NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh then I have a gripe because Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and murdered all over the world every single day.

Then plan a protest. If it's a "Day of Silence," it'll be allowed in the school described in the article.

Frankly, I'm not in that crowd for I respect their choice in lifestyle. I may not agree with it but who am I to judge?

What choice?
What lifestyle?

Do you respect my "choice" to menstruate? Is that a lifestyle? Does that question even make sense?

So does the freedom from offence you wish to posess (which is no where mentioned in any law) usurp the First Amendment?

Is reading really that hard for you?

I said nothing at all about a "freedom from offence". I didn't say anything that could even be construed that way.

Kreynoria']I don't remember the specific book but somewhere in the Bible it also calls for harsh punishments for homosexuals.

Actually, it doesn't. Not in a single place. It doesn't even say anything at all about homosexuality.

It *might* state that homosexual sex is a sin, but even then, there is no specific punishment listed.

The day of silence is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. The gays should just riot like Black Power (Pink Panthers and Gay Power???) instead of this hippie crap.:headbang:

Kreynoria']I don't remember the specific book but somewhere in the Bible it also calls for harsh punishments for homosexuals.

And if you wanted to live in a Christian theocracy, with a state religion that is forced on every citizen and laws that conform to Christian scriptures, then I hope you aren't fond of blended fabrics or shellfish or any of the other "abominations" that are written just as arbitrarily into the bible which homophobes always manage to overlook.

In the meanwhile, you live in a democracy that is supposedly founded upon the values of equality and liberty. And that means, among other things, that what "the bible calls for" isn't going to be the undisputed law of the land, because that would fly in the face of equality and liberty for every non-Christian in the country. If you reserve the right to shrill on about how great and free your nation is, you have to learn to live with the fact that your religious beliefs do not give you the authority to stone gay people to death. A democratic society's laws have to be objectively just and reasonable (try informed by the harm principle), not pander to the personal spiritual beliefs of one particular group or another. If you have a *problem* with democracy, liberty, and equality, perhaps you'd be happier living in a fundamentalist theocratic regime. I believe there's at least one, right now, although there may be an invasion pending.

The day of silence is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. The gays should just riot like Black Power (Pink Panthers and Gay Power???) instead of this hippie crap.:headbang:

That would be a sight to see...

The day of silence is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. The gays should just riot like Black Power (Pink Panthers and Gay Power???) instead of this hippie crap.:headbang:

I actually think a Day of Silence is a brilliant idea. It is respectful, and strong, and makes the point that these students are concerned, and wish to demonstrate their concern in an way that is not violent, but certainly makes a much louder statement than all of them standing around screaming slogans could possibly do. It shows them to be thinking, determined and caring people. Ghandi would be proud of them.

To be honest, some of this can be argued but I'm not even going to bother. I will agree with you on many points you brought up however. The points I don't would actually hijack the thread and I do not want to do that.

Fair enough, but just so you are aware, if you continue to refer to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" you are going to continue to get the same response... it is one of those buzz words that pushes the wrong buttons because of its connotations.

That being said, we can certainly drop it, or pick it up in another thread.

TOLERENCE IS A GOOD THING. The hallmark of civilization is intolerance. DO you tolerate pedaphiles? Do you tolerate murderers, Do you tolerate crooks, do you tolerate infanticide, do you tolerate sexual affairs outside of your marriage, do you tolerate goverment police states???????? NO you dont. This is why tolerance in general is a bad thing. Codified intolerance is law. (basicly intolerance is an ethical disgust for the sake of my arguement)

THis is why for example intollerance of homosexuals is completly justifiable and maybe a good thing or it could be a bad thing.

My point is never be tolerant of something you find deplorable.

Actually, i believe, :eek: one is not entitled to express moronic opinions. Actually, one should be able to debate intelligently about an issue in order to express an opinion. The rule requires one to be able to present thoroughly at least two sides of an issue, then choose the side one is on. :headbang:


Wow! That would mean that almost no opinions would be expressed about ANYTHING, as most people are only informed enough about the side of the issue they are on to debate it (I said most, not all!).

In fact, freedom of speech protects your right to express moronic opinions, and I will support that right. In the case of the kids with the t-shirts, the problem was not that their opinions were moronic (they may have been, but that was not the problem) but rather that they were disruptive and abusive towards other students. And a school has the right to ban that sort of abuse.

In fact, freedom of speech protects your right to express moronic opinions, and I will support that right. In the case of the kids with the t-shirts, the problem was not that their opinions were moronic (they may have been, but that was not the problem) but rather that they were disruptive and abusive towards other students. And a school has the right to ban that sort of abuse.


So his belief is offense to students... What if the color blue was offensive and students fussed over the color blue disrupting class when students wore blue t- shirts in school would the school have the right to ban blue shirts. ITs not like the shirt disturbs class in any way other than some students are offended (and take direct actions to diturb class) but if we live in a society to which nothing can offend anybody then i do believe we would be in a mind controlling brainwashed facist state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

True intolerance is not tolerating the opinion of that highschool student who wore that t shirt yall are discussing

TOLERENCE IS A GOOD THING. The hallmark of civilization is intolerance. DO you tolerate pedaphiles? Do you tolerate murderers, Do you tolerate crooks, do you tolerate infanticide, do you tolerate sexual affairs outside of your marriage, do you tolerate goverment police states???????? NO you dont. This is why tolerance in general is a bad thing. Codified intolerance is law. (basicly intolerance is an ethical disgust for the sake of my arguement)

THis is why for example intollerance of homosexuals is completly justifiable and maybe a good thing or it could be a bad thing.

My point is never be tolerant of something you find deplorable.

Oh dear. Frankly, I find your attitude deplorable...

It is an unfortunately all too common trick to try and vilify homosexuals by lumping them into a category with various unpleasant criminals, but it does not hold water. Pedophilia, murder, robbery and so on are crimes and illegal and we do not tolerate them because they are illegal as defined by our code of laws. Homosexuality is NOT illegal and cannot be lumped into that group simply because YOU don't like it.

Oh dear. Frankly, I find your attitude deplorable...

It is an unfortunately all too common trick to try and vilify homosexuals by lumping them into a category with various unpleasant criminals, but it does not hold water. Pedophilia, murder, robbery and so on are crimes and illegal and we do not tolerate them because they are illegal as defined by our code of laws. Homosexuality is NOT illegal and cannot be lumped into that group simply because YOU don't like it.

Something is simply immoral because the goverment says so in criminal codes and laws???? I sir do not believe the goverment is the ultimate decided of morality nor is existing codified ethics such.

The Key issue in codification of laws is the level of deplorability. I personally dont care if one is a homosexual nor if he wishes to have a civil union ( gay marriage (not gunna get into but I have an issue with the terminology not the spirit of the law)) Homosexuality is not at a level of deplorability too great to become codified as illegal. Some do not find pedophilia ethicly wrong so in turn they are tolerant of such acts and simply because it is a law does not change thier deplorability to the individual.

MY simple fact is that the word intolerance is a fancy term used to rise emotion in individuals because of the negative conotation of the word. This emotion is used not in a sense of logic but as an emotional twinge in debate boarding some times on the point of complete irationality

So his belief is offense to students... What if the color blue was offensive and students fussed over the color blue disrupting class when students wore blue t- shirts in school would the school have the right to ban blue shirts. ITs not like the shirt disturbs class in any way other than some students are offended (and take direct actions to diturb class) but if we live in a society to which nothing can offend anybody then i do believe we would be in a mind controlling brainwashed facist state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

True intolerance is not tolerating the opinion of that highschool student who wore that t shirt yall are discussing

First, your example is specious. Second, the shirts were offensive, and thus upset a number of students. The attitudes so endgendered ARE disruptive to the educational process even if the students do not act out directly because of it. A homosexual student might well be fearful of speaking up in class if the situation were allowed to continue, and would certainly be fearful to attend school at all for what those students running unchecked might do to him (which was the attitude that the Day of Silence was trying to bring to light and change).

