people. You don't need any sexual overtones in most of military units.Do you really think gay men cannot constrain themselves?
And what about women in the army?

..., than simply the fact homosexuals tend to switch partners more often.Er... where did you get this from?

A normal family consists of a mother, father and children. Mother, by definition, is male. Father, by definition, is male. So that's why my mother seems to have a beard... ;)

Oh dear, I got lost in editing. Corrected now. Thanks a bunch for pointing out.

Maybe, but are you beaten up for that?Myself not. Have heard of men who have been. Have heard gay men bragging, too.

Do you really think gay men cannot constrain themselves?
And what about women in the army?People in the army are removed from their families for prolonged periods of time. It's not like a normal job. Any kind of sexual tension is unwelcome, not just the most manifest forms. If you constrain yourself, it means you need to constrain yourself. This means tension. And this kind of tension is harmful for the army.

Er... where did you get this from?Check the stats somewhere. The disproportion varies per survey, but the difference is huge. But it's probably connected with opposition to the traditional view of marriage, and contempt for permanent commitment, which is characteristic of the liberation movements. Doesn't have to have any inherent ties vith homosexuality per se, if you ask me.

As always, we can't find agreement here.

@Darkthrone: One thing escapes you: adoption is for the good of the child, not for the comfort of the adoptive parents. No, this didn't escape me. What did escape me is that you know something about what is good for children and what is not. To be honest, it is still escaping me. Do you have any qualification other than being catholic for knowing what's for the children's best? Being a student of the law makes you expert on psychology and sociology as well? Broad...

And "Check the stats somewhere." is one of the best arguments I ever saw. "Go and look where you can base my views on stats, 'cause I sure can't." Nice.

However, your last sentence made sense. Are you growing weak? Fight back, man! :p

Nah, I just don't feel like googling and spending hours looking for stats to illustrate something which is pretty obvious. About three quarters of gay men surveyed prior to the outbreak of the AIDS epidemy claimed to have had more than 100 sexual partners. And those who stopped at 100 weren't really a big share. One quarter (within the three) exceeded 1000. Even lesbians claimed to have sex with males and have had around 50 male partners in lifetime.

It's also no mystery that gay sex often comes with stimulators, such as all kinds of toys, from penile adornments to BDSM tools.

I could go on and on about the unhealthiness of gay sex as well. Let's just consider anal sex. You can contract anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis25 and probably a couple of other niceties as well. Clearly, that can't be how nature intends people to have sex. Add hemorrhoids, anal fissures and anorectal trauma and you're set. Let alone all the foreign bodies. :rolleyes: I think we wouldn't really like to talk about oral-anal contacts, now, would we? :rolleyes:

Also, from what I know, it doesn't take more than to be gay, to get a gay partner for sex. No fancy romancing "rituals" like for heteros, just coupling up because both are gay in the ocean of heterosexuality and need sex.

As for family, since the very beginning of the human race, it was man and woman and their offspring. Now, what's wrong with that? And what's so inherently good in the artificial gay model as to promote it to an equal status with the traditional family?

Well, how about a link? A University of Chicago survey. Here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458).

[ December 12, 2004, 17:07: Message edited by: chevalier ]

@Gnarfflinger: if you go back to the source texts, "religious doctrines" aren't quite as clear on homosexuality as you assume. There are a couple harsh condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament, granted, but there are also equally harsh condemnations of eating shellfish, disobeying your parents, etc etc etc, as well as justifications of slavery, pillaging the cities of non-believers and putting everyone to the sword, etc etc etc. So the question here would be, why selectively highlight some verses as proof that the eternal God hates homosexuality, but then explain away all the other verses as having been written for another time?

The same could be said for the books attributed to Paul. In addition, the New Testament isn't really that positive on heterosexual sex as well; for both Jesus in the Gospels and Paul, the highest calling would be to leave all family ties behind to spread the word of God; in other words: to be celibate. Marriage and family life were only suggested for those who couldn't keep their sexual passions in check.

However, the gospels are far more clear about virtues like tolerance, forgiveness, and love. And if you want to talk about things the gospels condemn, look at all of the space given to condeming the pursuit of material gain and worldly power. Who among us would give away his cloak (or SUV) to someone in need who asked for it? And does driving an SUV qualify one as "meek?" How is it that Christianity (especially evangelical Christianity in the US) has been so successful in explaining away the uncomfortable anti-materialism in the New Testament (and so justifying the pursuit of wealth among its members)? Could it be that it's simply far easier to mobilize people against a distrusted minority, than to point out the sins that people commit every day? (The speck/log in the eye parable comes to mind...)

As for homosexuality in the armed forces: 1) As for sexual tension, women are in armies these days for crying out loud! As evidence, we just had one "Lynddie England" conceive a child out of wedlock publicly in view of Iraqi POWs! (And as far as I can tell, homosexuality had nothing to do with this...) 2) There's a long tradition of homosexuality in armies, from the ancient Greeks and Romans, to more recent British nautical traditions, characterized by "rum, sodomy, and the lash," or, less punitively, by "beer, bum, and beef."

Let me start by saying I agree with chevalier (yes, you can skip the rest of the post and flame me if you wish), and I find it blatantly obvious that a child is harmed if it is forced to comply with an unnatural image of the family. I shudder to think how a young boy would feel in a "family" of lesbians, or a young girl among two homosexuals (sorry, I won't use the word "gay" - from the diseases chev mentioned, I don't see anything gay about such relationships, rather grevious).

Aside from that, why is it that children brought up in a "tolerant" environment are forced to comply with a set of rules which are not natural to them? Why are their mouths shut if they ridicule a same-sex couple? They find it unnatural even if the question has never arised in their family and have never been "coerced" (as homosexual minorities would like to call it) to hating homosexuals. What is this censorship doing in a tolerant society? Let me also reiterate this question: How is it that a supposedly tolerant society has to censor anyone? I fail to grasp (it's probably because I'm a simpleton) how censorship is deemed necessary in a supposedly tolerant society. Could anyone explain that to me?

It is loudly clear to me that Good is always able to defend itself and will always show. Evil needs to hide behind thousands of regulations and needs other people as vessels for itself. It cannot protect itself, thus needs to censor good.
Otherwise, why would critics of homosexuality need to be censored? If this "orientation" is good, it would easily defend itself from attacks (overt or otherwise), and if it were natural, nobody sane would attack it. But it seems to require a lot of effort and promotion, or it would otherwise fall.

Referring to the original post - why would a homosexualism critic need to be arrested and face criminal charges? Wouldn't it be enough to say to the people: see and judge for yourself?

Easy with homosexualism in Roman armies. Undoubtedly, it did happen, although it wasn't part of the culture so much as in (parts of) the ancient Greek world. As for the British nautical "rum, sodomy and the lash" traditions... well, those guys couldn't get girls on the ships, could they? They chose young girly boys instead, gettint around to grown masculine men as a last resort.

Below I'm not throwing the Bible at non-believers. Just dealing with a view that homosexual conduct and approval thereof is compatible with Christianity.

As for Christian traditions of love and tolerance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies . . . must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.That is about persons, homosexuals. Now about homosexual acts:

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approvedSee? Hate the sin, love the sinner. This is the Christian love and forgiveness. OK, I know RCC isn't the whole Christianity, but most churches share this view.

Interesting that you brought up virtue. Virtue for a Christian surely isn't compatible with condoning something that God hates. Now, is it?

Bion, are you actually sure of what you are talking about?
Have you actually consider for whom were the letters of Paul written? Do you have any idea what life in ancient Greece was like? Did you know it was found natural by them for a philosopher to have a boy pupil aged 12 and sodomised??? Would you find it natural in any way today? Not to mention orgies (both in Rome and in Greece), held in worship to the various gods (and not necessarily to Aphrodite/Venus or Dionysus/Bacchus - any deity was good enough if it allowed them to party during their feast).
This is what Paul condemns and what was found unacceptable in Christian communities - that Greeks and Romans who joined them, wanted also to carry their customs and understanding of love with them. It is very clearly differentiated in the New Testament with two Greek words translated as "love" in all modern languages:
AΓAΠH (gr. - agape) / Caritas (lat.) / Charity (eng.) - love whose motivation did not dictate seeking own gain (e.g. satisfying own passions), all the time Christ mentions love in the Gospels, it equals agape - as in "love your brother," "love your neighbour," "love your enemy." The motivation is not internal, but integrative
EPOΣ (gr. - eros) / Amor (lat.) / Love (eng.) - love whose motivation comes from egoism and satisfying own needs, passions, etc. This is what Paul condemns.
There are, of course, other kinds of love mentioned, such as ΣTEPΓΩ (gr. - stergo) - familial love, usually translated as "bounds," and ΦIΛION (gr. - filion) - friendship, and usually translated as such.

