Previous  1 ... 22  23  24  25  26  Next

Why would I care in the least why you think homosexuality is immoral? I don't care why the KKK think the way they do about blacks.




The difference is your statement is about what other people are doing not what you are doing. Big difference. Did it occur to you that your own morality is lacking when you take such an immoral stance over homosexuality?



Math is absolute logic. Morals are not. Morals are subjective and the change over time. The fact you think that with morals there is only one answer says quite a bit right there.



Plenty of times. When is the last time you looked in the mirror and realized just how bigoted your posts truly are especially to homosexuals of whom you think are immoral?

   

...and I have a pair of velcro gloves. Let's party.



Again, I've taken a Devil's Advocate position here. I never said I wouldn't vote for a homosexual on the grounds of "normalcy", but on the grounds that it demonstrates, to me, poor judgement. I would likely think twice before voting for an alcoholic or someone who is morbidly obese on the same grounds: their behaviour demonstrates, to me, poor judgement.

I say "Be gay!" Get out the Mazola, cream cheese and Wham! records and have at it. Life is short. Live it as you want. Make yourself happy in your time on Earth. But that doesn't mean I trust their judgement enough to want gays to represent me in parliament.

   

So, in your opinion, if a persons sexual proclivities, alcohol 'behaviour', or physical fitness, does not measure up to your standards, they couldn't possibly 'have the smarts, and abilities, to ever entertain the possibility of holding public office. UNFUCKINGBELIEVEABLE!

   

Again, its the subjectiveness of normalcy. How is it poor judgement to acknowledge ones own sexuality and nature? How would it affect ones ability to govern?



Would you say the same thing about blacks because they might pursue a "black oriented agenda"?

   

I'm not saying that at all. Those "proclivities" may have zero effect on their ability to govern. And if the majority elects them, so be it. I'm only saying a candidate's behaviour is something I consider when voting. I'm a recreational marijuana user and not terribly intelligent to begin with. Based on my own proclivities, I wouldn't vote for me.

   

It may not affect ability to govern. Fat people and pot-heads and alcoholics and thieves may also be perfectly able to govern. But I may still consider those behavioural choices when I cast a vote.



The colour of one's skin is not a behaviour.

   

The problem here is why you think homosexuality is automatically equatable as proof of a negative choice.



Neither is homosexuality any more then heterosexuality is. They might be a promiscuous hetero or a monogamous homo. Those would be behaviours.

   

Now there' an understatement if ever there was one!

   

Heterosexuals face regulations and and social disapproval for plenty of sexual things. You can't sleep with underage people, touching people in ways they don't want is assault, you can't marry cousins, gender-segregated bathrooms, sex in public is indecent, divorce is considered by many a failure on someone's part, and cheating on a spouse is emotional betrayal. So why is, for example, "you can't marry the same gender" an unacceptable divergence from this pattern of expecting sexual restraint? What makes it so different?

The biggest difference I see is that homosexuals object more than heterosexuals. In the rest of them, the opinions are spread similarly in both groups.

   

Don't be stupid. Sleeping with underage people and touching people in an unwanted fashion constitute either an unwilling partner and one unable to give consent. Big difference between consenting adults.

In actually it is legal to marry your cousin in Canada and about half of the US states so your point is invalid. Gender segregated bathrooms is a result of societies sensibilities and for centuries communal baths were the norm. Boys in high school usually shower communally but women get separate showers. So what?

If the point you are trying to make is that we make some laws about sexual conduct so why can't we make others? Do you even think before you post this stuff?

Why is adultery and divorce legal? It follows the same logic we should make them illegal also. We don't because it's a personal choice. Heterosexuals only face restrictions and regulations when it is affecting an unwilling person not when they are making a consensual choice. Disapproval? Not even close to being grounds for illegality or even immorality for that matter.

As I said before, sex acts like oral sex and anal sex even between consenting hetero adults were once illegal along with homosexuality. I suppose you'll be OK with reinstating that policy since "society" deems them with disapproval.

If you can't see the difference between laws designed to protect people from other people compared with those pushing a bigoted agenda then you might as well support segregation laws since they were also designed to protect people and at one time society "disapproved" of being black.

Remember what I said about the mirror?

   

I'm not asking you to care about my opinion on homosexuality. I'm asking you to care about the accuracy of your characterization of me, which remains less than 100% correct. Your interpretation of my question would be the most obvious, proximate example of mistakes you've made.