As has been repeatedly stated throughout this thread, the freedom of speech rules that apply to the REST OF OUR SOCIETY are sometimes abridged for specific reasons. In SCHOOL, the welfare of all the students and the creation of a safe place for all of them to learn supercedes the rights of any students to promote abuse and harass other students. To that end, dress codes specify that students may not wear clothing with slogans that are abusive, vulgar or violent. If a student attends school, they must follow these rules. This does not mean our society is "a mind controlling brainwashed facist state". In fact, if those same students had chosen to stand across the street from school grounds or march through the streets of town and wear their shirts, the school would have had nothing to say about it. But on the grounds, one follows the rules or one deals with the punishments.

First, your example is specious. Second, the shirts were offensive, and thus upset a number of students. The attitudes so endgendered ARE disruptive to the educational process even if the students do not act out directly because of it. A homosexual student might well be fearful of speaking up in class if the situation were allowed to continue, and would certainly be fearful to attend school at all for what those students running unchecked might do to him (which was the attitude that the Day of Silence was trying to bring to light and change).

As has been repeatedly stated throughout this thread, the freedom of speech rules that apply to the REST OF OUR SOCIETY are sometimes abridged for specific reasons. In SCHOOL, the welfare of all the students and the creation of a safe place for all of them to learn supercedes the rights of any students to promote abuse and harass other students. To that end, dress codes specify that students may not wear clothing with slogans that are abusive, vulgar or violent. If a student attends school, they must follow these rules. This does not mean our society is "a mind controlling brainwashed facist state". In fact, if those same students had chosen to stand across the street from school grounds or march through the streets of town and wear their shirts, the school would have had nothing to say about it. But on the grounds, one follows the rules or one deals with the punishments.


Fear by he homosexuals?? I live in NEW YORK and I feared in Highschool of ever experssing a Pro religouse view or speaking out against homosexuality for FEAR OF being labeled intolerant by faculty and students alike. I was veary offended by being called intolerant because of my view that homosexuality was wrong and immoral. Simply because I had a disagreeing view me and my fellow peers in my political circles were able to but feared media and social attention for simply having our beliefs. So your complaint that some Gay students felt fear was a load of bull crap.

Students wore pro gay shirts to school profesing "tolerance" for gay students. I took offense to some of the things these students said and wore But i never complaned. why you may ask???? well i believed in the ideas of free speach and devloped my theories of tolerance i hold today. I didnt fuss over the shirts and make them DISRUPTIVE TO THE SCHOOL ENVIORMENT. I didnt say the constant announcements on the loud speaker announcing GSA meetings in my school make me uncomfortable and caused me to fear for my life with thier sticker of a rainbow posted on the doors.

Intollerance has become such a staple for those who disagree with homosexuality that now free speach against homosexuality is not tolerated. The reverse has occured.

If students cant wear anti homosexual shirts then students cant wear pro homosexual shirts or proffess such opinionsfrom either side


Anything can become offensive as long as someone complains about it Thats my point.

Something is simply immoral because the goverment says so in criminal codes and laws???? I sir do not believe the goverment is the ultimate decided of morality nor is existing codified ethics such.

The Key issue in codification of laws is the level of deplorability. I personally dont care if one is a homosexual nor if he wishes to have a civil union ( gay marriage (not gunna get into but I have an issue with the terminology not the spirit of the law)) Homosexuality is not at a level of deplorability too great to become codified as illegal. Some do not find pedophilia ethicly wrong so in turn they are tolerant of such acts and simply because it is a law does not change thier deplorability to the individual.

MY simple fact is that the word intolerance is a fancy term used to rise emotion in individuals because of the negative conotation of the word. This emotion is used not in a sense of logic but as an emotional twinge in debate boarding some times on the point of complete irationality

Immoral? Who is talking about immoral? When speaking of murder and such I was talking about illegal. And deplorability is NOT a standard of law. Our laws are designed to protect people from actual harm, not to protect them from things they think are icky. Some people hate vegetables, but you wouldn't expect legislation banning brussel sprouts because of it? As to people tolerating pedophilia, the reason it IS wrong legally (and ethically) is that it is harmful to children, not simply because people are made nauseous by it. Homosexuality does not harm, nor is it unethical, nor illegal. If you, personally, are grossed out by it, that is your own personal problem, but your feelings should not at all be as a standard for how homosexuals should be treated.

Why, I would ask, does the request for tolerance raise up emotional responses? Mainly because the people who are INTOLERANT in the first place don't want to be called on their bigottry and prejudice. Unfortunately, that is exactly what MUST happen, and happen repeatedly until that prejudice is dealt with. Equal rights should be a given, but when they are not, they must be fought for.

Why, I would ask, does the request for tolerance raise up emotional responses? Mainly because the people who are INTOLERANT in the first place don't want to be called on their bigottry and prejudice. Unfortunately, that is exactly what MUST happen, and happen repeatedly until that prejudice is dealt with. Equal rights should be a given, but when they are not, they must be fought for.

yes it is not based on logic of equality but by an irational emotional response by most normal individuals.

You prove my point you do not wish for an honest debate but believe someone homosexuals are prejudged which doesnt make any sense (how do you prejudge a homosexual??? ( " HES GAY) well its a simple fact he is( plz explain this concept of prejudging a homosexual)) Homosexuals arent persicuted in the streets, I see individuals who dont believe in homosexuality punished for thier moral judgements in institutions of learning and society in general over here (NY). It may be diffrent south of the boarder but you cant give me that bs that Reverse intolerance by pro homosexuality groups are not occuring because it is occuring ( subjective truth but non- the less this is how most of my conservative clichs have told me about thier experiences around the country)

You also show you Support intolerance of those who disagree with you and are willing to violate thier rights to achieve your goals.

Also as a side note you misunderstood my point before... I was simply saying intolerance is a good thing and if you believe in any form of morality, intolerence of certain behaviors is cornerstone. but for some reason you failed to read my last scentence. OH WELL maybe you will read this one....

Fear by he homosexuals?? I live in NEW YORK and I feared in Highschool of ever experssing a Pro religouse view or speaking out against homosexuality for FEAR OF being labeled intolerant by faculty and students alike. I was veary offended by being called intolerant because of my view that homosexuality was wrong and immoral. Simply because I had a disagreeing view me and my fellow peers in my political circles were able to but feared media and social attention for simply having our beliefs. So your complaint that some Gay students felt fear was a load of bull crap.

Students wore pro gay shirts to school profesing "tolerance" for gay students. I took offense to some of the things these students said and wore But i never complaned. why you may ask???? well i believed in the ideas of free speach and devloped my theories of tolerance i hold today. I didnt fuss over the shirts and make them DISRUPTIVE TO THE SCHOOL ENVIORMENT. I didnt say the constant announcements on the loud speaker announcing GSA meetings in my school make me uncomfortable and caused me to fear for my life with thier sticker of a rainbow posted on the doors.

Intollerance has become such a staple for those who disagree with homosexuality that now free speach against homosexuality is not tolerated. The reverse has occured.

If students cant wear anti homosexual shirts then students cant wear pro homosexual shirts or proffess such opinionsfrom either side


Anything can become offensive as long as someone complains about it Thats my point.


Someone else said it quite well earlier in this thread... When the people who are being abused stand up and say "STOP ABUSING US" then the abusers start to feel abused.

You feel offended by the fact that you are not allowed to offend others. Do you not see the problem here?

It doesn't wash. We do NOT have to tolerate intolerance. That is the entire point.