Keeping this in mind, bear attention to Christ's words: "thus a man will leave his mother and father [after wedding] and live with his wife so they will become one flesh" - this is a passage commenting natural law, which also includes wedding of a sort (as ordained by community). So not only does Christ condemn homosexuality, but extramarital relations as well (mind you, this does not imply in any sense that Christ condemned homosexuals!).
So, love (agapas) the sinner, hate the sin.

Oh, and why would Paul say weddings are ok only if to keep passions at bay, if in another epistle he says "Husbands, cherish and love your wives as Christ loves His Church. Wives, be obedient to your husbands, as we are obedient to Christ who is the Head." Yeah, so now it means that Paul contradicts himself? No way. These are letters addressed to two different communities, who faced different problems. As such, it would be wise before reading the letters to know what problems did the respective community face.

For whom did Paul recommend staying in marriage if they cannot contain their passions? And for those who can, why advocate celibacy?
If you read previous verses, you will learn that he refers to and addresses only marriages in which only one of the spouses has become christened. Ergo - it would be preferrable to leave their spouse since otherwise it could have a detrimental effect on the person's faith.

Do try to know what is there in the entire Bible, and how it refers to the passage considered, before trying to discuss its significance, will you?

[ December 12, 2004, 18:22: Message edited by: toughluck ]

@toughluck: that's a pretty confused set of arguments to support the contention that I'm not "actually sure of what I'm talking about." Yes, I know that there are many different words used for love in the New Testament, but I don't get how Paul's distinction between agape and eros bears on my argument at all. Nor do I get how pointing out that Paul's letters various letters had a historical context has anything to do with my argument. And if you want to nitpick, no, "thus a man will leave his mother and father [after wedding] and live with his wife so they will become one flesh" are not Christ's words, they're Paul's, and in addition, they're a citation from Genesis that Paul uses not to talk about marriage per se, but in order to compare the relationship between Christ and the Church to one of marriage. And if you want to play the "who knows more about the Bible game," I would ask: have you ever looked at the synoptic gospels? Do you even know what they are? And what can you tell us about early church history, about the various meetings where the various early church documents were discussed, with some becoming canonical, and others being rejected?

And in any case, I could say that it's *you* who are totally missing the context here: throughout the gospels, Jesus continually turns his followers' attention away from earthly matters and towards the kingdom of God. This is even the case with Paul, who uses the bride/bridegroom story only as a metaphor for the church. Neither Christ nor Paul see the love between a husband and a wife as the highest form of love. In fact, to quote Jesus on the matter (Luke 20:34-5):

"The childen of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to enter that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage."In fact, there's abundant evidence that Jesus saw much of earthly morality as just that: earthly, and so also a barrier to the kingdon of God. Again, Jesus (Luke 14:26):

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."In the Kingdom of God, there is no "traditional family": we are no longer brothers and daughters and fathers and grandmothers; these earthly relationships no longer hold. In fact, in the Kingdom of God, not only will there be no homosexuality, but there will be no heterosexuality as well.

Granted, the New Testament does weigh against lust, as it does against selfishness, self-indulgence, pride, and the like. But even in what you've said above, can you find any evidence in the New Testament that homosexual sex is any worse than any other lustful relationships, say heterosexual sex outside marriage? Or is this just a cultural bias that you're trying to wrap in the flag (as it were) of religion?

Finally, if there is one group that Jesus *does* condemn harshly, it's the Pharisees. This should always serve as a caution to those who claim to speak for the absolute truth, and to judge others in a fallen world (Luke 11:52):

Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge, ye entered not in yourself, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Bah, are you people still going on about homosexuality? For me, homosexuality is a bit like, say, synchronised swimming in that:

1) I don't do it
2) I'd prefer it if my family didn't do it (but I won't disown them if they do)
3) I think it would be a waste of time to teach it in school
4) If done unhygienically, it can cause disease
5) I don't want to watch it on TV or read about
6) But I don't really mind if anybody else does it
7) I could easily be friends with somebody who did it
8) I don't expect synchronised swimmers to march up and down the streets in the swimming gear saying "Look at me".
9) And finally, I don't think it's a big enough deal for people to debate and debate and debate and debate and debate on and on and on and on........ :rolleyes:

@Chev: Your source had no reference to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals. So we cannot compare. I'm sorry, but it is worthless.

Bion, I'll start from the end.
I take it that you would also say that Jesus condemned Nicodemus, as well as Joses of Arimathaea, am I correct? After all, you stated:
Finally, if there is one group that Jesus *does* condemn harshly, it's the Pharisees. This should always serve as a caution to those who claim to speak for the absolute truth, and to judge others in a fallen worldThere was never a person, nor a particularly addressed group of people to be condemned by Jesus. Love the sinner, hate the sin, remember?

But even in what you've said above, can you find any evidence in the New Testament that homosexual sex is any worse than any other lustful relationships, say heterosexual sex outside marriage?Since you are so versed in the Bible, you are aware of the passage in which Paul states all the grievances people are guilty of?

"The childen of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to enter that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage."This was in response to Saducees (who didn't believe in resurrection) asking about which one's of the seven brothers' wife shall the woman be in the Kingdom of God. Ball in your court.

If Jesus actually (by your account) meant for his disciples to not think of earthly matters and turn their thoughts to eternal life, why would the Gospels comprise so much advise on how to live this earthly life? In fact, there is not a single passage which explains how eternal life will be achieved which would not also consider earthly matters. There is no "to cross the tunnel, go straight, then turn left." Every parable has its use here on earth. The earthly matters that should be left aside are whatever mundane task would keep them from minding eternity instead of glorifying their life and living as a disciple of Christ should.

Synoptic gospels - the first three of them. Written around the same time, they were aimed to present the euangelion to the people that didn't know Christ and the events that transpired first-hand. Gospel of St. John is not considered as such because of many differences. First of all, it has been written long afterwards, so John was aware of their existence and did not want to repeat what was already written, and his intended audience were people already converted to Christianity.

As for synods - I'm perfectly aware of them, and you needn't to brag what you know about them.

"Many different words?" No, just the two major ones, and the two other which are used only a few times.

Nor do I get how pointing out that Paul's letters various letters had a historical context has anything to do with my argument.They invalidate your statement:
the highest calling would be to leave all family ties behind to spread the word of God; in other words: to be celibate. Marriage and family life were only suggested for those who couldn't keep their sexual passions in check.by pointing out for whom they were intended. What do you have to say now?

As for your:
And if you want to nitpick, no, "thus a man will leave his mother and father [after wedding] and live with his wife so they will become one flesh" are not Christ's words, they're Paul's, and in addition, they're a citation from Genesis that Paul uses not to talk about marriage per se, but in order to compare the relationship between Christ and the Church to one of marriage.You are wrong. It's as simple as that. Here is the quote from Matthew 19:4-6:
“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”These are words of Christ. Speaking for the Creator (His Father), these are His words as well, and he upholds them. This way, Jesus glorifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Notice that it is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. People have been created as men and women, not men or women.

Congratulations, Bion, you have proven your ignorance of the Bible. I'm wondering where you got your post from. Next time, double check your sources and make sure they are not more ignorant than you are.

@Fabius - the Catechismus (I will use the acronym CCC) does have reference to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals. Here you are:
CCC 2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament. CCC 2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.Questions? Or are you another clueless person without any idea of what you're talking about and just chimed in for the sake of argument?

[ December 12, 2004, 21:37: Message edited by: toughluck ]

:yot:

I would say that suffices for a reply for now.

