Poll shows backlash on gay issues

[Durango]

In fact, we even seem to be attracting homosexual Americans to be married up here

As if that would be something to be proud of.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As if that would be something to be proud of.

Sure it is. But you, you stay right where you are.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by sweetkitty:
Lets see I responded to a post saying that the government has no business in anyone's bedroom by showing that at times it is the government's place to enact laws about sexual activity for the common good and you come up with this response? So what false accusations have I made here?

You responded to a post saying “There really is no reason why certain sexual acts are illegal.” by then accusing the original poster (and anyone who else who believes that the government has no business snooping into the bedrooms of consenting adults) of condoning child sexual abuse.

As Mechanical Bliss said “Because not all sexual acts are equivalent.” Your argument is attempting to link being gay with being a child molester (or similar sexual predator) and therefore defend your prejudice against homosexuals.

A Straw Man (Fallacy of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

As if that would be something to be proud of.

It should be something to be proud of if one values individual freedom as opposed to irrational prejudice and intolerance.

 

[Durango]

It should be something to be proud of if one values individual freedom as opposed to irrational prejudice and intolerance.

The fact that one doesn't condone the homosexual lifestyle does necessarily mean they are irrationally prejudiced or intolerant.

And to point out one more item here:

The government has no business in the bedroom, and there should not be any laws against sexual acts.

As quoted in the above sentence, Ocean opened the discussion of any laws against sex acts. In so doing, he opened the can of worms himself.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Pedophillia isn't quite the same thing.

Gay people are two consenting adults who wish to do these things.

Pedophiles involve an adult and a child. Children are forced, tricked, or simply naive about sex acts. As in all binding legal agreements a minor is not considered mature enough to make these decisions. Thus the pedophile is taking advantage of children thru malicious means, ie it's a crime.


As for gay rights I see nothing wrong with the lifestyle, they deserve every privelage that straight people do. Only difference between me and a gay guy is that I like girls and have no fashion sense.

 

[kdet]

As if that would be something to be proud of.

You said it. I agree with it.

 

[kdet]

You responded to a post saying “There really is no reason why certain sexual acts are illegal.” by then accusing the original poster (and anyone who else who believes that the government has no business snooping into the bedrooms of consenting adults) of condoning child sexual abuse.

As Mechanical Bliss said “Because not all sexual acts are equivalent.” Your argument is attempting to link being gay with being a child molester (or similar sexual predator) and therefore defend your prejudice against homosexuals.

A Straw Man (Fallacy of Extension): attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

Here is an example of liberal hysteria at it's worse.

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I haven't tried to link homosexuality with CSA in any way. And I have no prejudice against homosexuality other than a biblical one.

 

[Totally Transformed]

I am so glad I live in Canada where human rights, freedom, and equality are supported and bigotry and hatred are almost non-existent.

And where the rights of the majority are trampled upon by activist judges and representatives.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The fact that one doesn't condone the homosexual lifestyle does necessarily mean they are irrationally prejudiced or intolerant.

1. You're doing more than simply not condoning homosexuality; you are condeming homosexuality and homosexuals themselves.

2. There is no such thing as the "homosexual lifestyle."

3. Yes, it is an irrational prejudice because there is no rational basis for intolerance for homosexuality and homosexuals.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

And where the rights of the majority are trampled upon by activist judges and representatives.

Oh puh-leaze...

Your rights aren't being trampled upon. Sorry, but you don't have the right to not be offended by homosexuals or homosexuality. You are the one who wants to trample on the individual freedoms of homosexuals simply because of your irrational prejudice derived from your religious beliefs.

 

[Durango]

1. You're doing more than simply not condoning homosexuality; you are condeming homosexuality and homosexuals themselves.

Where have I condemned homosexuals? By not condoning it, you interpret that as condemnation?

There is no such thing as the "homosexual lifestyle."

What would your preferred terminology be?

Yes, it is an irrational prejudice because there is no rational basis for intolerance for homosexuality and homosexuals.

Finally, you have not shown me to be intolerant by anything you have written here.

 

[Lotar]

Oh puh-leaze...

Your rights aren't being trampled upon. Sorry, but you don't have the right to not be offended by homosexuals or homosexuality. You are the one who wants to trample on the individual freedoms of homosexuals simply because of your irrational prejudice derived from your religious beliefs.

Just because you disagree with our view, it doesn't make us irrational. Our stance is just as rational as yours, and I would like you to prove otherwise

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Where have I condemned homosexuals? By not condoning it, you interpret that as condemnation?

No, you claimed that one should not be proud of being in a nation that values equality for homosexuals simply because those in question are homosexuals.