If you have a positive message about yourself that you wish to promote, go right ahead! If you want to be proud of your religion, we will gladly let you. If you feel you are the world's best gum chewer, or the best smelling kid in school, feel free to proclaim it proudly. However, IN A SCHOOL you do NOT have the right to go around abusing someone else because you don't like them. You have the right to hold the opinion, but you must NOT assault others with it. And anyone who wants to argue and say that you are NOT the best smelling kid, that you, in fact, STINK, must keep that opinion to themselves as well. And if a group of kids started walking around with "Trytonia is a smelly bastard" t-shirts on, they would be told to stop, and suspended if they did not.

The students supporting homosexuals were NOT doing so to offend you. They were doing so to support homosexuals. You, in saying negative things about homosexuals were doing so to be offensive to them. That is the crux of it, and you do not have the right to feel abused because you are no longer allowed to continue your pattern of abuse.

The students supporting homosexuals were NOT doing so to offend you. They were doing so to support homosexuals. You, in saying negative things about homosexuals were doing so to be offensive to them. That is the crux of it, and you do not have the right to feel abused because you are no longer allowed to continue your pattern of abuse.


How is disagreeing with someone abussing them??? AN infrindgement on political speach not hate speach is whats going on. I disagree with the choice of homosexuality. If i come in with a shirt that says "chewing gum in school is wrong" should i be kicked out ? NO, It is a political message disagreeing with a political action (does not mean im attacking homosexuals) I am not directing it at a person. The act of being gay is whats being potested not the PERSON. The student wore a shirt that said the act of homosexuality was a sin. that was the political message.

I think our primary disagreement is in the idea of what homosexuality is. You believe it is genetic. I believe it is a choice made by the individual. SO far the gay gene has not been found, but anyway staying on topic.

I also Am veary suprised to know my disagreement with someone actions counts as abuse. DONT JUMP OFF THAT CLIFF. "STOP ABUSING ME"-jumps......... WOw im a bad person for disagreeing with thier choice as well as intollerant.:rolleyes:

Tolerance of others' views is a good thing, so long as they aren't harming anyone else.

But...if you go to a protest instead of working or going to school, you should be penalized for skipping school or ditching work. The idea that you're 'standing up for your beliefs'' is not a free pass to renege your social responsibilities for the day.

And schools have really gotten ridiculous, trying to have their cake and eat it too with political correctness. They give the kids special time and attention to express their beliefs, and then they try to carefully censor the beliefs that are expressed. Schools need to make their pick. They can either allow all political expression regardless of how liberal or conservative or anti-some group they are, or allow no political expression and keep activism separate from the school day.

I would be fine with either decision, actually. But there is no reasonable compromise between the two ends that does not give some groups preferential treatment or preferential freedom of expression over others.

--

Trytonia, I fully respect that you believe homosexuality is a choice. But, that belief, I'm sorry, is a completely illogical one.

Homosexuals not only can not produce offspring with the person they love, they have to face hatred and scorn from the community, the threat of violence, and even the persistant suggestion that they are evil people. Nobody in the right mind, given the circumstances, would CHOOSE to be homosexual if it truly was a choice. They would choose to...be able to have children with the person they love, and be accepted by the community.

Maybe you can argue for some combination of nature and nurture, such as.. 'They have a genetic predisposition, but can influence the gender they eventually fixate on'. But let me ask you. When you look at a member of the opposite sex, and you're aroused, did you choose to be aroused? Or was it an involuntary reaction? I don't have proof that it's genetic, but it's sure as hell chemical, and beyond the individual's control.

Tolerance of others' views is a good thing, so long as they aren't harming anyone else.

But...if you go to a protest instead of working or going to school, you should be penalized for skipping school or ditching work. The idea that you're 'standing up for your beliefs'' is not a free pass to renege your social responsibilities for the day.

And schools have really gotten ridiculous, trying to have their cake and eat it too with political correctness. They give the kids special time and attention to express their beliefs, and then they try to carefully censor the beliefs that are expressed. Schools need to make their pick. They can either allow all political expression regardless of how liberal or conservative or anti-some group they are, or allow no political expression and keep activism separate from the school day.

I would be fine with either decision, actually. But there is no reasonable compromise between the two ends that does not give some groups preferential treatment or preferential freedom of expression over others.


I happen to agree with you on almost eveary point but a question is how do you rule at speach that is hate speach and determine what is hate speach that destroys an open minded debate of political speach

yes it is not based on logic of equality but by an irational emotional response by most normal individuals.

And I asked WHY that response happens? It is because the call for equality upsets those people who are opposed to it.

You prove my point you do not wish for an honest debate but believe someone homosexuals are prejudged which doesnt make any sense (how do you prejudge a homosexual??? ( " HES GAY) well its a simple fact he is( plz explain this concept of prejudging a homosexual))

I beg your pardon? How do you not find this to be an "honest" debate?

OK... if you need a definition of prejudice, here you go...
prejudice: n.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

Homosexuals arent persicuted in the streets, I see individuals who dont believe in homosexuality punished for thier moral judgements in institutions of learning and society in general over here (NY). It may be diffrent south of the boarder but you cant give me that bs that Reverse intolerance by pro homosexuality groups are not occuring because it is occuring ( subjective truth but non- the less this is how most of my conservative clichs have told me about thier experiences around the country)

Really? OK... could you provide me examples of "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality" being dragged behind pickup trucks and tied to fences and left to die? How about people shooting up bars of "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality"? Have "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality" been denied basic equal rights? Are they not allowed to marry their partners? Can you show me one time that homosexuals have gathered outside the funeral of someone who is an "individual who didn't believe in homosexuality" and held up signs saying "God hates you and killed your mother because she was not gay"? I live in New York City too, and have SEEN a homosexual couple roughed up by a gang of teenagers simply because they were walking together holding hands. Can you say the same about any two "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality"?

So, unfortunately, if folks don't like you because you appear to them to be one of the people who believes that such behaviour against homosexuals is OK, you are not going to find much sympathy from me, or from others who think that everyone should have the right to love the partner of their choice.


You also show you Support intolerance of those who disagree with you and are willing to violate thier rights to achieve your goals.

I am NOT intolerant. I find your attitude repugnant, but I would NEVER deny you the right to hold it. Nor to express it in the proper way. You can say whatever you like out on the street, and the most I will do is say whatever I like back at you. But that behavior is not appropriate in a school setting, and I would not allow it there. Nor would I allow someone else to harass YOU.

Also as a side note you misunderstood my point before... I was simply saying intolerance is a good thing and if you believe in any form of morality, intolerence of certain behaviors is cornerstone. but for some reason you failed to read my last scentence. OH WELL maybe you will read this one....

I did not misunderstand you, I simply corrected you where you went astray. You attempted to equate intolerance of illegal activities with intolerance of homosexuality, which is not a valid comparison. And I do not hold your moral standards to be correct or viable on that issue, so I corrected you there too. Perhaps you need to go back and read what I wrote?

Trytonia, I fully respect that you believe homosexuality is a choice. But, that belief, I'm sorry, is a completely illogical one.

Homosexuals not only can not produce offspring with the person they love, they have to face hatred and scorn from the community, the threat of violence, and even the persistant suggestion that they are evil people. Nobody in the right mind, given the circumstances, would CHOOSE to be homosexual if it truly was a choice. They would choose to...be able to have children with the person they love, and be accepted by the community.

Maybe you can argue for some combination of nature and nurture, such as.. 'They have a genetic predisposition, but can influence the gender they eventually fixate on'. But let me ask you. When you look at a member of the opposite sex, and you're aroused, did you choose to be aroused? Or was it an involuntary reaction? I don't have proof that it's genetic, but it's sure as hell chemical, and beyond the individual's control.

