How is the school telling people to think about anybody else? They are merely stating that law-abiding citizens are all equal and that we should treat people with respect. From your words, that would appear to be something you agree with.
Yeah, but then they go as far as to say 'do not use mom and dad' as words in school and introduce kids to the idea of gays having kids and having normal families, like somehow it is suddenly normal for two men or women to be raising a family together.
Just
look at this.
So why do you think homosexuals should be treated differently? Why do you appear to think that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated in the same manner you treat other sinners?
They should be treated with love because everyone is entitled to that.
However, saying that they are normal or saying that they lead an acceptable lifestyle is an entirely different thing.
What was boycotted? I don't see any of this in the article. The school has a program for the incoming Freshman in the dorms to help them challenge their own prejudices and to attempt to help them understand how minorities sometimes feel. Contrary to the claims by Christian groups, this does not typically include sexual orientation. It is seen as so non-controversial that the only article I could find is from a local paper -- otherwise it is all based on the rumors put forth from various Christian anti-gay advocate groups. The facts are that the Christian groups are exaggerating/lying.
Look, just google it.
I said you were right, and then I googled for alternative articles about it and only found a plethora of articles of liberal groups calling for boycotts and censuring of Dr. Laura.
The internet is a fun place -- go look for yourself. I wasn't about to post the half dozen links I viewed because they are generally irrelevant.
There is freedom of speech in my country -- you seem to be confused about where I am from. However, there are a number of Western Countries -- typically the ones that are officially Christian -- that do not have freedom of speech.
No, you do not give freedom of speech. As you even said, it is not allowed to be "offensive."
This is your unsupportable opinion, at least that seems to be the evidence from threads like
this. But no one has said, or is saying, it is not your right to believe this -- even if you were from Canada. In fact, the law in Canada does not say that you can't talk about your opinion. Instead, they have laws, much like we do, that prohibit people from making statements that incite violence. The difference is that their standards for what might incite violence are much stricter than ours. So, if you give a speech in public about homosexuality being a sin, that is not a problem. If you talk about those evil, deviate, unnatural homosexuals (or Muslims, Christians, <insert race of choice>, etc.) they believe this is inciting violence.
So it incites violence if I dislike homosexuality and say it that way?
OK, then I will try to not incite violence in Canada.
I will go to that thread and post some later but that ws one of three very active threads about homosexuality at the time and a split off of a thread where I stated my views and was never confrontedb y Faith.
Since I don't live in Canada and am not Canadian, though I did visit there once, I can't see them caring what I might say. If you simply say it in Canada, to the best of my knowledge they would not care. If you use it in a speech that talks about "those evil homosexuals", then they start to care.
They aren't evil, just terrible sinners. No one is really even that evil.
A good one, from what I can tell. Are you going to tell me that gay marriage is not legal in Britain and equal under the law with heterosexual marriages? Then why should a couple not tell children that? And they might have to take a child that is gay to a gay support group if the child would like, is that so terrible? And if you believe it is, then does an atheist couple have the right to refuse to allow a Christian child to go to a Christian youth group because they disagree with what the youth group teaches?
Why should a teacher teach some ridiculous politics in the classroom, especially to 4 year old kids as the article above mentions?
Atheists don't have to send their kids to youth groups.
I shouldn't have to send my kid to a school where htey tell them that gays are just normal folks, being indoctrinated into liberal philosophy.
They weren't told they could not adopt, their own children were not take away -- nor is that the law. In this case, they are merely foster parents and are not allowed to force their beliefs on the children that the government temporarily places with them -- just as atheist parents are not allowed to force their beliefs on a Christian child.
But it is OK to force one particular, subscribed version of the truth by the Government?
No, this is comparable to those cartoons that I posted earlier. No one is saying this could has to change their beliefs, just that if they don't agree to abide by government regulations then they may not be employed in that government job. Or do you think we should force employers to change their requirements to fit the beliefs of the person wanting the job?
Then simply we can note that gays do not meet the requirements for marriage, and if they'd like to be married, they just have to change their ways.
We bend over for one group of people to change the law but do not for another? That is the definition of
favoritism.
Sorry, no, again this couple was not barred from adopting but merely being foster parents. And there are states which do ban homosexual couples from adopting and/or being foster parents.
To go back to one of my examples which are more applicable, however, I do think a homosexual (and/or atheist) that refuses to take a Christian child to a fundamentalist church because the couple disagrees with the views of the church makes them not qualified to be foster parents.
Why do we bend over for gays and not for regular Christians, then? Why shoul dwe change policy for them, but not for us?
