NationStates Jolt Archive

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage) approved a bill that, if passed, would legalize same-sex marriage. The Vermont Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

I hope it passes.

Thoughts?

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage) approved a bill that, if passed, would legalize same-sex marriage. The Vermont Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

I hope it passes.

Thoughts?

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

Curious - do you actually live in Vermont?

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

No there aren't.

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

Ah, but heres the thing - If the church refused to perform interracial marriage, would it be a violation? Yes, but the outcry would be large and a law would soon be passed forcing churches to perform interracial weddings. The only reason people don't feel the same way about gay marriage is because discriminating against gay people has become normal, which is why there are so many gay jokes and people use the term "gay" as an insult
Personally, I very pleased about this, especially because it finally says that religon should not trump law

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

Source?

Curious - do you actually live in Vermont?

lol, no.

Ah, but heres the thing - If the church refused to perform interfaith marriage, would it be a violation? Yes, but the outcry would be large and a law would soon be passed forcing churches to perform interfaith weddings. The only reason people don't feel the same way about gay marriage is because discriminating against gay people has become normal, which is why there are so many gay jokes and people use the term "gay" as an insult
Personally, I very pleased about this, especially because it finally says that religon should not trump law

What? I don't think churches should be forced to perform anyone's marriage. In fact, I'm pretty sure a Catholic priest would not perform a marriage between a couple that wasn't Catholic.

Excellent, but isn't this the same state that declared unfertilised embryos to have human rights?

Excellent, but isn't this the same state that declared unfertilised embryos to have human rights?

What the hell is an unfertilized embryo? :confused:

Excellent, but isn't this the same state that declared unfertilised embryos to have human rights?

uh... maybe embryos but I sort of doubt they gave human rights to sperm and eggs.

Lackadaisical2, I actually meant interRACIAL marriage, but I was doing my RS (Religious Studies) homework, and I think it rubbed off on me....

Lackadaisical2, I actually meant interRACIAL marriage, but I was doing my RS (Religious Studies) homework, and I think it rubbed off on me....

haha, ok that makes more sense now...

yes, so a church that wouldn't perform an interracial marriage would immeadiatly be called racist - why, then, are some people defending the churches right to do so in this case?
Unfertilized embryos don't exist, I think you mean unfertilized eggs

What the hell is an unfertilized embryo? :confused:

It doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist.

Then where's the harm in giving them human rights? It's like giving the Smurfs human rights. Waste of time, but quite entertaining. :)

yes, so a church that wouldn't perform an interracial marriage would immeadiatly be called racist - why, then, are some people defending the churches right to do so in this case?

Easy, 1st amendment, that whole freedom of religion thing.

yes, so a church that wouldn't perform an interracial marriage would immeadiatly be called racist - why, then, are some people defending the churches right to do so in this case?
Unfertilized embryos don't exist, I think you mean unfertilized eggs

You can't choose your skin color, but I'm pretty sure you can choose not to have sex with another guy.

OOOHHHH bad thing to say around me, Wuldani. Yes, I can choose to be celibate - but if you dare say I choose who I fall in love with, I choose what gender of people I fall in love with, you are going DOOOWWWNNNN

Easy, 1st amendment, that whole freedom of religion thing.

Ahh, but would it be? There would be a massive public outcry if any church refused to perform interracial marriages, and they were allowed to. Besides, I'm not sure they would: Is the freedom of religon not conditional on not being a relgion tht discriminates? I can't imagine even the US upholding The First Ammendment for a church that ritually sacrifices

OOOHHHH bad thing to say around me, Wuldani. Yes, I can choose to be celibate - but if you dare say I choose who I fall in love with, I choose what gender of people I fall in love with, you are going DOOOWWWNNNN

Really. Is that a threat?

Yes. Yes it is. I will get out my verbal chainsaw.

If a church decided that your very existence was sinful, why would you want to get married there?

Good for Vermont, though.

