Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Underskrifsindsamling: Russisk homofobi

 

Politik

Sider: << < 5 6 7 8
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 20/10 2013 15:51 | Indlæg redigeret den: 20/10 2013 15:51

Jeff,
My question with regard to the video was - and is:

if you think I´m homophobic, are you okay with the way the people in the cases named in the video above are treated?




And again,
When Christians and others are being publicly branded as homophobes and as homophobic for peacefully exercising their rights of freedom of speech, conscience and religion, and when they are being phoned by police in the middle of the night, arrested, brought to court, sacked from their jobs and forced to close businesses, suffering and bullying are also issues here. This needs to be addressed every bit as much as the issue of how homosexuals are perceived. Maybe even more so, as it is not politically correct to be a Christian these days. If it goes unaddressed, it will only get worse, much worse, I fear... Are you prepared to countenance that? Speak and act against it?






Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 20/10 2013 16:35 | Indlæg redigeret den: 20/10 2013 16:51

Okay, let me say that balancing free speech and anti-racist laws (generically used) is not easy.

However, no one is discussing free speech here. And no one is discussing free speech when discussing whether two people who love each other should be able to get married, so that they can enjoy some very basic rights that are already available to other couples.

People are allowed to have sex outside of marriage. The world did not come to an end for Christians because of this. People are allowed to take the name of the god of Judeo-Christianity in vain and the world did not come to an end for Christians because of it. People are allowed to get divorces, there is a whole field of law around it nowadays, and the world did not come to an end for Christians.

The world does not come to an end just because believers in a religion don't always get their way.

They should protest all they want, just as long as it does not propagate hate.

Do public officials have to marry people of the same sex now? Yes, just like they had to start marrying people of different races in Virginia after a court decision in 1967.

It doesn't matter what their beliefs or prejudices are, it's just how things work when laws change. Not everyone is always happy, but religion does not receive special consideration when people are unhappy - also not when religious people incite to hate, violence or civil disorder.

Now back to the topic: is it correct to understand in what you wrote above that teachers should be able to teach about every kind of legal sex between consenting people and to encourage children to feel okay about their sexuality, even if it is not hetero?





Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 21/10 2013 10:39

Btw., I wasn´t interested in the guy´s rhetoric on that video. I am interested in the dynamics and the cases which are named.

no one is discussing free speech when discussing whether two people who love each other should be able to get married, so that they can enjoy some very basic rights that are already available to other couples.

Hah? How does an open discussion about homosexuality and gay marriage take place when all parties are not free to express their views? When someone is prohibited from talking about their understanding of marriage?

It comes back to the same hot potatoe: (re)defining marriage. I define marriage as between a man and a woman, and open to the possibility of children. That applies even, when it comes to polygamy and arranged marriages. I think homosexuals should have the possibility of registering their union, and have having basic rights protected. However, in my view, homosexual relationships, even where people love each other, don´t fit the description of marriage. Their relationship is different by its very nature. Like I said earlier, I see other issues down the line, thorny issues like adoption, surrogacy and IVF donors. Again, this isn´t just an issue about gay marriage, it is an issue about children and their rights and best interests. Current research in Canada, Great Britain and the USA shows that children thrive best in stable, committed heterosexual homes. That´s not my opinion. It´s what the empirical research shows, and I think we have to take it seriously. Links available.


I have a problem with some of the claims of heteronormativity. I searched for a definition but the online dictionary didn´t even have the word... It seems to originate from within LGBT community. About 10% of the population is homosexual. From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Males and females are physically and psychologically different and relate differently to the world, in relationships, etc. How can one claim that "hetero" is not the norm? Is the basic argument implying that differences do not exist between genders? Have no consequence? No purpose? If so, I´m afraid, a lot of psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and biologists would take issue.


I´m not claiming that the world would come to an end for anyone! As you rightly say, people were having sex outside marriage long before Christianity and are still having it. People were also taking God´s name in vain before it and since then. (Btw, I was not expressing personal fear or outrage earlier. I´m just as calm as you with regard to this discussion. I use block letters and some dramatic expression for emphasis and effect.) The issue is not about getting one´s way. The issue is about homosexuals getting their way, while Christians find their rights to association, speech, conscience and religion prohibited and their rights trashed. That is what happened in the cases named in the videos.

