1 of 8
1
Can anyone else tell how it is ok to post something so hateful?
Posted: 03 November 2014 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12

In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.

Here is his disgusting post:

Yes Lois. Fully genetic explanations for homosexuality should be taken as suspect, in the first place, because an integral part of the “equality” movement is the cultural normalization of homosexuality so there is clearly an agenda. And also, such explanations fail in their purpose for multiple reasons.

*There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole. For example, rape or other violent sorts of activities. It is normal, according to the usual line of reasoning about homosexuality being normal simply because there are people and animals who do it, that people commit acts of pedophilia. That doesn’t mean that we ought condone those condone such behaviors.

*It is no less difficult to unjustly discriminate against or abuse individuals if they are different because of their nature then it is to do so because of experience, or nurture. History shows us countless examples of abuse inflicted upon persons because of their biological difference, or perceived difference.

Moreover, from a scientific perspective there is no meaningfully such absolute thing as nature vs. nurture. There is the interaction of the two.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2014 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4251
Joined  2014-06-20
Handydan - 03 November 2014 06:04 PM

In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.

Yes, that’s what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position.

Lois


Here is his disgusting post:

Yes Lois. Fully genetic explanations for homosexuality should be taken as suspect, in the first place, because an integral part of the “equality” movement is the cultural normalization of homosexuality so there is clearly an agenda. And also, such explanations fail in their purpose for multiple reasons.

*There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole. For example, rape or other violent sorts of activities. It is normal, according to the usual line of reasoning about homosexuality being normal simply because there are people and animals who do it, that people commit acts of pedophilia. That doesn’t mean that we ought condone those condone such behaviors.

*It is no less difficult to unjustly discriminate against or abuse individuals if they are different because of their nature then it is to do so because of experience, or nurture. History shows us countless examples of abuse inflicted upon persons because of their biological difference, or perceived difference.

Moreover, from a scientific perspective there is no meaningfully such absolute thing as nature vs. nurture. There is the interaction of the two.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 03 November 2014 06:04 PM

In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.

LoisL - 03 November 2014 08:53 PM

Yes, that’s what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position.

I stated explicitly that was not my position. I also clarified my actual position upon false accusation, and remained composed despite considerable verbal abuse.

To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality. I consider that for something to be natural is not a sensible argument for condoning it.

Handydan is welcome to find my views disagreeable. But he is not welcome to say what I think, feel or believe.

[ Edited: 04 November 2014 11:21 AM by Other Quadrant ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21

Not sure what the topic is here. We’ll see if Mr. Moderator has a problem with it.

I certainly have a problem with OQ. Sorry bud, your clarification didn’t pass. If you thought the “natural” argument wasn’t valid, why did you bring it up? As is, you made a strawman argument. You started with “There are many other sorts of natural, biologically based behaviors that can be easily illustrated as not being in the interest of others or society as a whole.” But that’s not how you apply the “natural” argument. True, natural does not equal good. True also, if we observe something in nature, then we are informed that it occurs naturally. That is, gay people are born that way. There is a lot more to explaining why that’s true, but let’s move on.

You go on, at length, discussing behaviors antithetical to civil society. The problem is, two people loving each other, living together and possibly raising children is behavior that helps society. That’s why we have marriage. It’s a good thing. The current contract of marriage helps reduce the problems of one partner having more power than the other, it makes the death of one easier to handle, and many other advantages. Those are reasons for a partnership of two people, and you have presented no reasons against that partnership being between two people of the same sex.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15726
Joined  2006-02-14
Lausten - 04 November 2014 11:32 AM

Not sure what the topic is here. We’ll see if Mr. Moderator has a problem with it.

Responded HERE.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 04 November 2014 11:19 AM
Handydan - 03 November 2014 06:04 PM

In the thread homosexuality, humanism, Other Quadrant has posted what amounts to a claim that gay people being given equal status in our society is the equivalent of giving equal status to rapists and pedophiles.

LoisL - 03 November 2014 08:53 PM

Yes, that’s what he seems to be saying. Yet there are more rapists and pedophiles amomg heterosexuals, so maybe he should rethink his position.

I stated explicitly that was not my position. I also clarified my actual position upon false accusation, and remained composed despite considerable verbal abuse.