My answer is logical... Just doesnt necisarily agree with your logic.. Logic simply means it makes sense and has valid points. Your logic has greater evidence for your conclusions

BUT I DONT WANNA DEBATE DICHONOMY

Your second paragraph to me seems to misunderstand were im comming from slightly or it is falacious in the idea that simply because thier is overwealming drive for one set of actions of sex that because of this THIER IS NO CHOICE. INCORECT. Thier is still a decision made just with overwealming wieght to tip the scale hevily.

But this notion that we cannot control our behavior influenced by impulses is nonsense. Thier probably is a genetic component to desire but I believe humans have grown above many of thier impulses on the basis that we have somewhat control over them. Maybe not control the desire but control the behavior to which desire causes.

Extreme example but illistrated the relationship between desire and behavior Ex: I see a hot girl walking down the street (I am male). from this i recieve an erection (not the best thing to talk about in polite debate but preactical). An image of me grabing the women and having sex with her flashes in my mind. BUT I DONT. why? because i have control over my actions.

While doing what makes you emotionally satisfied it sometimes violates our own personal ethical code. If i acted on my impulse does that exonerate me from blame? NO! Self responsibility for my control of self which means making a choice is what matters.

You must take homosexuality as not the desire but the Choice to act upon it.

In the end I have grown to not care if the individual chooses to act upon homosexual tendencies or not. While I discourage the act among friends on the basis of morality it is not really a big issue for me. What i care about is that intolerance against those who disagree with the choice of homosexual behavior. The silencing of political debate is only what i really care about in the issue.

How is disagreeing with someone abussing them??? AN infrindgement on political speach not hate speach is whats going on. I disagree with the choice of homosexuality. If i come in with a shirt that says "chewing gum in school is wrong" should i be kicked out ? NO, It is a political message disagreeing with a political action (does not mean im attacking homosexuals) I am not directing it at a person. The act of being gay is whats being potested not the PERSON. The student wore a shirt that said the act of homosexuality was a sin. that was the political message.

Another specious example. In many schools, chewing gum IS against the rules.

Disagreeing? How do you disagree? Do you say "My opinion is different than yours." or do you say "You are wrong, immoral and sinful."? The first is a valid form of disagreement in school, the second is not.

The act of being gay? How do you separate that from people who are gay? A homosexual is a person who is attracted to another person of the same sex. It is not an act, it is not a political platform, it is a fact of who that person is, much the same as the color of their eyes, or how tall they are.

I think our primary disagreement is in the idea of what homosexuality is. You believe it is genetic. I believe it is a choice made by the individual. SO far the gay gene has not been found, but anyway staying on topic.

Well, no, it is not our primary disagreement, it just popped up for the first time in the preceeding paragraph. However, it doesn't matter. Either way, it is their right to be homosexual without persecution from you or anyone, no matter what you believe about it.

I also Am veary suprised to know my disagreement with someone actions counts as abuse. DONT JUMP OFF THAT CLIFF. "STOP ABUSING ME"-jumps......... WOw im a bad person for disagreeing with thier choice as well as intollerant.:rolleyes:

Again, you are trying to put homosexuality in the same category as something harmful. You tried to equate it with illegal activities, and that didn't work, now you are trying to equate it with suicidal ones, and that does not work either. Homosexuality is simply a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. So telling someone that loving their partner is the same as jumping off a cliff IS abusive, yes. And you ARE a bad person if you insist that they must love who YOU think they should love, of course. Just as if the opposite were true, if homosexuals were insisting you must love someone of YOUR sex it would make them wrong and intolerant.

Fear by he homosexuals?? I live in NEW YORK and I feared in Highschool of ever experssing a Pro religouse view or speaking out against homosexuality for FEAR OF being labeled intolerant by faculty and students alike. I was veary offended by being called intolerant because of my view that homosexuality was wrong and immoral. Simply because I had a disagreeing view me and my fellow peers in my political circles were able to but feared media and social attention for simply having our beliefs. So your complaint that some Gay students felt fear was a load of bull crap.

Students wore pro gay shirts to school profesing "tolerance" for gay students. I took offense to some of the things these students said and wore But i never complaned. why you may ask???? well i believed in the ideas of free speach and devloped my theories of tolerance i hold today. I didnt fuss over the shirts and make them DISRUPTIVE TO THE SCHOOL ENVIORMENT. I didnt say the constant announcements on the loud speaker announcing GSA meetings in my school make me uncomfortable and caused me to fear for my life with thier sticker of a rainbow posted on the doors.

Intollerance has become such a staple for those who disagree with homosexuality that now free speach against homosexuality is not tolerated. The reverse has occured.

If students cant wear anti homosexual shirts then students cant wear pro homosexual shirts or proffess such opinionsfrom either side


Anything can become offensive as long as someone complains about it Thats my point.

I'm intrigued by this. How exactly were the rainbow stickers going to kill you? Do they work like the Gorgons and turn you into stone if you look directly at them?

In all reality, the major difference is, you may be (correctly) labeled intolerant, you may be asked to refrain from espousing your (in my view illogical and disgusting) viewpoint in school grounds or during school hours, but you are not going to be beaten to death. You are not going to be harassed. You are not going to be physically beaten. In fact, you will probably be congratulated by a great many people outside of the school environment for your actions.

So build a bridge. Society doesn't like bigots. Even if your god does.

I beg your pardon? How do you not find this to be an "honest" debate?

OK... if you need a definition of prejudice, here you go...
prejudice: n.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.



Really? OK... could you provide me examples of "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality" being dragged behind pickup trucks and tied to fences and left to die? How about people shooting up bars of "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality"? Have "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality" been denied basic equal rights? Are they not allowed to marry their partners? Can you show me one time that homosexuals have gathered outside the funeral of someone who is an "individual who didn't believe in homosexuality" and held up signs saying "God hates you and killed your mother because she was not gay"? I live in New York City too, and have SEEN a homosexual couple roughed up by a gang of teenagers simply because they were walking together holding hands. Can you say the same about any two "individuals who don't believe in homosexuality"?

So, unfortunately, if folks don't like you because you appear to them to be one of the people who believes that such behaviour against homosexuals is OK, you are not going to find much sympathy from me, or from others who think that everyone should have the right to love the partner of their choice.




I am NOT intolerant. I find your attitude repugnant, but I would NEVER deny you the right to hold it. Nor to express it in the proper way. You can say whatever you like out on the street, and the most I will do is say whatever I like back at you. But that behavior is not appropriate in a school setting, and I would not allow it there. Nor would I allow someone else to harass YOU.



I did not misunderstand you, I simply corrected you where you went astray. You attempted to equate intolerance of illegal activities with intolerance of homosexuality, which is not a valid comparison. And I do not hold your moral standards to be correct or viable on that issue, so I corrected you there too. Perhaps you need to go back and read what I wrote?


Well you have clearly brought in information to which i will not disagree with. The actions you listed above are criminal hence, those who perpitracted that act on those individuals who live a homosexual lifestyle should be locked up.

Now evearything you said does not provide a basis for prejudice simply on the opinion that "the act of homosexuality is wrong/ immoral". An ethical oppinion such as this does not contain any of the criteria on the basis that no person but rather a choice is being judged not an individual.

That is the key thing you fail to understand about the "RIGHT's/ Conservative" view on the issue. Read my other post to see why i believe it is a choice but the diffrence is you view homosexuality as race group of people while i consider all individual who act( display behavior) on these impulses gay. (so does most right winged people)

If in school you can express an opinion an any choice at all and i am denied my right to disagree with that choice in school that is free speach violation PLAIN AND SIMPLE. ITS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE BUT ABOUT THE CHOICES OF PEOPLE TO HAVE SAME GENDER SEX.

*snip*
You must take homosexuality as not the desire but the Choice to act upon it.

No, in fact YOU must take it that way. Others may take it however they choose. That is what tolerance is all about.