What would your preferred terminology be?

Homosexuals live a wide variety of lifestyles, so your terminology is flat out wrong regardless of what I'd prefer you to use.

Finally, you have not shown me to be intolerant by anything you have written here.

Your comment to ocean illustrates it quite well. You sarcastically claim that it is not something to be proud of for homosexuals to be treated equally by a nation. That insinuates that you think homosexuals should not be treated equally and one should be proud to be intolerant of such equality.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Just because you disagree with our view, it doesn't make us irrational. Our stance is just as rational as yours, and I would like you to prove otherwise

It is irrational. Condemnation of homosexuals for something that is natural, unchosen, harmless, and in no way infringes on your rights is irrational.

It's like me saying that people shouldn't be allowed to eat sweet pickles because I think they're disgusting even though it in no way affects me that people actually eat sweet pickles.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by durango:

Originally Posted By: Mechanical Bliss

There is no such thing as the "homosexual lifestyle."

What would your preferred terminology be?

I don’t have a lifestyle. I have a life.

 

[Woodsy]

When an entire group of people define themselves by what kind of sex they desire, are they not outlining that kind of sex as the major defining component of their lifestyle? When they plaster their cars with flags to make sure everone knows that they are gay (rainbow flag, pink triangle, yellow & blue plus sign), or gay AND into S&M (Black white & blue flag with a red heart), or gay and into older hairy men - aka "bears" (that one's a flag with a bear on it on and stripes of various shades of brown and orange).
I don't define myself as a heterosexual Christian, or a heterosexual parent. My heterosexual friends and family do not fly special flags to let the world know what flavors of sex they prefer. We don't rely upon parades with nudity and public obscene sexual displays to display our "pride" in our sexual orientation. I don't use a special accent as a result of my sexual tastes, as so many gays are recognizable by the way they speak. (That's been true, in my peresonal experince on both coasts, and many places in between.)
It kind of seems to me to be a lifestyle for many homosexuals.

 

[Lotar]

It is irrational. Condemnation of homosexuals for something that is natural, unchosen, harmless, and in no way infringes on your rights is irrational.

It's like me saying that people shouldn't be allowed to eat sweet pickles because I think they're disgusting even though it in no way affects me that people actually eat sweet pickles.

See, you are assuming that we have no reason other than we think its disgusting. Perhaps then we would be irrational, but that is not our reasoning.
We believe that to engage is homosexual acts is sinful, therefore harmful. Maybe not physically, so don't start that arguement, but spiritually.
Now, you may disagree with our view, but there is reasoning behind our beliefs and therfore they are not irrational.

 

[Durango]

OK, MB, let's set the record straight . . .

No, you claimed that one should not be proud of being in a nation that values equality for homosexuals simply because those in question are homosexuals.

I made no such claim about values of equality for homosexuals other than pertaining to marriage. My response solely spoke of marriage. Marriage between members of the same sex is biblically incorrect, hence this is why I said what I did.

Secondly,

Your comment to ocean illustrates it quite well. You sarcastically claim that it is not something to be proud of for homosexuals to be treated equally by a nation. That insinuates that you think homosexuals should not be treated equally and one should be proud to be intolerant of such equality.

Once again, I was speaking strictly on the subject of marriage which as already stated is biblically incorrect.

 

[notto]

When an entire group of people define themselves by what kind of sex they desire, are they not outlining that kind of sex as the major defining component of their lifestyle? When they plaster their cars with flags to make sure everone knows that they are gay (rainbow flag, pink triangle, yellow & blue plus sign), or gay AND into S&M (Black white & blue flag with a red heart), or gay and into older hairy men - aka "bears" (that one's a flag with a bear on it on and stripes of various shades of brown and orange).
I don't define myself as a heterosexual Christian, or a heterosexual parent. My heterosexual friends and family do not fly special flags to let the world know what flavors of sex they prefer. We don't rely upon parades with nudity and public obscene sexual displays to display our "pride" in our sexual orientation. I don't use a special accent as a result of my sexual tastes, as so many gays are recognizable by the way they speak. (That's been true, in my peresonal experince on both coasts, and many places in between.)
It kind of seems to me to be a lifestyle for many homosexuals.

There are many homosexuals (I would venture to say most) who do NONE of the things you discuss here. To describe it as an "entire group" is falling prey to the stereotypes that make up the "gay lifestyle" myth. Many (most) gays just want to live their life, go to work, and simply keep the government and others out of their personal lives.

You probably come across gay people every day that do none of these things and to throught casual contact, have no indication or idea that they are gay.

Do you consider Mardi Gras a legitimate portrayal of the "heterosexual lifestyle"?