What? I don't think churches should be forced to perform anyone's marriage. In fact, I'm pretty sure a Catholic priest would not perform a marriage between a couple that wasn't Catholic.

Agreed. Churches serve those who they choose to serve (umm, I should say, various religious congregations serve who they choose to serve).

I see no reason why the gov't should make a church perform, say, and interracial marriage... if I wanted to have an interracial marriage (and the law, and my current wife obliged) but my church would not let me... then it would be time to find a new church, because they are clearly not equipped to meet my spiritual needs. Moreso, I think, for teh gayz, if you are attending a less than hospitable church, or a church that refuses to cater to your sexual preferences... why would you still be attending that church?

Also... I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment makes it pretty clear that the gov't can't force a church to let two people get married... doesn't it?

Also, so long as there is no ridiculous provision to federalize churches (kinda) then good luck to Vermont... I've heard the vote might be coming to MN soon (where I live)... I'm hoping.

Agreed. Churches serve those who they choose to serve

Right then. Lets take Religion out of the picture for a moment. Lets say that a large department store refused to serve Gay people/black people/cyborgs whatever. I think was can all agree that they would pretty soon be forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws (I just had a thought - does vermont even have anti discrimination laws for gay people? I'm in the UK, where we are civilized when it comes to that sort of thing, so I keep on forgetting about lack of rights in America!)
However, when it's A church that is discriminating against people, suddenly everyone rushes to defend it's right to freedom of religion, here meaning freedom to discriminate.
Why does religon have a trump card? Why is a religion, that not everyone in a country believes in considered more important that the law of this country? I was under the impression that everyone and everything (unless, of course, you are an Oil Company under the bush admin) in a country had to adhere to it's laws

Ahh, but would it be? There would be a massive public outcry if any church refused to perform interracial marriages, and they were allowed to. Besides, I'm not sure they would: Is the freedom of religon not conditional on not being a relgion tht discriminates? I can't imagine even the US upholding The First Ammendment for a church that ritually sacrifices

Ok... but ritual sacrifice isn't "Hey blacks aren't good people!" ritual sacrifice is "Hey lets kill those people to appease the God that they may well not believe in."

It's perfectly legal in the US to hate people... for any reason in fact. It is similarly legal to congregate (as it were) with people who have the same tendencies to hate others as yourself... so long as the peace is kept, and the threat of actual violence, or harm is a non-issue. There is nothing wrong, nor should there be, with a church that spouts racist crap, should you disagree, one could argue that no one, ever, anywhere is ever allowed, under any circumstances to dislike another person for any reason whatsoever.

Racism is legal... again, so long as no harm actually comes of it. A church has nearly the same rights as a person in the US, as accorded by the 1st amendment, which garauntees that lawful congregations (including the racist ones) the right to do as they please, so long as... well, so long as they are law-abiding.

Ritual sacrifice would probably be constituted as murder... which you will note is illegal... in the best light, it could be seen as euthanasia (should the key 'participant' be willing)... euthenasia is also illegal. So you can see how being racist is not the same as sacrificing people, and they're total differences in regards to US law.

Right then. Lets take Religion out of the picture for a moment. Lets say that a large department store refused to serve Gay people/black people/cyborgs whatever. I think was can all agree that they would pretty soon be forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws (I just had a thought - does vermont even have anti discrimination laws for gay people? I'm in the UK, where we are civilized when it comes to that sort of thing, so I keep on forgetting about lack of rights in America!)
However, when it's A church that is discriminating against people, suddenly everyone rushes to defend it's right to freedom of religion, here meaning freedom to discriminate.
Why does religon have a trump card? Why is a religion, that not everyone in a country believes in considered more important that the law of this country? I was under the impression that everyone and everything (unless, of course, you are an Oil Company under the bush admin) in a country had to adhere to it's laws

Personally (and I'm not exactly sure how the corporate laws work) I don't think there should be anything wrong with a discriminatory store. So, Anti-GayMart doesn't want to let gays shop there? Fine by me... they won't get my business... and I'd imagine that they would lose enough business to have to quickly change their policy (and... you know, probably their name too), or else cease to be in business. Though I do believe there is anti-discrimination laws in place.