In the end I have grown to not care if the individual chooses to act upon homosexual tendencies or not. While I discourage the act among friends on the basis of morality it is not really a big issue for me. What i care about is that intolerance against those who disagree with the choice of homosexual behavior. The silencing of political debate is only what i really care about in the issue.

There has been no silencing of political debate. Some students violated school dress code, and were punished for that. If they chose to continue the debate with the same tactics anywhere else, no one would have said boo. If they chose a more appropriate method of expressing their feelings on school grounds, that would have been fine too. In fact, if you check out the original story, a kid who wore an anti-Christianity t-shirt got the same treatment and was suspended. The rule cuts both ways.

No, in fact YOU must take it that way. Others may take it however they choose. That is what tolerance is all about.



There has been no silencing of political debate. Some students violated school dress code, and were punished for that. If they chose to continue the debate with the same tactics anywhere else, no one would have said boo. If they chose a more appropriate method of expressing their feelings on school grounds, that would have been fine too. In fact, if you check out the original story, a kid who wore an anti-Christianity t-shirt got the same treatment and was suspended. The rule cuts both ways.

What i trully meant to say was instead of "you must take it this way" i meant to say my dichonomy of the word for my purposes is....

I have to disagree most anti christian shirts are ment to offend... like many race based shirts. These should be censored if they target individuals. In this Homosexuality is a sin t- shirt issue in school is free speach on the basis its not attacking an individual but expressing a belief that same gender sex is a sin.

I just has a dejavu attack while reading this thread.

I just has a dejavu attack while reading this thread.

I feel redundant repeating the same lines.... we are bothing using diffrent deffinitions for words such as homosexuality and homosexuals... Key diffrence... I believe its a choice while my opposition (whos name i forgot in 20 seconds) believs it refers to the group gays/homosexuals as a genetic group.

What i trully meant to say was instead of "you must take it this way" i meant to say my dichonomy of the word for my purposes is....

I have to disagree most anti christian shirts are ment to offend... like many race based shirts. These should be censored if they target individuals. In this Homosexuality is a sin t- shirt issue in school is free speach on the basis its not attacking an individual but expressing a belief that same gender sex is a sin.

Plenty of my kids at school wear God is dead shirts, or Mary was a fornicator t-shirts under their uniforms. They aren't seeking to offend anyone. They wear them because they are also band shirts, and because that's what they believe. No difference.

Well you have clearly brought in information to which i will not disagree with. The actions you listed above are criminal hence, those who perpitracted that act on those individuals who live a homosexual lifestyle should be locked up.

I agree with you, but am still waiting for examples of how folks with your attitude have suffered anything similar because of their beliefs.

Now evearything you said does not provide a basis for prejudice simply on the opinion that "the act of homosexuality is wrong/ immoral". An ethical oppinion such as this does not contain any of the criteria on the basis that no person but rather a choice is being judged not an individual.

I think I must be misunderstanding that, because it seems like you are trying to say that prejudice is ethical if it is against homosexuality as a choice? That can't be what you mean, prejudice is not ethical.

That is the key thing you fail to understand about the "RIGHT's/ Conservative" view on the issue. Read my other post to see why i believe it is a choice but the diffrence is you view homosexuality as race group of people while i consider all individual who act( display behavior) on these impulses gay. (so does most right winged people)

I understand that you believe it to be so. I said that it doesn't matter that you believe it, it is not right for you to be anti-homosexuality no matter whether it is a choice or not. If people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love.

If in school you can express an opinion an any choice at all and i am denied my right to disagree with that choice in school that is free speach violation PLAIN AND SIMPLE. ITS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE BUT ABOUT THE CHOICES OF PEOPLE TO HAVE SAME GENDER SEX.

I will explain it again. In school, someone can express an opinion about who THEY personally are, in a positive light. In school, you are not denied the right to disagree. In school, you are denied the right to be abusive. Calling someone sinful IS ABUSIVE. Free speech DOES NOT APPLY the same way in a school as it does outside. Plain and simple. If you want to disagree, you MUST NOT do it in a way that is abusive to someone else. Whatever the issue is. So, if the Christians wore t-shirts that said "Christianity is Cool!" that would have been fine. But shirts that say "Homosexuality is a sin" are not. Plain and simple, you do not have the right to be abusive, no matter what the topic, in school.

I feel redundant repeating the same lines.... we are bothing using diffrent deffinitions for words such as homosexuality and homosexuals... Key diffrence... I believe its a choice while my opposition (whos name i forgot in 20 seconds) believs it refers to the group gays/homosexuals as a genetic group.


No, I keep telling you that you can believe what you want about homosexuality, but it would be JUST as wrong for someone to wear "Republicanism is a sin" t-shirts. Choice or not is not the issue. The issue is that you do not have the right, in school, to label another group, be it people with a genetic link or an ideological one, as evil.

Plenty of my kids at school wear God is dead shirts, or Mary was a fornicator t-shirts under their uniforms. They aren't seeking to offend anyone. They wear them because they are also band shirts, and because that's what they believe. No difference.


Your school may have different rules. Were I an administrator at your school, the Mary shirts would have to go (vulgarity), and the God shirts I would have to think about.

But the kids who wore "Homosexuality is a sin" shirts did so not out of support of anything, but rather as an attack on homosexuals.

I agree with you, but am still waiting for examples of how folks with your attitude have suffered anything similar because of their beliefs.



I think I must be misunderstanding that, because it seems like you are trying to say that prejudice is ethical if it is against homosexuality as a choice? That can't be what you mean, prejudice is not ethical.



I understand that you believe it to be so. I said that it doesn't matter that you believe it, it is not right for you to be anti-homosexuality no matter whether it is a choice or not. If people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love.



I will explain it again. In school, someone can express an opinion about who THEY personally are, in a positive light. In school, you are not denied the right to disagree. In school, you are denied the right to be abusive. Calling someone sinful IS ABUSIVE. Free speech DOES NOT APPLY the same way in a school as it does outside. Plain and simple. If you want to disagree, you MUST NOT do it in a way that is abusive to someone else. Whatever the issue is. So, if the Christians wore t-shirts that said "Christianity is Cool!" that would have been fine. But shirts that say "Homosexuality is a sin" are not. Plain and simple, you do not have the right to be abusive, no matter what the topic, in school.

I never said homosexuals were rounding up and beating non homosexuals. But I was saying that thier is an unbalance in political debate and conservatives are being sensored for thier political beliefs that are not hatefull and not abusive.

I must misunderstand or am right on the money Please adress how disagreeing with someones choice is prejudicial. I as a member of an organization PINK and BLUE, "Prejudice is not Kool and Build Lastic Unitiy Evearywhere" have always undertood prejudice to be against a person not thier choice which is the issue here. It is the issue raised in your 2nd paragraph.

Thirdly "If people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love." LOL the purpose of political debate ALL POLTICAL debate is to change minds or call attention to something. The veary act of promoting anything homosexual behavior violates your own idea promposed in the quote. It is thier right.... I will not contest but it is our right to change minds. u have the right to your opinion but I also have a right to express mine in open forums. or on my property (my body)

What i trully meant to say was instead of "you must take it this way" i meant to say my dichonomy of the word for my purposes is....

I have to disagree most anti christian shirts are ment to offend... like many race based shirts. These should be censored if they target individuals. In this Homosexuality is a sin t- shirt issue in school is free speach on the basis its not attacking an individual but expressing a belief that same gender sex is a sin.

You missed the point. The kid who wore this particular anti-Christianity shirt did so specifically to be offensive to the Christians as they were being offensive to the homosexuals. The school did not tolerate such behavior from either party.

Your school may have different rules. Were I an administrator at your school, the Mary shirts would have to go (vulgarity), and the God shirts I would have to think about.

But the kids who wore "Homosexuality is a sin" shirts did so not out of support of anything, but rather as an attack on homosexuals.