I have often repeated that I do make a distinction between what reasoning I live by and what reasoning I argue others should live by. The latter has a much higher standard of evidence and a public political process behind it, and rightly so. When I wanted to make that distinction you ignored it; now that you think it can be used against me, you bring it up. How is that honest?

It's a metaphor. Hitler can argue that whites are superior, Louis Farrakhan can argue that blacks are superior, but that doesn't change the fact that people deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color.

The fact you think with morals answers to a question can conflict and both still be right says quite a bit, too.

Impossible. You can only have one "last time" of anything.

That sentence makes no sense. Either "bigoted" is a trait I hold, or it is a trait in the eye of the beholder. Only in the latter can I be more bigoted if viewed by some specific group of others (homosexuals, in your example). Only in the former can I be "truly" bigoted. I cannot be "truly" something especially in the eyes of some specific beholder. You're confusing reality and perception.

I don't think I've been hurtful or offensive to homosexuals, but if I have I apologize. I mean no harm by my views or their expression. Convince me I'm wrong and the views will go away. Anyone who asks me personally can have my silence on these issues in their presence for civility's sake. But I will not lie, and somewhere, sometime, I will speak my mind. And in all places at all times I will defend your right to speak yours.

The right to speak is not the right to get one's way. That goes equally for me and you and everyone else. Equality under the law.

Yes, exactly that! There has to be some rule (or set of rules) that defines what should and what should not be illegal, some pattern that makes the laws make some kind of sense. If some jurisdictions prevent cousins from marrying, why can't some jurisdictions prevent homosexuals from marrying? Is there some reason why you don't much care about the one and find the very idea of the other repulsive and offensive? Your feeling itself is not a reason, at least not for me; I don't feel your same feelings about the same things.

I have more rules than that. Actually, I find societal approval to be a pretty lousy judge of morality. Maybe a C- (about 70% accuracy).

Not true. Cousins marrying doesn't override anyone's consent. Nor does consensual underage sex (like, say, between two 13-year-olds). Segregated bathrooms can be a problem for intersex and transexual people, but their needs are overruled by law. We make laws to protect the environment (which is not a person), upholding the rights of corporations (which are not people), regulating trade, commerce, immigration, customs, manufacturing, food, medicine, prisons, traffic laws, taxes, etc, etc, ignoring and thwarting people's consent all along the way. Out of all these laws it is only in issues of sex do you trot out your 'only protect consent' standard for what is and is not a just law. Why is that?

   

This is why it is so hard to discuss gay-related anything. The conversation always spirals into an existential debate about sexual morality. I dub this J.J.'s Law.

The entire premise of my original argument was based on a proposition no deeper than "homosexuality is controversial." Even in super-tolerant Europe, I believe this is still true enough to make examining the original question, about why homosexual politicians get elected in some places more than others, worthwhile.

   

Cut me a LITTLE slack...I already declared that I was acting as a Devil's Advocate.

   

I have no control over your posting. I was only giving advise.

Okay, but the topic discussed here is much narrower. Your post clearly struck several people as off topic.

I felt compelled to say something because of the exchange between you and JJ. JJs initial response to you was perhaps a bit overly negative. It would probably have been better to ignore you. But do you actually want to be ignored?

Your post is irrelevant for the following reason. The topic of the discussion was, why some countries (such as Iceland) seem to elect more gay politicians than some other countries (such as US), i.e. what's different in these countries (JJ claims institutional differences are important besides the acceptance of gays). Your post makes no reference to differences between countries or the situation in any country at all! Surely you are not claiming that, say, Icelandic gay politicians "can do the job regardless of their sexuality" better than, say, American gay politicians.

   

Dont forget Harper, he hasnt been any different. In fact, he is known to be one of the more controlling PMs.

The truth is, the US Civil Rights movement, Gay marriage in Canada, womens rights, etc wouldn't have happened if governments had waited for popular sentiment to be behind it. In fact, neither Canada nor the Canadian Constitution would have without an elitist system. In the case of the latter, most of the provinces, especially so-called "individualist" Alberta only abandoned their opposition to the Constitution on the condition that it not be put to a popular vote. Only Quebec held out and wanted a nation-wide referndum on the subject (and was still made out to be the bad guy!)For all the flaws inherrent in 'elitist' governance systems, they do sometimes get good things done when us common rabble cant agree on what colour the sky is and cant be bothered to look out the window in the first place.

   

Previous  1 ... 22  23  24  25  26  Next