As it is, I would have to say concerning the ORIGINAL topic is that if you open your mouth, you better take responsibility for what you say. That goes both ways... heck, crosswise and doubling back as well, I would say.

And yes, it is a fabulously generalized comment.

@Chev: Your source had no reference to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals. So we cannot compare. I'm sorry, but it is worthless.The figures are so high that they immediately strike as, well, promiscuous. It is obvious that such behaviour isn't normal in the society. The number of sexual partners usually comes close to 10 for both genders when heterosexuals are concerned, but I don't have it written on any site. I'll look for something and paste the link if I find anything. It stands a fact, from casual observation of surrounding reality, that 55% of heterosexuals don't have at least one STD.

The survey results also say the following:

"Informants from several institutional spheres noted the common expectation among white gay men of having multiple sex partners," researchers wrote. "Ads for gay bars and clubs convey the message that being gay is about having sexual encounters, not relationships.... The majority of personal ads in city papers under the headline 'men seeking men' identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal."While heterosexual promiscuity is not overly uncommon these days, relationship approach prevails over encounters approach.

The sexual partners of homosexual men are likely to be someone they previously did not know, researchers found. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said their circle of friends did not know their most recent sex partner.

The most likely meeting place was a bar or dance club, where 50 percent of homosexual men said they met their most recent partner.I'm sure that the same cannot be said about heterosexuals. Well, just ask your friends or whomever, or even make a poll on a discussion board.

Researchers concluded that a number of factors encourage homosexual male promiscuity, including the presence of popular meeting places and the "absence of cultural forces that encourage monogamy."And I think this is the crux of the problem. Absence of social forces that encourage monogamy, contrary to how things are with heterosexual relationships.

Well, and now an interesting bit from a country where same-sex marriage is legal:

The New York Times ran a story in August showing that homosexuals in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal in two provinces, are not rushing to tie the knot. The story followed two men in their 40s, David Andrew and David Warren, who have lived together for seven years.

Although the men promise to protect one another, the story said "they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in."

[ December 12, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: chevalier ]

And finally, I don't think it's a big enough deal for people to debate and debate and debate and debate and debate on and on and on and on Man, I could not agree more. But, these are the live-wire issues right now, like it or not. And, since this thread is so far off topic anyway, I just wanted to add this:

Gay marriage: Oh, yes, I lay awake at night, like all the rest of the homophobes, worrying that gays are taking over the world. And I agree with Arnold, "gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Abortion: Let's not kill any more babies, except those babies and children in Iraq, which are being blown-up for the "march of freedom."

Stem-cell research: As if the gays taking over the world wasn't horror enough, scientists are now busy creating a new race of Frankensteins from the babies they are killing.

See, all that Kerry had to do was gather the townsfolk with torches, thump on his Bible hard enough, hire Arnold as a spokesperson, and he would be Prez today. Isn't that reassuring? We should all be able to sleep at night much better now.

[ December 12, 2004, 23:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Ahh these topics really take on a life of their own, no?

There was never a person, nor a particularly addressed group of people to be condemned by Jesus. Love the sinner, hate the sin, remember?Some basic logic: does it follow from noting that Jesus repeatedly condemned Pharasees in the gospels that Jesus damned each every single Pharasee to Hell?

The point was that Jesus never lays into those committing any sins of the flesh with nearly the venom he reserves for the self- or tradition-appointed bearers of religious truth, those who call themselves holy by following religious law to the letter, those who smugly proclaim their own faith as a kind of pride, and as a way of condemning all those who they feel have fallen short. Recognize anything here?

And since you like boiling down Christianity to slogans like "love the sinner, hate the sin," perhaps you should also remember, as you compile your rankings of which sins you think are worse and should hate more, to "judge not lest ye be judged." And the best ones to remember would be that "all fall short of the glory of God," and that "salvation is by grace, not by works alone."

This was in response to Saducees (who didn't believe in resurrection) asking about which one's of the seven brothers' wife shall the woman be in the Kingdom of God. Ball in your court.Exactly how is the ball in my court here? Again, your supposed refutation fails to address my point: even married or familial love falls short of the love of God.

What do you have to say now?Eh? Eh? Well, since you ask, here is what I have to say: so aren't you dodging Paul's advocasy of the celibate life by claiming cultural relativism here? Are you saying that "Celibacy was good for the Ephesians, but it's not so important for us today, because we're in a totally different culture?" Well, if you want to walk the cultural relativism road, gee, why stop there?

The synoptic gospels question was more a question about method than trivia; the synoptic gospels are also published as a volume comparing the gospels verse by verse, showing the differences in tone and content between the gospels in the many cases of overlap, so you can see which events were recorded in which gospel. Commentary is included. One of those things you look at in a Theology 101 class.

In fact, there is not a single passage which explains how eternal life will be achieved which would not also consider earthly matters.Well, there's Ephesians 2:8

For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the grace of Godor Romans 3:23 and 28:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.But these are all well-known...now I feel silly getting into a Bible quoting contest on BoM.

You are wrong. It's as simple as that.Well, I guess everyone has to be wrong sometimes. But the original quote was in Paul, as stated. And your quote from Matthew or Mark was also in the context of condemning divorce, except in the case of infidelity.

I don't doubt that the New Testament privileges heterosexual marriage as the prefered expression of human sexuality. What I've been saying, however, is that 1) the New Testament still views celibacy as the higher calling; and 2) there seems something self-serving to me in interpreting one's faith in such a way that it highlights the condemnation of behaviors, such as homosexuality, that one may find personally abhorant, while downplaying the condemnation of behaviors, such as judgmentalism, or rampant materialism, that are either closer to home or more widespread in society.

Bion, I'll have to think about it. I'm wondering whether we aren't talking about (essentially) the same thing, just from different angles. I agree about judgmentalism and materialism. I've limited myself to views on homosexuality only because of the topic of this discussion.

As for God's Love above everything else - "God IS Love," first and foremost and after all is said and done. This mystery has its mirror here on Earth, in love of the spouses, love of God towards the Church, etc. And yes, neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, so I agree that Bible is essentially about reaching eternal life. However, this should not denounce the importance of virtuous life here on Earth. (Oh dear, now I speak like a superior...)

An apology: I'm not dodging Paul's comment on celibacy. It is one of callings (vocations), but I also recognise that it is neither superior nor inferior to calling to marital life. It is just different. However, bear in mind the cultural context, it does play an important role. If marriage was only intended as a way to contain passions in a recognised relationship, where would there be room for actual marital love? How would Love between Christ and Ecclesia be similar to spousal love? That the relationship is only to "contain passions?" Certainly not.

toughluck, no worries, it's all in good fun here in the AoDA.

*appalauds Bion*

That is something we should all rememeber.... :p

I believe it was Chev that had the comment I should have come up with. Simply to love the sinner but hate the sin. I don't hate those who call themselves homosexuals, but I cannot condone what they do. The practice of homosexual relations is a grevious sin according to the doctorine of my faith. The temptation for some must be unbearable, but to give in is morally wrong.

Heterosexual relations outside the bonds of legal and lawful marriage is also a grevious sin too. Do I hate those who do it? No. Even I face that temptation, but abstain because I CHOOSE to do what I believe is right.

What the issue boils down to is one minority trying to force their lifestyle out in public view and to make it illegal for anyone to tell them that they are wrong.

What the issue boils down to is one minority trying to force their lifestyle out in public view and to make it illegal for anyone to tell them that they are wrong.I'm not sure I can agree with this assesment. I am sure I can agree that making speaking out against homosexuality illegal is, well, wrong.

I asked in another thread (or was it this one), what goodness requires that mouths must be shut and not attack it? Goodness will always cry out for itself. Evil will need a curtain of regulations to protect itself. Not really proof of its credibility, is it?

Goodness will always cry out for itself. Evil will need a curtain of regulations to protect itself. Boy, you sure amuse me. :thumb:

You mean that this is why Gnarfflinger needs a "doctrine of faith" as a curtain of regulations to protect him, whereas the homosexuals crying out for themselves and showing their lifestyle are the Goodness? How right you are!

