Political Posturing

[Archaea]

Let's say a hypothetical city, say, Sodom or Gomorrah, had a law which allowed men of the city to have sex with the daughters of any family, even if the daughters did not desire it.

If a plebiscite were let, where the populace were voting on whether to make such practice illegal, according to a certain poster, the religious authorities should not promote such plebiscite, but should remain neutral, because such plebiscite would "compel" a certain moral perspective. Somebody in Sodom might actually let out another plebiscite discouraging marriage is the logic, if the religious authorities supported such positive measure.

Furthermore, let's say licenses were given only religious authorities who were married. Now, no religious authority should campaign to maintain such law for any reason, and only persons wishing to change it should be allowed to campaign.

Rubbish. Such thinking would eviscerate the moral authority of the leaders. You can take no weapons out of the hands of religion, because compulsion is only forcing somebody to do something by a gun or physical force.

Denial of opportunity to fail is not the same thing as denial of privileges as consequences of certain actions. There is no parallel to the Plan of Salvation to asking for legislation based on morality concepts.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's say a hypothetical city, say, Sodom or Gomorrah, had a law which allowed men of the city to have sex with the daughters of any family, even if the daughters did not desire it.

If a plebiscite were let, where the populace were voting on whether to make such practice illegal, according to a certain poster, the religious authorities should not promote such plebiscite, but should remain neutral, because such plebiscite would "compel" a certain moral perspective. Somebody in Sodom might actually let out another plebiscite discouraging marriage is the logic, if the religious authorities supported such positive measure.

Furthermore, let's say licenses were given only religious authorities who were married. Now, no religious authority should campaign to maintain such law for any reason, and only persons wishing to change it should be allowed to campaign.

Rubbish. Such thinking would eviscerate the moral authority of the leaders. You can take no weapons out of the hands of religion, because compulsion is only forcing somebody to do something by a gun or physical force.

Denial of opportunity to fail is not the same thing as denial of privileges as consequences of certain actions. There is no parallel to the Plan of Salvation to asking for legislation based on morality concepts.

I truly do not understand how you can create such poor analogies and act as if they are right on point. Are you really comparing homosexual marriage (where two consenting adults decide they love each other and want to solidify that committment in the bonds of marriage) to a law saying all men of a city can have sex with whatever daughters they want to???????? One practice involves mutual consent, the other does not. Do you honestly not see a distinction? I think your homophobia is clouding your ability to reason.

[il Padrino Ute]

Why does the left love to play the homophobia card? And how can you say that Archaea is homophobic just because he states his belief that homosexuality is a sin?

Are you willing to say that homosexuals who don't approve of everything that a straight person does is heterophobic? You'd have to in order to be consistent, wouldn't you?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Why does the left love to play the homophobia card? And how can you say that Archaea is homophobic just because he states his belief that homosexuality is a sin?

Are you willing to say that homosexuals who don't approve of everything that a straight person does is heterophobic? You'd have to in order to be consistent, wouldn't you?

If Archaea's statements were limited to saying that homosexuality was a sin, then you could be right. His statements go far beyond that, though, and most certainly indicate a high degree of homophobia.

As to your heterosexual analogy, it doesn't work. We aren't talking about "approving of everything that a [homosexual] person does. That statement suggests that I must "approve" of homosexuality or I must be a homophobe- a false dichotomy. It also suggests that I have to approve not only of the homosexual acts, but of every other thing homosexuals do.

Approval is not required. Tolerance is. If you simply cannot tolerate homosexuals in any way, shape, or form, then yes, you are homophobic. Tolerance isn't even equated with accepting their right to marry. It is equated with treating them as human beings in a decent manner rather than making snide, rude comments about them every chance you get (as I think Archaea does).

By the way, why is it that the right compares everything in life to a card game? I have never seen your game, but it sounds like the race card and homosexual card are kind of like the queen of spades in hearts?
Or maybe the card game is hearts and the race card and homosexual card are the same card- the black queen?