Because they are under the uniform, as long as they button their uniform shirts there is nothing we can do. I'm actually rather impressed though, that so many of them know what fornication is.

I know what the homosexuality is a sin shirts were used for. I disagree wholeheartedly with them. I was merely responding to the argument that anti-Christian shirts are meant to offend. The difference between the shirts my students wear and the shirts worn by the students is that the t-shirts worn by the students are targeting a group directly. They are threatening them, even if it isn't a direct threat. To my way of thinking, there is no difference between "My god is going to condemn you to a lake of hell-fire and brimstone." and "My older brother is going to kick your arse." If the latter student gets suspended for threats, so should the former. And since that is what the shirts with "Homosexuality is a sin" on them did, the students deserved to be suspended.

Because they are under the uniform, as long as they button their uniform shirts there is nothing we can do. I'm actually rather impressed though, that so many of them know what fornication is.

I know what the homosexuality is a sin shirts were used for. I disagree wholeheartedly with them. I was merely responding to the argument that anti-Christian shirts are meant to offend. The difference between the shirts my students wear and the shirts worn by the students is that the t-shirts worn by the students are targeting a group directly. They are threatening them, even if it isn't a direct threat. To my way of thinking, there is no difference between "My god is going to condemn you to a lake of hell-fire and brimstone." and "My older brother is going to kick your arse." If the latter student gets suspended for threats, so should the former. And since that is what the shirts with "Homosexuality is a sin" on them did, the students deserved to be suspended.

I get you. And I like your analogy.

I get you. And I like your analogy.

Thanks.

I never said homosexuals were rounding up and beating non homosexuals. But I was saying that thier is an unbalance in political debate and conservatives are being sensored for thier political beliefs that are not hatefull and not abusive.

I would probably disagree with you on what is hateful and abusive. And that is the problem there. Unfortunately, the result of the attitudes of conservatives, whether those conservatives consider the attitudes hateful and abusive or not, is what leads to homosexuals being beaten up and killed. If enough people insist on making a group out to be wrong because of who they are (or what they do/believe) then that group is quite often in danger of more violent abuse.

And again, homosexuality is not illegal. Why is it being dealt with in a political forum at all? Homosexuals are people. They want rights equal to other people. That is what this country is all about, why does this issue even come up to a debate, when we all agree that homosexuality is not illegal?

I must misunderstand or am right on the money Please adress how disagreeing with someones choice is prejudicial. I as a member of an organization PINK and BLUE, "Prejudice is not Kool and Build Lastic Unitiy Evearywhere" have always undertood prejudice to be against a person not thier choice which is the issue here. It is the issue raised in your 2nd paragraph.

I am guessing I misunderstood you. Disagreeing is not prejudiced, unless you do so in a way that is marked by irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, is based on an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts, or any of the other definitions of prejudice. You can be prejudiced against homosexuality, many people are.

Thirdly "If people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love." LOL the purpose of political debate ALL POLTICAL debate is to change minds or call attention to something. The veary act of promoting anything homosexual behavior violates your own idea promposed in the quote. It is thier right.... I will not contest but it is our right to change minds. u have the right to your opinion but I also have a right to express mine in open forums. or on my property (my body)

And I was stating MY beliefs there. You are free to state yours, and mine are: If you believe homosexuality to be a choice, then if people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love.

Note, I used the conditional "should" rather than stating it as "you have to" which would have taken it out of the realm of my opinion, and made it an attempted denial of your rights.

"promposed"? I am not sure what you meant to say there?

What i care about is that intolerance against those who disagree with the choice of homosexual behavior. The silencing of political debate is only what i really care about in the issue.

Then bring forth logical and reasonable arguments against homosexuality.
So far, most 'arguments' I have heard are in the line of 'my god thinks it's wrong' and 'it's icky', with a little 'this possibly biased research shows that some homosexuals might be a little ill or violent' thrown in for good measure.

I agree with you, but am still waiting for examples of how folks with your attitude have suffered anything similar because of their beliefs.


Let me state at the outset that I do not have an anti-homosexual attitude.

I do have an example for you, it was not based on my attitude though.

My friend and I were refused service and asked to leave a bar in San Francisco because we are "actual" females as opposed to pretend females. The tenor of our ejection was hostile.

And I was stating MY beliefs there. You are free to state yours, and mine are: If you believe homosexuality to be a choice, then if people choose to be homosexual, that is their right and you should leave them alone and let them love whoever they love.

Note, I used the conditional "should" rather than stating it as "you have to" which would have taken it out of the realm of my opinion, and made it an attempted denial of your rights.

"promposed"? I am not sure what you meant to say there?


What im doing is nothing diffrent from what that student with the shirt "homosexuality is sinful is doing" thats my whole point. He as you and me are expressing our opinion. Same as students GSA groups in the national schools and that student.

I think this whole conversation was a misunderstanding or based on bad prejudice of a stereotipicle view of the other side of the debate.

Let me state at the outset that I do not have an anti-homosexual attitude.

I do have an example for you, it was not based on my attitude though.

My friend and I were refused service and asked to leave a bar in San Francisco because we are "actual" females as opposed to pretend females. The tenor of our ejection was hostile.

So you were denied service at a bar because you were actually real? That is not right.

I'm in several different minds about this one.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the government taking a position like "Homosexuality is good." That interferes with what I see as the all-important notion of government as thoroughly neutral and secular. If the government takes a proactive approach towards being accepting of homosexuals by leading a school in a moment of silence on behalf of homosexuals, than it is as natural for people who disagree to feel exactly the same as atheists would feel if the government allowed teachers to lead a class in a moment of silence on behalf of Christians. It's exclusive in appearance if not in intent, and constitutes a coercive organization taking a stance on an issue when individuals arguing their separate points could and should come to a conclusion independent of it.

I support many rights for gays, like civil unions and adoption. I feel that freedom is a grand compromise between all special interest groups to simply let the free winds of inquiry blow throughout society. Those who disagree with my stance on the moment of silence may decry the fact that Christians are unable to produce compelling arguments to back up their points about gays, but the free winds of inquiry are not necessarily logical. They're simply human. And even when they do not blow logically, it is not my job to attempt to force other people to consider my position, or to use government's resources as an opportunity to grandstand against it.

I do have an example for you, it was not based on my attitude though.

My friend and I were refused service and asked to leave a bar in San Francisco because we are "actual" females as opposed to pretend females. The tenor of our ejection was hostile.

Why were you doing in a cross-dressing bar in the first place? Or was it a transsexual bar (is there such a thing)? Or was it a lesbian bar?

My opinion schools should be for learning and not for political activist groups.Do they still recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning in American schools?

This case looks pretty clear-cut.

"Homosexuality is sin" t-shirts pretty clearly create a hostile atmosphere for homosexual kids, and that isnt tolerable at a school.

If people wore shirts that said "christianity is bunk" the same reasoning would apply.

Anti-gay people have no more right to say "the presence of openly gay people is intolerable" than they have to say "niggers should wear masks and gloves because their presence is intolerable."

No contradiction at all here.

What im doing is nothing diffrent from what that student with the shirt "homosexuality is sinful is doing" thats my whole point. He as you and me are expressing our opinion. Same as students GSA groups in the national schools and that student.

I think this whole conversation was a misunderstanding or based on bad prejudice of a stereotipicle view of the other side of the debate.

Nope. The kids in the "Homosexuality is sinful" t-shirts were breaking the school rules. The debate you and I are having has not broken any rules. And the kids in the Day of Silence and other GSA groups are not breaking rules either. If they do, then they will be punished as appropriate.

And there are rules here too. If you and I start calling each other vile names, then we are breaking the rules, but we seem to be avoiding that, thank goodness.

As to this conversation, I do not misunderstand your position, I disagree with it. If you misunderstand mine, I will be happy to continue to try and clear if up for you.