Look, it's like this: we (the good people with, well, haemorrhoids but glowing eyes ;) ) think that homosexuality is something like the colour of skin or the length of feet. For us, it just won't do to criticize it, even more so because of the lousy arguments like "it's unnatural", "it's natural", "it's against my faith", "it's wrong, pure and simple". Hence, we dislike someone speaking out against homosexuality like someone speaking out against Asians. This is not "censorship". Censorship is done by a state, not by its people.

You, however, (the bad people with, well, burning faith and, ha, burning brains ;) ) think that homosexuality is something like kleptomania or flatulence. Something you don't have to be proud of and have to hide from the public. Something you have to overcome. Therefore, you feel like being oppressed when the resonance of your "well-meant" statements concerning homosexuality are not taken as positively as you expected.

That may be as it is. We can't meet in the middle here, it's either being THEM or being US. I can understand, why many people on these boards are bored with the topic and all the ever repeating arguments.

What I can't understand is the following: Why the hell, if you really love the sinner but hate the sin, do you have to drag this stinking corpse out of its grave every couple of weeks? Do you think there are sinners among us who need to be saved by you? Or is it just that you can't stand the thought of anyone committing a sin anywhere that drives you? Interesting...

Censorship is done by a state, not by its people.What do you call regulations that prohibit any criticism of homosexuality, then?
And it is not like the colour of skin or length of feet. Homosexualism is a choice and not something innate. Oh, argue if you want, but many psychologists agree on something else than you might believe in.

If you actually follow this thread, it is not about abusing homosexuals and/or their rights as human beings, but about homosexuality as a notion.
Or is it just that you can't stand the thought of anyone committing a sin anywhere that drives you? Interesting...It is not that thought. If it is their choice and they have been presented with a conflicting view and rejected it - so be it - it's their choice. It is the fact that they fight for it to be recognised as normal and natural which "drives us," as you so kindly put it.

"...but many psychologists agree on something else than you might believe in."

Like they agree on condoms being permeable to sperm and HIV? Sorry, toughluck, your history for backing up your statements with researchable facts leaves much to be desired, I'm afraid.

But let's stop here.

"And it is not like the colour of skin or length of feet." This is exactly what I said in the post above yours, I'll repeat it one more time. You believe the world to be different from what we (we as in: pro-homosexuals) perceive. We'll never find common ground. Do the worst in raising your children, we will do the same.

All I ever bloody here is the same bloody arguments. Homosexuals CHOSE the life they lead. The people espousing this putrid crap amaze me.
Please enlighten us with your profound wisdom on this matter. Dont start quoting psychologists you have links to. We can all play that game. You come up with links to people saying it is a choice, we come up with links to those saying it is genetics. Round and round the rose bush we dance. Frollicking in our arrogance.

The blind fact is this. You believe that it is a choice. Your faith says it is wrong and immoral. Those are your doctrines. If homosexuality was not made by choice, and was something these people had no choice over, then that would conflict with your doctrine. They would have been made that way by God. So, for your beliefs to hold water, they MUST AT ALL TIMES have chosen that life. No matter what ever gets studied, proven by science, whatever. No matter what ever gets said, for the sanctity of your beliefs it has to be CHOICE.

Sorry but we think that is :bs: You believe one thing, we believe something else. Can we please drop the F***ing subject now? or do egos and sabres still need to be rattled. Do people still need to convince themselves they are right?

That is the fundamental disagreement, is it not? There really isn't much value in it because the entire arguments of both sides are based upon unprovable thoughts. That said, I will try to bring in another perspective...

I have asked homosexuals and bisexuals about their orientation; they have never described a point in their life when they "chose" their orientation. Rationally speaking, what person in Western culture would choose a way of life that is full of persecution? It makes no sense. In fact, some of them fervently wish that were "normal" heterosexuals. However, try as they might, they cannot overcome the essential part of their nature.

At the very least, try to put yourself in their place. Imagine that you were a heterosexual, but, instead of the normal situation, you were a member of a minority in terms of sexual orientation. You have felt this way for all of the years of the sexually-aware part of your life. However, society condemns you for not being homosexual. If you reveal your orientation, you become reviled and ostracized. You are an outcast. Many religions will not tolerate your existance and deny your essential nature. To defend you is dangerous for anyone in politics, let alone admitting that you are one of the "dirty" heterosexuals. In school, people avoid you in fear of guilt by association. It is almost suicidal to admit what you feel in public. So, you refuse to admit it; you may not even accept it. Every day of your life is a lie without any hope of escape. Occasionally, you find other people like you, other heterosexuals, and you can return to your natural state. Simply to let that happen is almost heavenly.

To say that all homosexuals are promiscuous is a lie and a malicious generalization. To have multiple unprotected partners is a problem for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is discriminatory to single out homosexuals as the only people performing anal sex; anal sex is hazardous for people of both orientations. STDs also do not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual partners; the primary reason behind the spread of STDs in homosexual communities is that they are likely to have sex with other people in the same community. Once the disease enters the community, it is likely to continue to spread throughout the community. The same thing would happen in an insular heterosexual community with as few members.

All that said, this is one of those times where I fear that we can only agree to disagree. I hope that, in any case, this will be closed soon, at least for a little while.

EDIT: My apologies to Darkthrone and Takara, whose posts were not up when I started writing this. I also apologize in advance in case this thread continues.

[ December 13, 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Gavin de Valge ]

You all know what, we have two, maybe three people on this board insisting on talking homosexuals again and again. Giving light to a topic which for most people is firstly obvious and secondly not all that important.

This board is starting look like a mirror of the American election where the question of equal rights for gays took a prominent position, playing on humanities eternal fear of the deviant before questions most people find a lot more important.

The reactionary and bigoted views spouted here by some members, just thinly veiled so as to not say outright that all those darn homosexuals should just go lock themselves in a closet again and not insist on believing that they are as much humans and have as much right as everyone else is appalling. For me it feels like trying to reason with racists or fascists. The very fact that we try to reason with them makes their views acceptable, a part of discourse. Would we accept this if we replaced homosexuals for jews? Or blacks?

The most disgusting thing is that these reactionaries have the gall to take the victims role. Whining about being oppressed by the evil powerful viscious homosexuals and their world conquering agenda.

This is the closest thing I have ever got to a flame but it pisses me off to again and again see these topics which if you only replace homosexual by jew could take place on a nazi convention. Heck, the nazis gassed the homosexuals too, I reckon that is one group some people here are saddened the nazis didnt manage to finish off.

From Bion:

Some basic logic: does it follow from noting that Jesus repeatedly condemned Pharasees in the gospels that Jesus damned each every single Pharasee to Hell?Jesus spoke in descriptive terms, basing on His knowledge. It is reasonable to say that as an omnipotent and omniscient God, whether in a human body or not, He knew how things would go on in afterlife. However, there's no phrase close to personal arbitrary condemnation. There were even converted Pharisees and Saducees and members of the Jewish priesthood. Think Joseph of Arimathee or Nicodaemus.

The point was that Jesus never lays into those committing any sins of the flesh with nearly the venom he reserves for the self- or tradition-appointed bearers of religious truth, those who call themselves holy by following religious law to the letter, those who smugly proclaim their own faith as a kind of pride, and as a way of condemning all those who they feel have fallen short. Recognize anything here?The point is that comparing two sins and deciding that one of them is lesser still doesn't make a licit act of the lesser sin. Your logic looks like:

Jesus spoke against the sins of the spirit more vehemently than against those of the flesh, ERGO it's licit to commit sins of the flesh and it should be seen as righteous to do so

Sorry, but this inference doesn't hold. The only conclusion from your premise is that the sins of the flesh are graver than the sins of the spirit.

And since you like boiling down Christianity to slogans like "love the sinner, hate the sin," perhaps you should also remember, as you compile your rankings of which sins you think are worse and should hate more, to "judge not lest ye be judged." And the best ones to remember would be that "all fall short of the glory of God," and that "salvation is by grace, not by works alone."From the point of view of Christianity, love is more important than judgement. You indirectly agree with this by submitting that the grace of God overrides the judgement under law. Consequently, the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" has more importance than the phrase "judge not lest thou be judged" in Christian doctrine. Which invalidates your initial premise that the latter is superior to the former. With the premise invalid, the argument doesn't hold.