I don't watch the BBC so I couldn't tell you how liberal or conservative they are. However, I typically don't take a single individuals viewpoint (in this case a newspaper editorial) as evidence of how liberal a network may or may not be.
I would submit, however, that if the British public don't like the views of the BBC that they should get the government to change it.
Yes.
Yet you were the one that claimed that "We'll always win because our views are inherent to mankind as it is never normal or natural for people...." This is the exact same rhetoric used when slavery was being debated and when segregation was ended. I actually head people while civil rights laws and miscegenation was being debated how it isn't right for the races to mix, etc.
I wasn't there when slavery was being debated. I wasn't there when segregation was being debated.
However, there are a lot of compelling arguments that ethnically homogeneous nations really do well for themselves and that immigration can result in increased crime rates as well as just a swamp of lowering living standards. I have zero issues with countries like Japan, South Korea, Serbia and Austria that are doing their best to maintain their ethnic heritage and avoid the influx of immigrants, etc.
I'd love to talk about that one with you.
Actually, Nazis and fascists are actually fundamentally conservative. In fact, looking in a thesaurus I found that fascist is actually an antonym of liberalism. Of course, this presumes that I actually am a liberal -- I'm actually independent being liberal in some areas and conservative in others. But I will agree that the idea that everyone should be treated equally and with respect seems to be a very liberal idea.
Liberalism in the sense of a government that is classically liberal and insures freedom of the people.
National Socialism is exctly what it is: nationalistic and socialist.
Hitler abolished private schools and established a strict meritocracy; he imposed gigantic health taxes on cigarettes and alcohol; he appointed an economist to run the economy in concordance with certain needs; he established more and more state level institutions to manage the country, ranging from labor boards to new police enforcement groups.
He was a liberal's liberal.
Yet, overwhelmingly, the trend in the western world for the last hundred years has been toward increasing liberalism and away from conservatism. And despite the above, that shows few signs of changing.
If by increased liberalism (e.g. the liberal nature of laws, more individual freedom) you mean 'a million other things besides liberalism, though sometimes liberalism.'
Perhaps you should say, 'the trend in the Western world for the last 19 years.'
The west has become more liberal to minimal extents, while other nations like Poland went from officially atheist to largely Catholic; Hungary went from a Communist state to a modern one.
In the early 1990s ethnic cleansing was launched against Muslims and Croats by the Serbs.
I do not even really knwo what you mean by 'liberalism' though, and I do not really know what you are even trying to say because even pretending that there has been some sort of solid, politically coherent idea for the last 100 years is wrong.
I need hardly point out that the above could easily have been written by a conservative of 50 years ago who was upset about 'coloureds' getting equal rights, or 100 years ago who was upset about women getting the vote, or 200 years ago who was upset about slavery being abolished.
Conservatives of every age are the same...condemning what's (relatively) new while embracing what conservatives of a hundred years ago abhorred.
When it comes down to it, conservatives are just liberals living a hundred years too late.
Interestingly enough, you are really wrong.
Things like pacifism in the sense of never believing to ever fight war was at its strongest in America in the 1900s-1930s; libertarian ideas were in full swing from the 1840s until the 1930s. We even allowed communes to exist where children were exposed to essentially hippy-esque free love (I forget the name of the group); we even allowed polygamy to exist in praxis largely until 1953 during the Short Creek Raid.
Communism existed in its most viable forms and views until the 1980s.
The political ideologies have come and gone and resurfaced; the ideas of 'isolationism' and 'libertarianism' are coming back from 70-80 years ago; the idea of granting people the right to be ignored and pursue whatever ends they want is also a throw back to older days.
We can also look to simply other periods of history where homosexuality and prostitution were viewed as the ways that people were supposed to live. The most "liberal" anyone has ever been was the period between the 1780s and the 1820s when the Catholic Church was even outlawed in revolutionary France they put a prostitute on the pulpit at Notre Dame de Paris.
Pretending like history is in this giant, comprehensive evolution is entirely a lie.
It would probably be humorous to see you try and support this. I'm guessing that you would use Romans 1 and how homosexuality is listed with murder. The problem is that someone who has a bad temper and is abrasive is also mentioned
That sounds like an abrasive person with a bad temper to me.
By abrasive I mean jerky, I do not mean arrogant or proud o someone absolutely beating down peoples doors; just someone with a bad temper who can be a jerk from time to time. Does that really translate into what you said?
You just totally contradicted yourself. I think you're confused by seeing all these good arguments proving you wrong. You should sit down.