That is dangerous - for all of us, because if one group can be treated that way, every group can. I mean, would you think it was alright if a homosexual newspaper had their business regulated in such a way that they were forced by the State to compromise themselves - or a vegan restaurant owner, for that matter? Do you think it´s alright that an adoption agency set up to serve the Catholic community and with an excellent track record in placing bigger children with special needs was forced to close? Do you think it´s alright for the police to be phoning people in the middle of the night and threatening them? Do you think it´s alright for people to be harrassed, bullied, arrested, imprisoned, sacked, put out of business for living peacefully and respectfully according to their convictions? This is what happens in the cases in question.


They should protest all they want, just as long as it does not propagate hate.

I agree with you. Likewise, I would say the same about the LGBT community. Sadly, I see culpits on both sides...


Do public officials have to marry people of the same sex now? Yes, just like they had to start marrying people of different races in Virginia after a court decision in 1967.

Again, the same old issue. How one defines and understands marriage. And why is it not possible to have a freedom of conscience clause? Freedom of conscience is a basic human right for every person. It is available in other areas. No one forces an atheist to teach religion in a public school. No one forces a doctor to perform an abortion in a public hospital. At least, not where I come from. Or think of it this way, what if a state law declared that all employees had to eat meat? No room for conscious objection...



Not everyone is always happy, but religion does not receive special consideration when people are unhappy - also not when religious people incite to hate, violence or civil disorder.

Excercising freedom of association, speech, conscience and religion are not special rights. They are the rights of everyone. Likewise, I agree that there are no exemptions for those who incite hate, violence and civil disorder, gays included.



Now back to the topic: is it correct to understand in what you wrote above that teachers should be able to teach about every kind of legal sex between consenting people and to encourage children to feel okay about their sexuality, even if it is not hetero

What do you mean by children? That´s a time span going from 0-18... Basically, I think it is alright to talk to children. I don´t think it´s alright to push information on young children for which they neither ask nor are ready to receive. That could be seen as propaganda and/or indoctrination.

With older children-teens, I think we should be able to talk freely by which I mean ALL the information should be put on the table, including the several factors I have named on this thread. I have no problem discussing sexuality with children or young people. I would not agree with any being pressured, and I think parents´ rights must be respected in this area.

In this regard, I´ve discovered that I am a lot more at ease talking about sexuality and sex than a lot of so called "liberal" people. I often find that kind of amusing and ironic, given that I´m celibate! So do my friends! :)


I´m rushing out to work now, so please excuse any typing errors!



Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/10 2013 11:54

I am going to give up now.

There's just too much to take to task in you arguments and in your rhetoric. Things will just branch and branch branch away from the main question, which you keep evading.
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 21/10 2013 14:39 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/10 2013 14:40

Nice cop-out on your part. I have asked perfectly reasonable questions and made solid objections to your claims.

I have answered you, more than once, on the issue of how I talk to and about homosexuality (and sex in general) and how I perceive and treat homosexuals, children and young people. Go back and read.

I have also been very patient with your evasion (re: sexual orientation), prejudice, insinuations, assumptions and grilling. So yes, let´s leave it.



Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/10 2013 14:57

The discussion is just going all over the place.

And you never say whether you would tell minors of an appropriate age that it is okay to be homosexual.

When you can give something close to a yes or no, then we can see if there is more to discuss.
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 21/10 2013 18:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 26/10 2013 19:38

Ah, now, you´re singing a different tune. You say, "minors of an appropriate age", as opposed to children.

I guess you mean teenagers (13-18). Yes, I would. I would also listen to them, talk to them, find other homosexuals with whom they could talk (people I trusted) and generally be there for them, exactly as I would be for anyone else...

(Edit) COURAGE: http://www.couragerc.net/index.html

I would not encourage sexual activity, either amongst hetero or homosexual minors.

Now, can I have an answer to my question? You can tell me in a PM if you prefer.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/10 2013 18:50

Cool.

Do you mean if I am homo-, bi-, hetero-, pan-, or a-sexual?
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 22/10 2013 09:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 26/10 2013 19:46

Wouldn´t you like to know!!! Two can play at your game ;) :)

PS: You didn´t answer my questions...

Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 4/11 2013 08:52

Ricky gervais:





Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 25/11 2013 14:44

jeg har lige læst the moral animal af robert Wright og synes følgende fra side 386 var relevant for denne debat: (1) some people are born with a combination of genetic and environmental circumstance that impels them strongly toward a homosexual lifetyle; (2) there is no inherent contradiction between homosexuality among consenting adults and the welfare of other people. For moral purposes(I belive) that should be the end of the discussion.
Sider: << < 5 6 7 8