Eh? Eh? Well, since you ask, here is what I have to say: so aren't you dodging Paul's advocasy of the celibate life by claiming cultural relativism here? Are you saying that "Celibacy was good for the Ephesians, but it's not so important for us today, because we're in a totally different culture?" Well, if you want to walk the cultural relativism road, gee, why stop there?The basic message of Paul's is that you shouldn't get a wife if you don't need one. You're better off celibate. But if you need a woman, you'd better get a wife in love and honour than fornicate. The Bible insists that marriage is "all honourable" and never reprobates it; the praise of celibacy with regard to certain persons does not invalidate this view of marriage.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.Which does not translate as "a man is eventually saved by grace, so he can sin as he will in this life". This only means that we're all sinful, but in no way encourages us to condone and endorse sin. Consequently, this doesn't hold as an argument in favour of legalising homosexual "marriage", adoption and other rights.

Done with the Bible. Now on to Darkthrone:

Look, it's like this: we (the good people with, well, haemorrhoids but glowing eyes ) think that homosexuality is something like the colour of skin or the length of feet. For us, it just won't do to criticize it, even more so because of the lousy arguments like "it's unnatural", "it's natural", "it's against my faith", "it's wrong, pure and simple". Hence, we dislike someone speaking out against homosexuality like someone speaking out against Asians. This is not "censorship". Censorship is done by a state, not by its people.Here's the news: anti-homophobia laws are passed by the state, not by the people. Also, racism and all associated discrimination was exercised by all layers of the society, not just the state and state officers. Also, there is a difference between the colour of your skin that you can't change and homosexual intercourse that you can choose not to have. Thus, the analogy doesn't hold.

You, however, (the bad people with, well, burning faith and, ha, burning brains ) think that homosexuality is something like kleptomania or flatulence. Something you don't have to be proud of and have to hide from the public. Something you have to overcome. Therefore, you feel like being oppressed when the resonance of your "well-meant" statements concerning homosexuality are not taken as positively as you expected.If homosexuality isn't a choice, it cannot be a reason to be proud of yourself. Think gay pride parades. Pride of yourself implicates a sense of own merit and that always comes from conscious choices and acts as if you did your job well. So? One way or the other, can't have both.

My statements are well-meant, but their positive reception is of secondary meaning to me.

What I can't understand is the following: Why the hell, if you really love the sinner but hate the sin, do you have to drag this stinking corpse out of its grave every couple of weeks?Someone always comes up with advocacy of homosexual lifestyle or legalisation thereof. Whenever I speak on homosexuality, I speak in response to points or questions raised by someone else. Either on these boards or on the political or judicial scene, ranging from anti-homophobia laws to unlawful verdicts of courts usurping legislative authority to promote the political agenda of the judges.

Like they agree on condoms being permeable to sperm and HIV? Sorry, toughluck, your history for backing up your statements with researchable facts leaves much to be desired, I'm afraid.What I see is that valid researchable and scientifically proven facts are only those which support the pro-homosexual side of the debate, so far as you are concerned.

Do you think there are sinners among us who need to be saved by you?Doing my best. God loves you, you know? Heck, even I do. Just not in "this" way, you know.

Or is it just that you can't stand the thought of anyone committing a sin anywhere that drives you?I won't shut up when wrong is called right, unnatural called natural, and so on, if that's what you mean.

From Takara:

If homosexuality was not made by choice, and was something these people had no choice over, then that would conflict with your doctrine.From a Christian standpoint, if you don't choose it that way, the sole fact a man (if you're male) or a woman (if you're female) attracts you doesn't make a sin yet. Problems begin when you start to harbour lust for that person, and especially if you move on to sexual interaction with that person. Personally, I don't believe homosexuality is un-chosen. But there might be such a possibility in case of some people. However, you always choose whether or not to have intercourse. Hope this helps to clear things up a bit.

If homosexuality was not made by choice, and was something these people had no choice over, then that would conflict with your doctrine.See above. And an example: to be cleptomaniac isn't a sin. But this doesn't make it right to steal. The culpability of a cleptomaniac person is reduced so far as his psychological conditions precluded him from resisting the temptation. Homosexuality is construed as just an orientation, without an obsession-compulsion directed at having sex. So homosexual persons are driven to homosexual acts even less than cleptomaniac people to steal. Why make an exception here?

Especially in those Christian churches where non-marital (whether you call it pre-, extra- or whatever, just anyone other than your lawfully wed spouse) sex is a sin, why make it not a sin for homosexuals? Are they under more of a compulsion to have sex than heterosexuals are?

So, for your beliefs to hold water, they MUST AT ALL TIMES have chosen that life.If you get addicted to something, the choice is initial and reduced up to close to null over time, but the results are lasting and come from said initial choice. So far as sins in Christian doctrine go, if your choice capability is reduced, so is your culpability for acts you commit.

You believe one thing, we believe something else. Can we please drop the F***ing subject now?I'm sorry, but no. If the discussion bothers you, you don't have to read it.

From Gavin de Valge:

I have asked homosexuals and bisexuals about their orientation; they have never described a point in their life when they "chose" their orientation.How did they call it, then? Did they discover it? Or did they give their own gender a go and decided it was as good or nearly as good as the opposite gender? Or maybe after several failures in the field of relating with members of the opposite sex they switched to their own sex and it worked for them? Various ways to put it.

In fact, some of them fervently wish that were "normal" heterosexuals.If even homosexuals and bisexuals see their orientation as less than natural and normal, why do activists need to claim the opposite?

However, try as they might, they cannot overcome the essential part of their nature.I.e. they tried a bit and decided they couldn't do more, so they were "relieved" of an imaginated duty and could freely throw themselves into the gay world. Something like this?

At the very least, try to put yourself in their place. Imagine that you were a heterosexual, but, instead of the normal situation, you were a member of a minority in terms of sexual orientation.I would be a member of a dying society, then. Unless all citizens were imported from abroad or cloned.

You have felt this way for all of the years of the sexually-aware part of your life. However, society condemns you for not being homosexual.As if I enough mud weren't thrown on me as a bigot, homophobe, Catholic Trollock... whatever.

Sometimes I wonder if gay movement activists will stop short of taking over the world, though.

If you reveal your orientation, you become reviled and ostracized. You are an outcast.A homophobe, you mean?

To defend you is dangerous for anyone in politics, let alone admitting that you are one of the "dirty" heterosexuals.There's already a significant difference between the number of people opposed to gay rights movement who vote nay in polls and the number of those would speak their mind in public. There's a reason for this and there's going to be even more of one. It's going to become illegal for them, if those idiotic anti-homophobia bills were to be passed.


To say that all homosexuals are promiscuous is a lie and a malicious generalization.Or at least a misguided one, I agree. It's possible for a homosexual to be more or less monogamous. It's the gay environment what creates promiscuity, as you say later in your post.

To have multiple unprotected partners is a problem for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is discriminatory to single out homosexuals as the only people performing anal sex; anal sex is hazardous for people of both orientations.Anal sex is characteristic of homosexual intercourse, but not of heterosexual one. Gay men have to resort to "rear entry" (unless they prefer oral), but heterosexual people have the proper entry at their disposal, so to put it.

STDs also do not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual partners; the primary reason behind the spread of STDs in homosexual communities is that they are likely to have sex with other people in the same community.So now you say that homosexual men actually are promiscuous. So, they are promiscuous but it's wrong for a heterosexual to say that they are? Busted!

Once the disease enters the community, it is likely to continue to spread throughout the community.Which requires either group sex, or switching partners around. Say "p", say "r", say "o". Yeah. How is this called? P-r-o-m-i-s-c-u-i-t-y. Busted!

The same thing would happen in an insular heterosexual community with as few members.

Possibly yes, because it's about promiscuity and not about being gay. But that's the problem with the gay environment, that promiscuity is the standard, as you say.

From joacqin:

The reactionary and bigoted views spouted here by some members,Do I call your views libertine, nihillistic and amoral? If I do, show me. Otherwise please hold your tongue if you can't be polite.