I'm in several different minds about this one.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the government taking a position like "Homosexuality is good." That interferes with what I see as the all-important notion of government as thoroughly neutral and secular. If the government takes a proactive approach towards being accepting of homosexuals by leading a school in a moment of silence on behalf of homosexuals, than it is as natural for people who disagree to feel exactly the same as atheists would feel if the government allowed teachers to lead a class in a moment of silence on behalf of Christians. It's exclusive in appearance if not in intent, and constitutes a coercive organization taking a stance on an issue when individuals arguing their separate points could and should come to a conclusion independent of it.

My understanding of the Day of Silence was not that it came from the govermnent or the school officials, but that it was an initiative of the students. And that it was not saying "Homosexuality is good" but rather "Harassment and bullying of homosexuals is bad". If a student group wished to have a similar event for Christians, that would be allowed, if it was of a similar nature and did not (as the t-shirts did) focus on others being evil.

I support many rights for gays, like civil unions and adoption. I feel that freedom is a grand compromise between all special interest groups to simply let the free winds of inquiry blow throughout society. Those who disagree with my stance on the moment of silence may decry the fact that Christians are unable to produce compelling arguments to back up their points about gays, but the free winds of inquiry are not necessarily logical. They're simply human. And even when they do not blow logically, it is not my job to attempt to force other people to consider my position, or to use government's resources as an opportunity to grandstand against it.

An admirable stance, for the most part, but mitigated here by the facts of the case, which have been restated repeatedly throughout the thread.


Why were you doing in a cross-dressing bar in the first place? Or was it a transsexual bar (is there such a thing)? Or was it a lesbian bar?

What difference? It was a public gathering place and if the girls in question were not being rude and offensive in their behaviour, they should have been treated with at least common courtesy. If transsexuals were in a straight bar, they should receive the same courtesy.

Let me state at the outset that I do not have an anti-homosexual attitude.

I do have an example for you, it was not based on my attitude though.

My friend and I were refused service and asked to leave a bar in San Francisco because we are "actual" females as opposed to pretend females. The tenor of our ejection was hostile.

That is a shame, and should not have happened. I am sorry. It is a sad fact that there is bad blood on both sides of this debate, and unfortunately, things like this sometimes happen, even though they are wrong.

Time For Sum Queer Bashin!

Yyyeeeehhhhaaaawwww!

TOLERENCE IS A GOOD THING.

Indeed.

The hallmark of civilization is intolerance.

This is not consistent with the first statement, and, I would say, is also wrong. One cannot have civilization without tolerance. At best, what you get is mob rule, tyrrany, or barbarism.

DO you tolerate pedaphiles?

Yes. I do not tolerate any harmful actions they take against children, but the people themselves are still people. And I even tolerate those who would suggest that they should be able to have relationships with cihldren, although I find their opinoins utterly repugnant.

THis is why for example intollerance of homosexuals is completly justifiable and maybe a good thing or it could be a bad thing.

Yet another comment that doesn't make sense. If it is "completely justifiable", then you should be able to justify it - and make the argument that it is a good thing.

My answer is logical... Just doesnt necisarily agree with your logic.. Logic simply means it makes sense and has valid points. Your logic has greater evidence for your conclusions

Please, do bring up any valid points or anything at all that begins to make sense that could lead to the conclusion "homosexuality is a choice." Be sure to explain why homo- and bi-sexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Be sure to tell us exactly when the sexuality fairy came to you and gave you the choice between being physically attracted to men and women, and you actively chose one or the other.

But this notion that we cannot control our behavior influenced by impulses is nonsense.

No one has suggested that anyone cannot control their behavior. Sexuality, however, is not a behavior. It is a trait specific to that person. A homosexual person is exclusively (or almost exclusively) attracted to members of the same sex. A heterosexual person is exclusively (or almost exclusively) attracted to members of the opposite sex. A bisexual person is attracted to members of both sexes. An asexual person feels no attraction to either.

Anyone and everyone can decide what to do about that attraction, but their sexuality doesn't change, regardless of that decision. A person of any sexuality can choose to be celibate, can be monogamous, can be promiscuous.

You must take homosexuality as not the desire but the Choice to act upon it.

That's like saying, "Sight is not seeing something, but the choice you make when you see it." Sexuality, by definition, has nothing to do with action. It describes the attractions a person feels. We have names for what they may or may not do about those attractions.

I feel redundant repeating the same lines.... we are bothing using diffrent deffinitions for words such as homosexuality and homosexuals... Key diffrence... I believe its a choice while my opposition (whos name i forgot in 20 seconds) believs it refers to the group gays/homosexuals as a genetic group.

The fact that you think it must either be genetic or a choice demonstrates that you are close to completely ignorant of biology.

Time For Sum Queer Bashin!

Yyyeeeehhhhaaaawwww!

Sum queer bashin... if you bash one queer, then bash another queer, what is the total sum of queers have you bashed?

Or, perhaps my response should have been: Huh?

I never said homosexuals were rounding up and beating non homosexuals.

Then you cannot compare your supposed fear to the fear that homosexual students have to live through. They have to fear for their lives. You fear being called a name that you don't like, but seems to apply. In truth, if you are truly opposed to equal treatment for homosexuals, then you should be proud to be called intolerant - proud to be called a bigot.

But I was saying that thier is an unbalance in political debate and conservatives are being sensored for thier political beliefs that are not hatefull and not abusive.

How are conservatives being censored? I hear people making statements against homosexuals all the time. And these students, had they chosen the same type of demonstration, rather than trying something different, would most likely have been allowed to express whatever they want. After all, you cannot force someone not to be silent.

I must misunderstand or am right on the money Please adress how disagreeing with someones choice is prejudicial.

No, but you have already admitted that sexuality is not a choice - that only what you do about it is a choice. Thus, disagreeing with a sexuality is like disagreeing with menstruating.

If I wore a t-shire that said, "Menstruating is a sin," would you not consider that prejudicial against healthy post-pubescent, pre-menopausal, non-pregnant women?

I'm in several different minds about this one.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the government taking a position like "Homosexuality is good." That interferes with what I see as the all-important notion of government as thoroughly neutral and secular. If the government takes a proactive approach towards being accepting of homosexuals by leading a school in a moment of silence on behalf of homosexuals, than it is as natural for people who disagree to feel exactly the same as atheists would feel if the government allowed teachers to lead a class in a moment of silence on behalf of Christians. It's exclusive in appearance if not in intent, and constitutes a coercive organization taking a stance on an issue when individuals arguing their separate points could and should come to a conclusion independent of it.

If the government were actually taking any kind of stance here, I would agree with you. However, the government and the school have taken no stance on sexuality. They simply allowed a student-led day of silence to occur (not sure how they could force the students to talk anyways). Students decided to make the statement that the LGBT community should be treated equally and should be free from harrassment and violence by choosing not to talk except when necessary for an entire day. This represents nothing about the viewpoint of the school or government.

What difference? It was a public gathering place and if the girls in question were not being rude and offensive in their behaviour, they should have been treated with at least common courtesy. If transsexuals were in a straight bar, they should receive the same courtesy.

I'd be willing to bet money that the bolded part is what is being left out of the story....

I'd be willing to bet money that the bolded part is what is being left out of the story....

It's possible, which is why I mentioned it, but it is also possible that it is not true. I am willing to take the person who posted the incident at her word that it was not her attitude that got them ejected. It is entirely possible that they were ejected for no reason, it does happen, and it is wrong no matter which way if cuts. We cannot assume that one community is all made up of sinners and the other all of saints, that would not be fair. We are all human, and subject to making the same mistakes and bad decisions. All we can do is try to be better next time, and to help others be better too.