[il Padrino Ute]

Fair enough. I'll admit that my argumentative skills are not on par with those of a lawyer, so I'll quit now.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If Archaea's statements were limited to saying that homosexuality was a sin, then you could be right. His statements go far beyond that, though, and most certainly indicate a high degree of homophobia.

As to your heterosexual analogy, it doesn't work. We aren't talking about "approving of everything that a [homosexual] person does. That statement suggests that I must "approve" of homosexuality or I must be a homophobe- a false dichotomy. It also suggests that I have to approve not only of the homosexual acts, but of every other thing homosexuals do.

Approval is not required. Tolerance is. If you simply cannot tolerate homosexuals in any way, shape, or form, then yes, you are homophobic. Tolerance isn't even equated with accepting their right to marry. It is equated with treating them as human beings in a decent manner rather than making snide, rude comments about them every chance you get (as I think Archaea does).

By the way, why is it that the right compares everything in life to a card game? I have never seen your game, but it sounds like the race card and homosexual card are kind of like the queen of spades in hearts?
Or maybe the card game is hearts and the race card and homosexual card are the same card- the black queen?

The PC police strike again.

According to their omniscience, anybody who doesn't buy into their agenda, the gay male one, or who finds gay sex, distasteful, is homophobic. IOW, if you ain't humping a guy, you're a homophobe.

Well, other than here, which is mostly fun, most of us tolerate gays. I actually have some gay women friends, no gay males, except some designers who hang out with the wife. When the marriage proposal came through Nevada I even refused to put a sign in my yard. Other than to argue with gay blades like Hoya, I don't see any reason to raise a fuss about it.

Intellectually, I don't tolerate their bullshit. That's all. Their arguments are pure refuse. without solid foundation or should be recognized as such.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The PC police strike again.

According to their omniscience, anybody who doesn't buy into their agenda, the gay male one, or who finds gay sex, distasteful, is homophobic. IOW, if you ain't humping a guy, you're a homophobe.

Well, other than here, which is mostly fun, most of us tolerate gays. I actually have some gay women friends, no gay males, except some designers who hang out with the wife. When the marriage proposal came through Nevada I even refused to put a sign in my yard. Other than to argue with gay blades like Hoya, I don't see any reason to raise a fuss about it.

Intellectually, I don't tolerate their bullshit. That's all. Their arguments are pure refuse. without solid foundation or should be recognized as such.

Just a tip: when you go to call someone a "gay blade" (and what is that anyways?) try to refrain from then typing in a fruity color!

:P

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's say a hypothetical city, say, Sodom or Gomorrah, had a law which allowed men of the city to have sex with the daughters of any family, even if the daughters did not desire it.

If a plebiscite were let, where the populace were voting on whether to make such practice illegal, according to a certain poster, the religious authorities should not promote such plebiscite, but should remain neutral, because such plebiscite would "compel" a certain moral perspective. Somebody in Sodom might actually let out another plebiscite discouraging marriage is the logic, if the religious authorities supported such positive measure.

Furthermore, let's say licenses were given only religious authorities who were married. Now, no religious authority should campaign to maintain such law for any reason, and only persons wishing to change it should be allowed to campaign.

Rubbish. Such thinking would eviscerate the moral authority of the leaders. You can take no weapons out of the hands of religion, because compulsion is only forcing somebody to do something by a gun or physical force.

Denial of opportunity to fail is not the same thing as denial of privileges as consequences of certain actions. There is no parallel to the Plan of Salvation to asking for legislation based on morality concepts.

Was that Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese or Chinese? Because it certainly wasn't English. And though my own ability to read in any of these languages pales in comparison to your own ability, it all looked like masturbation to me. Do you prefer your bananas with or without the peels?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Robin

Was that Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese or Chinese? Because it certainly wasn't English. And though my own ability to read in any of these languages pales in comparison to your own ability, it all looked like masturbation to me. Do you prefer your bananas with or without the peels?

Perhaps you can take him to "burning man" and teach him how to circle jerk with all your buddies...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Perhaps you can take him to "burning man" and teach him how to circle jerk with all your buddies...

I have never heard that phrase before, and I am quite certain I never want to hear it again.