This is the closest thing I have ever got to a flame but it pisses me off to again and again see these topics which if you only replace homosexual by jew could take place on a nazi convention.This is a very cheap move to drag and stretch the tragedy of Holocaust to support your aggressive remarks. It's gravely disrespectful towards the victims.

Heck, the nazis gassed the homosexuals too, I reckon that is one group some people here are saddened the nazis didnt manage to finish off.Can you get closer to calling me a Nazi? Is calling people names all you can do when you run out of arguments?

Well, if that is an accurate description of the views expressed it what will be brought forth.

I view it gravely disrespectful of the victims of the holocaust to see people spout the pretty much the same arguments the nazis spouted to justify their attempted purge of homosexuals from their society.

I thought long and hard whether or not I would introduce the nazis in the post as I knew it would open it up for easy criticism but this is one case where comparison towards nazism is valid.

Also, seeing as I am rather libertine, nihilistic and amoral I have no problem being called that. It pisses me of though when people who would be that or in the case of you chev, reactionary and bigoted refuse to even label themselves correctly.
Or are you not proud of your stance?

Especially in those Christian churches where non-marital (whether you call it pre-, extra- or whatever, just anyone other than your lawfully wed spouse) sex is a sin, why make it not a sin for homosexuals? Are they under more of a compulsion to have sex than heterosexuals are?
Well, considering these same churches refuse homosexual partners to marry, I guess you are pretty much repressing them. Way to go Mr.Compassionate and tolerant one. :thumb:

Whoa people! Here is a quote from the original post:
This is not a thread about homosexuality - it's about the nature of a response to "offensive comments". So please, switch gears and try to stay on topic.

As to responses to offensive comments, I think we have a few in this thread; at least it hasn't degenerated too far.

@toughluck: Just go back step by step and reread my discussion with Chev. After doing this you may freely post insulting comments again. But don't be surprised if everyone thinks you a fool.

@Chev: The parts you quoted just indicate thinly that promiscuity within gay society is a societal phenomenon, not part of every homosexual being.

It's quite understandable, really. Imagine an homosexual human being who knows that society does not accept his sexual orientation. He/She feels opressed and has a building desire to have a sex life according to his/her orientation (and not your self-constraint).
Now he/she comes into the homosexual sub-society. Societal pressure lifts and he/she can live out his/her feelings. The promiscuity-level rises.

Later, I assume, it goes down again, because sex is becoming less and relations more important.

Your assumptions of heterosexual behaviour are just that: assumptions. You cannot base a comparison on that.

Your failure (if you want to call it that) is, that you argue from what you think is a high moral position. Your lifestyle is not that of average joe or jane.
You think, that sex should only happen between a married couple. Gays mustn't marry (because the church says so), so they are not allowed to have sexual intercourse.
It may be better for you if you'd be able to step down from that horse and accept that different people lead different lifes.
I hope that someday you can learn that your lifestyle is yours and doesn't fit anyone else.

OK, I HAVE to bring this up from a comment that Chev made waaaaay back in this thread. He stated that is was typical for heterosexual couples to have something around 10 partners in their lifetimes. To me that sounded like a pretty fair number. Then he goes on to say that the number for homosexuals is more like 100, and even 1000 is not out of the realm of a possibility.

This is sounding like every homosexual is part of the Wilt Chamberlain fan club! (Wilt Chamberlain wrote in a book that he had sex with over 10,000 people - presumably all women. My reference was the ridiculously high number of partners, not that "Wilt the Stilt" was homosexual.)

The point I'm making is it seems like a number like 100 to be somewhat of an inflated number, and 1000 seems to be completely artificial. Just do some simple math here:

Say someone who is homosexual goes to a bar every weekend and picks up a different partner every week and has sex with him/her. At this rate, a person would have to continue this action every weekend for nearly 20 years to reach 1000. Moreover I know several homosexuals. Granted, the ones I am friends with are women, so it may be different for men, but of the ones I know they have all been involved in long-term relationships, and none of them have even approached 100, never mind 1000 sexual partners.

C'mon people, I know it's difficult. You all have the burning desire to refute what was said on this page and half of the last, but if you really must, start a new topic.

This thread is supposed to be about what people think are appropriate responses to offensive commentary, not where offensive commentary comes from or whether it is justified or not.

And those of us that don't support Homosexuality want to be free to voice our opinions and beliefs without being branded as "Nazis". The Gay rights crowd has as much right to plead their case as we have to oppose it. If you're going to sue or imprison someone who doesn't like what you are fighting for, then you are fighting the whole social order rather than just fighting for a few priviledges.

When I hear about people being arrested or imprisoned for speaking out against homosexuality, then I begin to fear for myself. Fear, left unchecked can grow into hatred. I don't advocate dragging a gay man out of his home or where ever he is exposed and beaten severely. But I also don't want good people's lives and reputations ruined because they refuse to tow someone else's desired line.

The biggest worry I have with the imprisonment of the minister in Sweeden or the attempts to censure this guy in Australia is that the Gay community is creating martyrs in the Straight community. Martyrs that people will rally behind. Living proof that the freedoms they once enjoyed are threatened by a bunch of upstarts. I worry that this may lead to violence against the Gay community. I refuse to abandon my convictions on the topic, but I don't want my rights and freedoms taken away by some loudmouth special interest group.

From what I know of this preacher man is that he was free on parole and never spent any time in jail whatsoever. Secondly, in Sweden like in Germany and some other countries there are some limits to free speech. You arent allowed to in a public setting give a speech telling people that black people are monkeys, jews are vermin and homosexuals parasites and that they all should be exterminated. Whether these laws are good or not is probably part of this topic and I am convinced either way. Going back to this preacher, he wasnint preaching even stuff like what chev and others have said here but something along the line of homosexuals being a plague on society which god would smite and so on and so on. Pretty much just reiterating what is in the bible about stoning and such. The thing is that he was breaking the law and if you do that while living in a reasonable democratic society you better pay the price even if you happen to disagree with just that law. This preacher guy was just so unlucky as there was some gay person around who got pissed off at the speach and thought that he might have a good case if he reported it to the police so criminal charges could be put forth. A duly appointed court of law then found the preacher to having been in breach of the law and sentenced him accordingly.

You arent allowed to in a public setting give a speech telling people that black people are monkeys, jews are vermin and homosexuals parasites and that they all should be exterminated. There's a difference between homosexuality and homosexual persons. From what I know, the preacher was speaking against homosexuality and not against homosexuals as persons, nor did he incite any sort of violence. So if the law prohibits speaking against persons only, or inciting violence only, then there was no due process of law. But maybe the law protects the homosexual lifestyle and the pro gay rights movement?

I don't want any police or civil officers to tell religions what to preach. Not even court judges.

[ December 14, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I am no lawyer but I actually have a hard time believing the Swedish court system would convict anyone due to pressure from some gay lobbyists, if such even exist. Secondly, even if you have some law education I doubt whether you are an expert on Swedish law, nor am I but I have never been given a reason to seriously question a courts decision. You can attack the law for not allowing hate speech, you cannot attack the courts for upholding the law.

What is the homosexual lifestyle? What is the pro gay rights movement? Blah! I refer back to my previous post, you are paranoid and conspirational. I think I can tell you that there is no vast cabal of homosexuals who plots and schemes to get access to your little bottom.

So if I started preaching about how Catholicsm is parasitic and evil and should be banned.... that would be ok?

Afterall, I'm talking about Catholicism, and not catholics.

@Gnarlfinger:

Sorry just to clarify -
Living proof that the freedoms they once enjoyed are threatened by a bunch of upstarts.What freedoms are you referring to here? I assume you're referring to freedom of speech, but given the subject matter, I'm not sure.

You're confused ArtE. You see, Gnarfflinger is talking about how freedom of speech should allow these people to advocate their opposition to homosexuality.

In the other thread, red state values, he goes on about how that same freedom of speech doesnt apply to homosexuals.
It's a question of where the line is to be drawn. I want Homosexuality on the banned side of the line. You see, any material that covers that must be censored and removed.

I do so adore double standards.