Churches typically don't bar entrance to gay people... even though Catholic churches have been known to bar openly gay people from Communion... a church can believe whatever it wants to... discrimination as an ideology is not illegal, and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to say "I'm not ok with gays" or for religions to similarly be not ok with gays. From there... why should the gov't be able to dictate which religious services churches offer? Doesn't that defeat the whole 'seperation of Church and State" thing that America fought so hard to achieve? The asnwer is: Yes, yes it does.

Der Teutoniker, you have a very good point. I was unaware that there wasn't any form of hate speech law in effect in the USA. Well, does this not strike you as wrong? That any form of religion can do or say or incite to violence anything and anyone it wants. What if a group, or a book club started doing that? of course it wouldn't be allowed to do that! I would point out a religious sect that was allowed to take illegal hallucinagnic (is that how one spells it?) drugs because it brings them closer to God. Swap the words religious sect for artistic society and God for Impressionist art and you'll see exactly how messed up this is.

EDIT:
'seperation of Church and State" thing that America fought so hard to achieve?

What seperation of this church and the state? No such thing! If a country bases it's laws on a religion and displays the 10 commandments in governmental buildings then there is no speration of the church and state. Law has no place in Religion, yes - But Religion has no pplace in law, and the entire gay marrige being outlawed is a relgious law. Law is not allowed to interfere with religion, but Religion likes nothing better than to trample it's dirty hobnails all over it

Why does religon have a trump card? Why is a religion, that not everyone in a country believes in considered more important that the law of this country? I was under the impression that everyone and everything (unless, of course, you are an Oil Company under the bush admin) in a country had to adhere to it's laws

Sorry, I didn't actually read this far down. Religion is often given special treatment because of the 1st Amendment... which gives it the ability ot be protected, in many cases, from federalist meddling. The State has little authority over the Church... so long as the given church abides by the laws (and 'racism' is not illegal, the same is true for homophobia) they are allowed to operate as they will. I can invite neighbors in for tea, but refuse a similar invitation to a gay neighbor, should I so choose... I believe that my right in that regard mirrors the right of the churches to choose to whom they dispense religious services.

There comes a time when civil liberties become excessive. Wouldn't you say that being allowed by law to be racist or homophobic is such a time? I am shocked that The USA is backward enough to allow racism - Is there not a fair employment policy?

Right, I need to go eat dinner. I won't be able to reply for about half an hour. Lets see what this thread get's up to!

Personally (and I'm not exactly sure how the corporate laws work) I don't think there should be anything wrong with a discriminatory store. So, Anti-GayMart doesn't want to let gays shop there? Fine by me... they won't get my business... and I'd imagine that they would lose enough business to have to quickly change their policy (and... you know, probably their name too), or else cease to be in business. Though I do believe there is anti-discrimination laws in place.

Churches typically don't bar entrance to gay people... even though Catholic churches have been known to bar openly gay people from Communion... a church can believe whatever it wants to... discrimination as an ideology is not illegal, and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to say "I'm not ok with gays" or for religions to similarly be not ok with gays. From there... why should the gov't be able to dictate which religious services churches offer? Doesn't that defeat the whole 'seperation of Church and State" thing that America fought so hard to achieve? The asnwer is: Yes, yes it does.

the problem is some minorities have limited access to the market.
For instance they might need a grocery store within walking distance of their home. At best there is going to be one and if that one turns them away, they will be forced to use convenience stores with more expensive and less healthy food.