It's possible, which is why I mentioned it, but it is also possible that it is not true. I am willing to take the person who posted the incident at her word that it was not her attitude that got them ejected. It is entirely possible that they were ejected for no reason, it does happen, and it is wrong no matter which way if cuts. We cannot assume that one community is all made up of sinners and the other all of saints, that would not be fair. We are all human, and subject to making the same mistakes and bad decisions. All we can do is try to be better next time, and to help others be better too.

I'm not assuming that any group are made up of sinners or saints. I just have personally been to more than one "gay bar" or drag show, and I've never had a problem. It has been my experience that people at both places are pretty much accepting of you regardless, unless you choose to make a complete ass out of yourself. I have been the source of jokes from a drag queen: "How many straight people are in the house?.......What the hell are you doing here, anyways?" But it was meant to be a joke, and all was well.

Even if they were kicked out for "no reason", I doubt it had anything to do with them being "real women." After all, if they weren't being rude about it, how would anyone know that they weren't lesbians, or weren't "pretend women" (whatever that means)?

So you were denied service at a bar because you were actually real? That is not right.
Not any less right then some of the bars up here where I see crossdressers booted.

Not any less right then some of the bars up here where I see crossdressers booted.

*shakes head*

*shakes head*
Yeah depresses me too that people cant just let other people enjoy themselfs wether they be strait or bi or gay or crossdressers or transexuals or whatever

Yeah depresses me too that people cant just let other people enjoy themselfs wether they be strait or bi or gay or crossdressers or transexuals or whatever

I do have to agree with that.

Yeah depresses me too that people cant just let other people enjoy themselfs wether they be strait or bi or gay or crossdressers or transexuals or whatever

Fortunately, ejection from a gay bar (which, sadly, may feel like one of the few places that feel safe for homosexuals to congregate) is probably one of the most severe things a straight person ever suffers based strictly on the basis of non-homosexuality. Would that the reverse were also the case.

Fortunately, ejection from a gay bar (which, sadly, may feel like one of the few places that feel safe for homosexuals to congregate) is probably one of the most severe things a straight person ever suffers based strictly on the basis of non-homosexuality. Would that the reverse were also the case.

If it was reversed, there be a lawsuit.

If it was reversed, there be a lawsuit.

Possibly. But if it were reversed, there would probably also be a beating or worse.

And there is no reason why, if they chose, these girls could not pursue a lawsuit of their own. And they did not suffer any physical violence, nor is it likely that they ever would in such a situation.

Hence my wish that homosexuals only receive the same, minimally annoying treatment.

How is disagreeing with someone abussing them??? AN infrindgement on political speach not hate speach is whats going on. I disagree with the choice of homosexuality. If i come in with a shirt that says "chewing gum in school is wrong" should i be kicked out ? NO, It is a political message disagreeing with a political action (does not mean im attacking homosexuals) I am not directing it at a person. The act of being gay is whats being potested not the PERSON. The student wore a shirt that said the act of homosexuality was a sin. that was the political message.

"Homosexuals" are not conglomerate manifestations of some abstraction called "homosexuality," we are people. By voicing disapproval or hostility towards "homosexuality" you are, in fact, attacking people. Just as surely as Christian people get offended when someone says "Christianity is a load of bullshit. Christianity is a mental derangement, a sickness that should be cured." Those aren't statements about some 'idea' of Christianity, they're slander against Christian people, just as surely as condemnations of 'homosexuality' are condemnations against gay people. Try assimilating that before entering into the debate.

Further, you contend that homosexual orientation is a choice. Alright, for argument's sake, explain how/why *any* person would choose to belong to a group against their (supposedly, in your argument) natural inclinations and undertake to risk persocution, marginalisation, and even violence. What could possibly motivate a person to want to belong to a minority that faces so much prejudice and hostility?

The fact is that gay people no more choose our orientation than straight people choose theirs. It is built in to our being, a function of nature's propensity for diversity and variation. There is evidence that points to a biological 'cause' (gay men have been found, for instance, to respond to other male's pheremones more like women do, that's chemical, not behavioural) but frankly homosexuality doesn't need to be 'explained' any more than heterosexuality does. It simply is. It isn't a pathology or an illness or a choice, it is quite simply how some people-- a minority, as it happens-- are formed.

"Homosexuals" are not conglomerate manifestations of some abstraction called "homosexuality," we are people. By voicing disapproval or hostility towards "homosexuality" you are, in fact, attacking people.

Actually no. I do not approve of homosexuality but yet I have friends who are gay. Am I attacking them because I disprove of it?

Just as surely as Christian people get offended when someone says "Christianity is a load of bullshit. Christianity is a mental derangement, a sickness that should be cured."

Not me. I do not get offended by it.

Those aren't statements about some 'idea' of Christianity, they're slander against Christian people, just as surely as condemnations of 'homosexuality' are condemnations against gay people. Try assimilating that before entering into the debate.

You also need to calm down. Anger only leads to more anger and a flamefest can occur.

Further, you contend that homosexual orientation is a choice. Alright, for argument's sake, explain how/why *any* person would choose to belong to a group against their (supposedly, in your argument) natural inclinations and undertake to risk persocution, marginalisation, and even violence. What could possibly motivate a person to want to belong to a minority that faces so much prejudice and hostility?

No one knows if it is genetic or not.

The fact is that gay people no more choose our orientation than straight people choose theirs. It is built in to our being, a function of nature's propensity for diversity and variation.

Then explain to me how a person who is gay turns to being straight if it isn't a choice but is infact, genetic?

There is evidence that points to a biological 'cause' (gay men have been found, for instance, to respond to other male's pheremones more like women do, that's chemical, not behavioural) but frankly homosexuality doesn't need to be 'explained' any more than heterosexuality does. It simply is. It isn't a pathology or an illness or a choice, it is quite simply how some people-- a minority, as it happens-- are formed.

And yet there is still little evidence of it being pyschological or genetic.

No one knows if it is genetic or not.

No one knows if it is completely genetic or not. Of course, there is a difference between "biologic" and "genetic". Anything which is genetic is certainly a biological trait. However, all traits are not genetic, or purely genetic.

Take, for instance, skin color. This is genetically affected, yes. No less than five different genes have a direct effect on skin color. On top of that, exposure to sunlight, diet, and general health will all have an effect on skin color.

Does the fact that skin color is not completely genetic suddenly make skin color a choice? Of course not!

Then explain to me how a person who is gay turns to being straight if it isn't a choice but is infact, genetic?

They don't. A person does not control who they are attracted to. A person can choose who they will have sex with (ie. what they do about their attractions or lack thereof), but cannot decide whom they are attracted to in the first place. As such, a person who says they are gay and then "turns" straight is most likely either fooling others (and maybe even themselves), repressing their attractions, because they have been told that they are evil, or was bisexual to begin with and has decided to act only on their opposite-sex attractions, thus appearing "straight".

Tell me, Corneliu, when did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you a choice to either be attracted to men or women? At what point were you equally attracted to both and made the choice to only be attracted to one? At what point did you have the choice to alter your own brain structure and chemistry so that you would react or not react to male pheromones?

And yet there is still little evidence of it being pyschological or genetic.

Somebody hasn't bothered looking at the evidence, apparently. You conveniently cut out the part of the post you were responding to that talked about the study in which male homosexuals were found to respond to male pheromones in the same way as straight women (while straight men did not respond). You conveniently ignore the studies that have shown that homosexual men often have brain structures closer to those of women than to straight men. You conveniently ignore the genetic studies that point to a possible genetic determinant of male sexuality that increases the chances of homosexuality in men, while increasing fecundity in women. You conveniently ignore the studies in animals that point to hormonal balances in the womb as a partial determinant of sexuality. You conveniently ignore twin studies, which have never shown a 100% correlation, but have shown a much higher correlation than would be expected for a completely non-genetic trait. You have to ignore an awful lot of evidence to come to the conclusion that there is little of it.