And where's the inconsistency between wishing for homosexuality to be banned and demanding freedom to criticise it?

Well, on one hand you cite freedom of speach allows you to say inflamatory and critical things. Fine. On the other, you are trying to prevent freedom of speach to censor and ban what you are critical of.

What do you want? freedom of speach or censorship? You cant switch position just to suit your own ends. If you dont want to have your views censored, like these anti-homosexuals, then you have to oppose censorship of those with pro-homosexual attitudes.

Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

Chev, are you serious?

This thread is supposed to be about what people think are appropriate responses to offensive commentary, not where offensive commentary comes from or whether it is justified or not. I say let the ones who feel they must give voice to their petty hatred do so. Especially if it is cunningly disguised by a holier-than-thou attitude and the pretense to wish only for the best of society and mankind (gotta love those unwanted hence self-appointed guardians of our well-being).
After that send some knowledgable people against the offender. And see his shaky arguments crumble.
The offender probably wont have a change of heart - nothing will ever do that trick; however the audience may gain a different point of view on the topic at hand when halftruth and prejudiced thinking have to stand up to some sound arguments. Oh and maybe, possibly maybe, they recognize the true colors of the offender, too. What more could one ask for?
Certain people will never stop hating - important is that there is no one who listens.

Censorship isnt the answer here. Its likely that the offender only speaks out loud what many others think quietly. However free, open speech and a good argument based on hard facts could at least make some reconsider. There is no point in letting people dwell on assumptions which are never properly challengened by preventing discussion.

This is just to remind all participants in this thread of the AoDA rules which apply to discussions in this forum. While no one here can moderate what you say or do in real life, we try to make an effort about it here.

If you read the AoDA rules (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/171.html), you will see that crude generalizations (e.g. calling some a Nazi) is one of the biggest no-no's you can make. Not only is such a comparison going to be majorly flawed, it will also be highly offensive. If the other party can resort to discussing a certain topic without resorting to insults, the least you can do is extend them the same courtesy, even if you don't agree with them. Remember - the opinion of each and every one of you here is worth the same. If yours is accompanied by an insult, it's not worth any more - if anything, it's less credible.

The other thing I've noticed in this thread is a lot of name-calling. Pretty much everything the same as above applies in this case. Try to maintain a civil level of debate.

In short, go read the AoDA rules, and take to heart what I've written there. It applies 100% to this discussion.

Well, on one hand you cite freedom of speach allows you to say inflamatory and critical things. Fine. On the other, you are trying to prevent freedom of speach to censor and ban what you are critical of.Depends if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech or if you believe in limits based on certain criteria.

If you dont want to have your views censored, like these anti-homosexuals, then you have to oppose censorship of those with pro-homosexual attitudes.The criteria I mentioned above can be such, that homosexuality will qualify as a reason for limiting the scope of freedom of speech. I'm not saying if it's good or bad, but there is such a possibility. This way Gnarfflinger can maintain some consistency.

Personally, I'm in in favour of a wide scope of freedom of speech and it being possibly the most equal for the most options or people. However, I don't see one or another group propagating the gay lifestyle as an equal of an organised religion, let alone one with millions of followers and centuries of spiritual tradition. Even in terms of merit, religions have done a lot for the civilisation, the society, and even the common man. Those movements propagating the gay lifestyle, not much so.

Anyway, putting people into prison for words is too much for me. Fines aren't good, either. Damages, maybe. Especially if the damages were to go to charity and not the plaintiff, by default.

What I believe is that if someone (in general; not anyone specific) can sue me for calling him a fag or a queer (not like I would address a homosexual person as that), I should be able to sue him for calling me a homophobe. Or a Catholic Trollock. Or some such. If he is allowed to speak against Catholic churchmen, I should be able to target (pro-)gay organisation leaders personally. If they call Catholic priests "black vermin" witout any punishment, why shouldn't I be able to call them... oh well, it's not like I feel an urge to call them something, but I should be allowed to. I should be allowed to call their activists something equally mean to "black vermin". I just don't feel like getting rude and coming up with examples.

A couple of ideas from me:

Physical assault on someone because of his homosexual orientation: preferably prison, fine in lesser cases; longer term or bigger fine than ordinary assault.
Physical assault on someone because of his opposition to homosexual orientation: exact same as above.

Verbal assault: fines for name calling, fines or even prison for libel or slander, prison for forging evidence if persons or organisations are offended

Also, I believe court notes should come with all material found to contain libel or slander against persons or organisations identified by name. This shouldn't extend to include merely controversial opinions, esperially if there's some kind of a lacking evidence.

Chev, are you serious?Dead-serious. And don't call me Shirley.

[ December 14, 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Shirley you must be kidding...

Lifestyle "X" should be banned from all mention in publications because it doesn't fit in with the scripture of religion "Y" who can speak out about it as much as they please...

Does that not fit the very basic foundation of oppresion?


incidently I don't think I've actually put my personal opinion down in this thread (like it matters, ha!), but I think everyone should be able to spew as much hatred and negativity as they wish, short of attempting to organize or incite violence...

AND minorities (be it a lifestyle, sexual orientation, race, OR EVEN a religion) should be able to speak up about getting the same equal treatment that everyone else enjoys.

Hell, it should all be written down and taught, let the school kids figure it out for themselves.

Lifestyle "X" should be banned from all mention in publications because it doesn't fit in with the scripture of religion "Y" who can speak out about it as much as they please...

Does that not fit the very basic foundation of oppresion?Possibly (although that's a far stretch of what he originally said), but it doesn't make any internal contradiction in Gnarfflinger's views, contrary to what has been suggested. See my point? I'm not arguing in favour or against that. I'm just saying that no, there's no inconsistency to point out in Gnarfflinger's views. Agree with them or not, they are consistent. Therefore, his points in this thread can't be invalidated as inconsistent with views recently expressed elsewhere.

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? - Get 'em up against the wall.
And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me - Get him up against the wall.
And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a coon! Who let all this riffraff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots! - If I had my way, I'd have all of ya shot.

Edit - Oops! Wanted to post this in the "What Song" thread. :good:

Ahh these topics really take on a life of their own, no?Egad, we've created a monster! It was supposed to be a thing of beauty... (sob)

@ BTA, Bion, Arabwel: Thanks for trying to keep this thread focused. I'll think long and hard before I post something like this again.

Takara, I am in favour of leaving the topic of homosexuality out of education. There are places outside of education where the topic rears it's ugly head. In those places, those that are opposed to the practice should be free to speak their minds without fear of assault, arrest or lawsuit.

The "ban" I supported was where the institutions in question were publicly funded with mandates other than the discussion of Homosexuality. The state od Alabama wanted to remove homosexuality from it's curriculum. They have the right (obligation?) to teache the basics of reading comprehension, mathematics and the sciences (natural and social). A divisive topic like homosexuality threatened to outrage the parents of some of these children, and take time away from the execution of that mandate.

Meanwhile, public broadcasting has the mandate to grant the public a voice. There are some who will use this to promote homosexuality, and some who will oppose it. I believe that is is inappropriate, and an insult to freedom of speech, to allow one group to speak it's piece while proscribing the opposition to that group. That is why I am supporting the guy on the radio that's in hot water because of his comments.

Further, in Church, the mandate is to preach the doctorine of the religeon in question. It is a blatant slap in the face to freedom of religion to arrest, charge and try a minister for preaching a part of his religeous doctorine that offends one group. Canada has laws on the books that make parts of the Bible "illegal", and it may be only a matter of time before there is a preacher brought before the court under that law. Further, with the proposed legislation to legalize gay marriage, it may only be a matter of time before the gay community tries to force a clergyman to perform a same sex marriage against their faith. This is the cause for such fear.

We had a case in the UK you might disagree with then. There was an Islamic cleric called Abu-Hamza. As part of his studies of his religeon, he had formed quite inflammatory oppinions about western cultures and felt the way Bin Laden did.

Duing his sermons he'd call the Americans devils, and all that stuff, and do his very best to paint them as oppressors and vile rabid dogs and stuff.

As a result, he was arrested and deportation procedures were started. Since he was just preaching the doctrines of his faith... that was oppressive... right?