Der Teutoniker, you have a very good point. I was unaware that there wasn't any form of hate speech law in effect in the USA. Well, does this not strike you as wrong? That any form of religion can do or say or incite to violence anything and anyone it wants. What if a group, or a book club started doing that? of course it wouldn't be allowed to do that! I would point out a religious sect that was allowed to take illegal hallucinagnic (is that how one spells it?) drugs because it brings them closer to God. Swap the words religious sect for artistic society and God for Impressionist art and you'll see exactly how messed up this is.

I agree that in some cases, the 1st Amendment becomes blurry. There are indeed hate speech laws... but something more passive such as refusing to marry a gay couple, is outside the states ability ot enforce. Now, if a nationally televised church service was ranting about the ebil blaks and gayz... maybe somebody would step in (probably the television studio, actually... that wouldn't be good for their image I'm sure).

For example, I could declare myself the Pope of Teutoniacism, and begin holding religious meetings in my house. I am free to refuse entry to anyone I so choose... and similarly I would be in charge of dispensing the religious services (marriage, some form of Communion-like even, whatnot). Say the gov't were to say to my religious faction "You have to perform gay marriages!" well... such a statement would be entirely contingent upon my personal willingness to do that... and seeing as how there are no other Ordained High Priests in Service of Holiness (A long title... but worth it), my religion would be able to avoid such a law.

Similarly the church that I was married in requiered the couple to be attendant members of the church... you actually had to have a record of attendance before the pastor would marry a couple (because of the spiritual connection one gains to their place of worship, and to their fellow believers), and so they would not marry just anyone off the street... which makes sense, similarly that right to refuse religious services should be entirely in the churches power.

Besides, Justices of the Peace can do legal marriages anyway, so it's not like Gay Vermontians would have no recourse.

Also, sorry this is ranty, and rambly, I've been up to long, and it's the end of my work-week, and I'm tired, and I should've been in bed like, an hour ago....

the problem is some minorities have limited access to the market.
For instance they might need a grocery store within walking distance of their home. At best there is going to be one and if that one turns them away, they will be forced to use convenience stores with more expensive and less healthy food.

Hey... jerk... you shouldn't point out where my argument has flaws... it makes me look bad! :tongue:

That is a good point, though... and I really don't have an argument against it.

There comes a time when civil liberties become excessive. Wouldn't you say that being allowed by law to be racist or homophobic is such a time? I am shocked that The USA is backward enough to allow racism - Is there not a fair employment policy?

Right, I need to go eat dinner. I won't be able to reply for about half an hour. Lets see what this thread get's up to!

There is fair employment policy... and I'm pretty sure stores can't bar entrance based on race (without special exception maybe, I'm really not sure).

Why should it be illegal to be racist? Why is it the gov'ts business if I don't happen to like dem ebil blaks? Should it similarly be illegal to dislike vegetables, on the grounds of personal opinion?

For the record, I really am not racist or homophobic... not that anyone says I am... just making sure my stance isn't gonna make everyone here hate me, lol.

It should be, if the reasons for it are untrue (White are superior to blacks, Gay people all have AIDS etc) and they can potentially cause harm (a world were being racist is not illegal will more than likely lead to a world were racist groups are larger than political parties and hand out pamphlets full of lies and provoking violence, A world where homophobia is not illegal is exactly the same as this one)

Telling people what they are allowed to think its a very dangerous path to tread. Besides, the only way you can ever hope to actually eliminate homophobia and racism is to encourage them to accept that it is wrong, not try and force them.

Point taken, but they're a difference between allowing people to think what they want, and allowing groups advocating extermination of a minority to tell lies to people in order to get them to join

Point taken, but they're a difference between allowing people to think what they want, and allowing groups advocating extermination of a minority to tell lies to people in order to get them to join

It's a long logical leap from "If you don't perform gay weddbings, you'll have your tax exempt status revoked and not be allowed to perform heterosexual weddings on your premises either" to us "advocating extermination of homosexuals" because that's simply not something any church advocates.

Therapy, yes. Extermination, no.