To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality. I consider that for something to be natural is not a sensible argument for condoning it.

Handydan is welcome to find my views disagreeable. But he is not welcome to say what I think, feel or believe.

Eh? You haven’t made a single logical, rational, or supportable argument to support your stance against marriage equality. You have not demonstrated any way in which homosexuality is harmful to anyone or our society at large. You can’t really even articulate a logical argument because in the end you don’t really know why you dislike homosexuals, you just do.

All of the reasons you have given have been employed in the courts to suppress marriage equality and have roundly failed. It must suck to be on the loosing end of a need you have to suppress others that you can’t effectivly articulate, even to yourself.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 04 November 2014 02:36 PM

To clarify a second time, I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to homosexuality.

This was bad writing on my part. What I was trying to say is that I do not consider homosexuality to be equivalent in any way to rape or pedophilia.

Handydan - 04 November 2014 02:36 PM

You have not demonstrated any way in which homosexuality is harmful to anyone or our society at large.

I have not been trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is harmful to anyone or to society at large. I have been demonstrating that society does not have a vested interest in bestowing special privileges to homosexual couples on the basis that they declare their exclusive love to one another. I have also said that I do believe that society does have a vested interest in bestowing special privileges upon biological parents for the the sake of supporting their successes in raising their children.

Perhaps an argument can be made about both heterosexual and homosexual monogamy being beneficial society in some way other then being in the interests of children, and that being good reason for society to support gay marriage. I haven’t worked that much out yet.

I also think that I am open to changing my views on the topic. But I am looking for reasons.

Handydan - 04 November 2014 02:36 PM

you don’t really know why you dislike homosexuals, you just do.

I don’t particularly dislike homosexuals at all.

Handydan - 04 November 2014 02:36 PM

It must suck to be on the loosing end of a need you have to suppress others that you can’t effectivly articulate, even to yourself.

I don’t lose much sleep over it. Pretty much all of the candidates that I voted for today support gay marriage. I honestly don’t care enough about the topic to vote for candidates based on their position on gay marriage. And as I said before, I even think that there are some good arguments in support of legalized gay marriage. In particular, where it involves assisting adoptive homosexual parents in their efforts at raising children.

Dan, I’m really sorry but you really don’t understand my views on the subject at all. You assume a great deal about them that is way off. I try to clarify but you are very emotional and don’t seem to want to give me the chance. You keep trying to tell me what I believe and put me in the same bucket as other people that I do not think like.

Whatever bad experiences you may have had with bigots, I do care about your feelings. I will stop talking about the topic if it makes you feel better. If you want to discuss it further, though, let’s do so in the “homosexuality” topic instead of here, in the interest of maintaining focus.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21

That’s better OQ, but still could use some improvement. Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.

Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring. It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history. That part of your argument is very weak.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3177
Joined  2011-04-24
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

 Signature 

“I am back from Syria. I believe I have enlightened ISIS to the error of their ways. They are all vegan now.” - Godfrey Elfwick

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

What?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3177
Joined  2011-04-24
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:25 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

The same level of social relevance.

 Signature 

“I am back from Syria. I believe I have enlightened ISIS to the error of their ways. They are all vegan now.” - Godfrey Elfwick

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 09:48 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:25 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

The same level of social relevance.

And the words “social relevance” means what according to you exactly?

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3177
Joined  2011-04-24
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:59 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 09:48 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:25 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

The same level of social relevance.

And the words “social relevance” means what according to you exactly?

Relevant to society.

1) Gays only make up a small portion of society.
2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large.

 Signature 

“I am back from Syria. I believe I have enlightened ISIS to the error of their ways. They are all vegan now.” - Godfrey Elfwick

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2014 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 10:39 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:59 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 09:48 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 09:25 PM
mid atlantic - 04 November 2014 08:13 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

But society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It’s a win win.

This is wrong, though.

Gay relationships can’t be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners.

Can’t be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.

The same level of social relevance.

And the words “social relevance” means what according to you exactly?

Relevant to society.

1) Gays only make up a small portion of society.
2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large.

Somehow I don’t see gays and straight people as being in some sort of contest or competition. Does your social hierarchy extend to other minorities and their respective relevance? Whom else do you consider less relevant?

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 8
1