They have the right (obligation?) to teache the basics of reading comprehension, mathematics and the sciences (natural and social). Yes, in grades 1-6, "in theory." Beyond that readers are expected to draw conclusions and be able to evaluate an assortment of texts in a meaningful way. This is usually reflected by writing about literature in a critical and rhetorical manner - an essay. This is the area that most American public schools fail to teach.

Many students don't even learn how to interact with major texts in this manner until the college level. In other words, the colleges are having to do the work that should have been done by the public school systems. But now I'm really on another topic...

Yes Takara, that is out of line. Likewise if a preacher was claiming that all homosexuals should be killed or beaten, that would be criminal. But to preache that it is a sin should not. To try to persuede people not to engage in homosexual relations should not be illegal.

The catch phrase that's been used is that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. We shouldn't be forced to sustain or condone what they do, but we shouldn't preach hatred ot those who sin either...

I don't think this guy was actually preaching hatred, only opposing a certain point of view. Why should he go to jail or be sued because someone's nose is out of joint?

Following what Gnarfflinger said, I believe curricula should not contain anything close to "homosexuality is normal" or "homosexuality is nothing wrong". "Homosexuals are humans like you are" is perfectly OK, as it teaches to abstain from unnecessary violence.

@Takara: The problem with that cleric is that nowhere does the Quoran say that the West is evil or that Christianity is evil. Obviously, the US aren't covered, either. I remember Muhammad forbidding his followers from attacking infidels unless infidels strike first. He did praise holy war, but obviously, taking into consideration what he said about attacking infidels, this would mean a provoked a holy war where one needs to defend his Islamic beliefs. That's not quite true when one starts preaching that all Franks had better be put to death. Islam is, in fact, a very peaceful religion.

I don't think this guy was actually preaching hatred, only opposing a certain point of view. Why should he go to jail or be sued because someone's nose is out of joint? Now that I agree wholeheartedly with. This chap was a (supposed) comedian so no-one is likely to take the remarks seriously and go out and beat up some homosexuals.

The problem lies where there are people that will take preaching of something as wrong as an excuse to go and beat someone up about it. This is not just a religious issue, but realistically, of those groups/bodies that are actually taken seriously by people (e.g. not the National Front), religions are the most likely to proclaim something that could be interpreted as a (god-given) right to hurt someone/something else.
An example of this is the church leader who called the modern-day nativity scene (with David & Victoria Beckham) at Madame Tussauds "disrespectful". Low and behold someone then comes and tries and smashes it up. Not really something that would be done on the spur of the moment.
At least this is something that the Anglican church recognise.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for church traditionalists opposed to homosexuality to stop using inflammatory words about gay people.
Dr Rowan Williams, in a letter to the world's Anglican churches, said harsh language can lead to murder.

Some facts you probably didn't know:
(from Quran):
"Nobody may be forced to become Muslim. One becomes Muslim only by his own consent."
(from Quran):
"The ideal Muslim Woman should always behave like Mary, the Mother of Christ did - chaste, modest, quiet."
Yes, that is from Quran. Muhammad acknowledged Christianity. He acknowledged and embraced what was said in Christianity and in Judaism, and then created his own philosophical system. Some theologists explain that his original intention was to introduce and spread Christianity without attacking Arab mythology and literature. Thus djinnism, animism and other forms of ancestral beliefs persisted. That, at least, is something that most Muslims converted to Christianity believe in - that Islam is naturally leading to Christianity.
And a word about Jihad: Muhammad said that, first and foremost, it's crucial to fight evil within oneself before trying to preach to others. It's exactly the same as Christ saying "why do you say 'let me remove the splinter in your eye,' but you don't see the beam in your eye?"
Dr Rowan Williams, in a letter to the world's Anglican churches, said harsh language can lead to murder.You "Christian dark age swine" is probably mild language, correct? Heck, it's not Christians who are murdered, but in fact Christians are the only murderers in this world, right? And it's Christians who want to ban everything, not liberals, don't they? Christians are the oppressors, and everyone else is oppressed, and only some brave people are trying to fight this oppression.
Of course, no problem, blame Christianity and Christians for everything.

And it's Christians who want to ban everything, not liberals, don't they?Are you suggesting that there are no liberal Christians?

Are you suggesting that there are no liberal Christians?I'm assuming it is not possible to disregard the Bible (as liberals tend to do) and call oneself a Christian. Oh, and to be clear: I'm not speaking about liberal approach to economy, but social aspects. You can be a conservative and still a supporter of liberal (not just free) market. This would, I guess, count you among liberals...

Christians are the oppressors, and everyone else is oppressed, and only some brave people are trying to fight this oppression.
Of course, no problem, blame Christianity and Christians for everything.I like how in one thread you argue that Christianity is a majority and the majority rules, so whatever they think should be concretely placed into law, and in the next... the Christians are blamed for everything, the underdogs fighting to be heard!

Its so cool to be the majority and the minority... you have - like - majority power and street cred at the same time! Awsome!

As for me (sorry it was my bad taking us way off topic with the liberal/christian question), I don't know if I'm really a liberal or not, but I usually go against the grain of conveniently hating groups of people who do things differently than myself.

Ok, back on topic... if I could remember what it was.

but I usually go against the grain of conveniently hating groups of people who do things differently than myselfObjection there. Opposition to homosexual acts does not equal hatred towards homosexuals. Accusing the opposition of irrational hatred is a convenient way of turning a rational debate upside down.

Who did I accuse of irrational hatred?

Edit: I didn't even mention homosexuality... what gives?

I like how in one thread you argue that Christianity is a majority and the majority rules, so whatever they think should be concretely placed into law, and in the next... the Christians are blamed for everything, the underdogs fighting to be heard!Are you by chance talking about the topic in which UN overstepped its authority by accusing Poland of certain issues? Let me flash something to you: that topic concerned Poland. In Poland, Catholics are the majority. In the World (including, maybe especially including, the Internet), Catholics are a minority which tends to be ignored and outright attacked only because of their views. I would bet and say Christian web pages are mocked much more often than any other kind.

Its so cool to be the majority and the minority... you have - like - majority power and street cred at the same time! Awsome!You have misquoted me.

As for me (sorry it was my bad taking us way off topic with the liberal/christian question), I don't know if I'm really a liberal or not, but I usually go against the grain of conveniently hating groups of people who do things differently than myself.

Ok, back on topic... if I could remember what it was.Emphasis mine. Here is the reply to that particular paragraph:
That was an insult and I am asking you to refute it.
Please, quote me as to where I said I hated any group of people based on any criteria.

Wow, its all you, you, you isn't it?

I'd like to tell ya, I wasnt' talking about *you* at all.

I was only speaking about myself, in response to you lumping me in with the dreaded, "liberals." I was explaining my incredibly complex political stance, for all to see, which I will not take back. If it makes me a, "liberal" then fine.

Try to relax a little, have some fun.

Edited in response to the post below (I won't make a new one... in regard to that anyway)

Stop. Take a breath. Read what I said above again. I will not be dragged into a flame war with you. It was all about me, I don't know anything about you. If you wish to continue this, pm me.

[ December 15, 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

You were replying to my post about liberals and you are insinuating that by the fact that you are the liberal, and by definition (as stated by myself), I am the dichotomy of liberal, by saying that you, as a liberal "usually go against the grain of conveniently hating groups of people who do things differently than myself" are presuming that I do not.

As for:
Try to relax a little, have some fun.I will not relax. It would mean I have stepped back. Oh, as for "having fun":
Forum rules state that:
2. This forum is for posts with more serious subject matter. Politics, religion, history, philosophy and current events around the world would be good examples of what to post about.(emphasis mine)
It's either serious or having fun. If you are having fun when someone is trying to be serious, you are mocking them, and doing that on purpose.
4. This is a forum for the discussion of topics that are of great importance to many people, so you should expect passionate discussions.

I do so love it when the noobs quote forum rules to the guys who've been around since said rules were written. :shake:

And ArtE's right - this is the Alley, but for hell's sake...it's an internet forum for a bunch of gamers discussing politics. Don't get so defensive.

Sorry NonSequitur, but apparently this thread is unsalvageable.