You should be very worried when the government feels it has the power to blackmail churches for X, because next it will be private citizens for Y. You should be extremely worried.

Therapy, yes. Extermination, no.

Homosexuality is not a disease.

Homophobia, however, is, and should be treated accordingly.

With therapy, not extermination.

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

Curious - do you actually live in Vermont?

That's oddly the same lie that gets trotted out every time the gay marriage debate pops up. At least come up with a new one.

Maybe, every time, it is true? In any case I haven't seen the text of the proposed bill yet - it's still in the judiciary committee. It's a slippery slope. (There's another phrase you've probably heard before.) We simply shouldn't be giving any more credence to the lifestyle then has already been given.

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.


Not suprisingly, you are either lying or have been lied to.

Here is the text of the bill. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Intro/S-115.pdf) Not only does it not have any such provision, it has provisions that specifically protect religious from solemnizing a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Maybe, every time, it is true? In any case I haven't seen the text of the proposed bill yet - it's still in the judiciary committee. It's a slippery slope. (There's another phrase you've probably heard before.) We simply shouldn't be giving any more credence to the lifestyle then has already been given.

No, it's always a lie, as it is this time. Really you lot should be more creative.

It's a slippery slope. (There's another phrase you've probably heard before.) We simply shouldn't be giving any more credence to the lifestyle then has already been given.

Yes, we should. They deserve all rights anyone has.

Bigots, however, deserve NONE.

Yes, we should. They deserve all rights anyone has.

Bigots, however, deserve NONE.

And that is a really dumb statement.

Homosexuality is not a disease.

Homophobia, however, is, and should be treated accordingly.

With therapy, not extermination.

I wouldn't call homophobia a "disease," per se, just an extremely deplorable form of bigotry. I think education would be better than therapy at treating it.

And that is a really dumb statement.

If it's okay for them to make these statements about homosexuals, it's okay for me to give back the favor.

I wouldn't call homophobia a "disease," per se, just an extremely deplorable form of bigotry. I think education would be better than therapy at treating it.

You see, if we call it a "disease", we get to forbid them from marrying, for instance. :D

Bigots, however, deserve NONE.

Why?

Why?

If we give them the same treatment, maybe they would cut it out?

Vermont: Where gays can marry, but anyone can carry a gun: The great anti-conservative conspiracies greatest feat.

Yes, we should. They deserve all rights anyone has.

Bigots, however, deserve NONE.

Well, that's a function of your worldview. Having grown up in affiliation with churches, my worldview says that a subclass of people who make controversial decisions and then set fire to churches and slander people who disagree with those decisions should be treated as mentally ill.

Since you grew up in a totally different environment, you feel this behavior is ok and seek to punish me for being normal.

You can still change though. It won't be a function of me if you do. God loves you no matter what you believe or do. My worldview says, however, that He can never condone homosexual behavior. Therefore my issue is not so much with people who struggle with homosexuality as it is with those who attempt to normalize it as a social good, which it clearly isn't.

I am not a bigot by any reasonable definition of the word. Just remember that you are hijacking the real meaning of the word next time you exercise your worldview.

If we give them the same treatment, maybe they would cut it out?

Don't count on it. It will just make them even more intransigent.

Besides, deplorable as their actions and views may be, they deserve the same rights and freedoms as you and I - no more, and no less.

And that is a really dumb statement.

"Stupid" is more like it.

Well, that's a function of your worldview. Having grown up in affiliation with churches, my worldview says that a subclass of people who make controversial decisions and then set fire to churches and slander people who disagree with those decisions should be treated as mentally ill.

Since you grew up in a totally different environment, you feel this behavior is ok and seek to punish me for being normal.

You can still change though. It won't be a function of me if you do. God loves you no matter what you believe or do. My worldview says, however, that He can never condone homosexual behavior. Therefore my issue is not so much with people who struggle with homosexuality as it is with those who attempt to normalize it as a social good, which it clearly isn't.

I am not a bigot by any reasonable definition of the word. Just remember that you are hijacking the real meaning of the word next time you exercise your worldview.

WTF are you talking about? Homosexuals burn churches?

WTF are you talking about? Homosexuals burn churches?

You can tell when teh gays do it because they always use pink fire. ;)

You can still change though. It won't be a function of me if you do. God loves you no matter what you believe or do. My worldview says, however, that He can never condone homosexual behavior. Therefore my issue is not so much with people who struggle with homosexuality as it is with those who attempt to normalize it as a social good, which it clearly isn't.

I am not a bigot by any reasonable definition of the word. Just remember that you are hijacking the real meaning of the word next time you exercise your worldview.

I AM GOD! And I condone any consensual behavior that's not clearly harmful to the parties involved.

And yes, you are a bigot.

Well, that's a function of your worldview.

No, it is a function of reason and basic human decency.

Having grown up in affiliation with churches, my worldview says that a subclass of people who make controversial decisions

Christianity is itself a pretty controversial decision, if you think about it....

and then set fire to churches

So gay people as a class set fire to churches? What on Earth are you talking about?

and slander people who disagree with those decisions

It's not slander when it's true. ;)

should be treated as mentally ill.

Not one of those things, even if they were true, indicate mental illness. The overwhelming scientific evidence regarding homosexuality (and bisexuality), furthermore, indicates that it is not a sign of poor mental health.

But what's science next to your convenient "worldview", right?

Since you grew up in a totally different environment, you feel this behavior is ok and seek to punish me for being normal.

No: "since he actually can think rationally about this topic and accepts the reasonable scientific and ethical conclusions"....

My worldview says, however, that He can never condone homosexual behavior.

"[Your] worldview" is not automatically right. Do you have an actual argument?

Therefore my issue is not so much with people who struggle with homosexuality as it is with those who attempt to normalize it as a social good, which it clearly isn't.

"Clearly" in what way?

I am not a bigot by any reasonable definition of the word.

Are you biased against a group of people on arbitrary, unfounded bases? Yes? Then you are a bigot.

Snip.

I, God, do hereby bless and sanctify this post. :D

I, God, do hereby bless and sanctify this post. :D

Keep your filthy divine hands off of it. How dare you try to deprive me of my life of sin.

Keep your filthy divine hands off of it. How dare you try to deprive me of my life of sin.

What sin? Enjoying life without harming anyone else? Eat, drink and have sex. Enjoy! It's what I put you all in here for! Just don't ruin for others, and you'll be fine!

There are rumblings in New Jersey, too. It'll be wonderful if they pull it off--for the first time in this country, same-sex marriage by legislative enactment rather than judicial decision. I don't object to the latter, but it deprives the Christian Right of one of their talking points.

There are rumblings in New Jersey, too. It'll be wonderful if they pull it off--for the first time in this country, same-sex marriage by legislative enactment rather than judicial decision. I don't object to the latter, but it deprives the Christian Right of one of their talking points.

Anything to shut those fuckwits up.

No, it is a function of reason and basic human decency.

Homosexual people should really only expect to be unopposed in their lifestyle if homosexuality was innate, which it isn't. No amount of jerrymandering can ever change the fact that it is a choice.


Christianity is itself a pretty controversial decision, if you think about it....


True, and I am prepared to die for it when it comes to that. It is the "right" decision for the afterlife. It's no surprise that it wouldn't be popular in a world where Satan owns the marketing department (media, and many individuals).



So gay people as a class set fire to churches? What on Earth are you talking about?


vis a vis various attacks and threats on churches across the country in response to Prop. 8 support. Pretending it didn't happen won't help. Admittedly, this was a visceral response, a low blow to the majority of homosexual practitioners who aren't violent, and I apologize.


It's not slander when it's true. ;)


But it's so very rarely true, that it's not worth being said.


Not one of those things, even if they were true, indicate mental illness. The overwhelming scientific evidence regarding homosexuality (and bisexuality), furthermore, indicates that it is not a sign of poor mental health.


Non state-sanctioned violence constitutes an illness or a crime in most people's playbooks. Since only churches were targeted, it would seem to be a hate crime even. Furthermore, the science you reference is biased, and not real science. The director of the human genome project established that no gene can be found which could predetermine sexual preference, same-sex or otherwise.


But what's science next to your convenient "worldview", right?


My worldview is tempered by a reasonable assessment of the situation, not dogma and advocating violence against individuals I don't agree with. It is a sharp contrast with at least one poster here.

No: "since he actually can think rationally about this topic and accepts the reasonable scientific and ethical conclusions"....

Pot... kettle... black... real rational thought could propel you to an alternate conclusion.

"[Your] worldview" is not automatically right. Do you have an actual argument?

By definition, opposing worldviews do not allow for other worldviews, so my argument is from a rationale for belief. I apply logic in the attempt to debate with someone who innately disagrees with me, in the hopes that my temperance will sway them from a destructive, self-immolating worldview.

In the end, only one worldview can be right, and my BELIEF is that mine is correct, and out of concern for other individuals and what they face in the afterlife I must follow my commandment to at least let them know what is facing them if they attempt to normalize sinful behavior. But I don't hate the sinner. My worldview and my deductive reasoning tells me that homosexuality is a choice, and all the arguments for it are simply excuses, so I guess I could say (hopefully not sounding too paternal) that I feel a form of pity.



"Clearly" in what way?


Clearly in the sense that it is self destructive, and does not benefit society or the human race in any biological way.


Are you biased against a group of people on arbitrary, unfounded bases? Yes? Then you are a bigot.

If you look up a dictionary definition of bigot, you will see that this a far cry from the actual definition, and reinforces my contention that you are hijacking the word.

Also, by nature of the debate, you can't really say that I am using an arbirtrary, unfounded base of reasoning without being a worse bigot! Do you see the conundrum?

Wuldani, none of the (admittedly few) homosexual people I have met chose to be gay. That's just how they were born. Likewise, most heterosexual people don't "choose" to be heterosexual. They just are.

True, and I am prepared to die for it when it comes to that.

When (not if; when. It will happen, and it will happen within your lifetime) your state passes gay marriage, I'll be assuming you lied if you show up the next day to post your drivel, then.

Wuldani, none of the (admittedly few) homosexual people I have met chose to be gay. That's just how they were born. Likewise, most heterosexual people don't "choose" to be heterosexual. They just are.

It's what they say to justify it, but it's still not true. Every homosexual lives a lie - they struggle with feelings they don't think they can change, but it's no different then a person who suffers from schizophrenic or violent psychopathic urges. The only difference is marketing. Because homosexual behavior gives some people pleasure with no apparent harmful effect, it's more easily spun as acceptable, so over time people begin to accept that it might be biological, but it's still a lie. It is my firm belief that every person who acts out homosexually was either sexually abused as a child or made a decision to pursue that lifestyle for the purpose of rebelling against God, their parents, someone's religion, or another authority figure who committed a perceived wrong.

There are a lot of faith-based programs which have rescued people out of homosexual lifestyles, and many of them are much happier when they are free. Some have the trauma so deeply ingrained that they go back or commit suicide, which is very sad.

When (not if; when. It will happen, and it will happen within your lifetime) your state passes gay marriage, I'll be assuming you lied if you show up the next day to post your drivel, then.

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I'm certainly not required to commit suicide because my state government passes an immoral rule. When the government makes the practice of true Christianity a capital crime, that will be "when it comes to it." And we both know you look forward to that day.

A bigger question on my mind though is your longevity, Heikoku. Practically every post you make is advocating violence against someone - maybe God allows you to stay on this forum so you will see something that will change your heart?

Or maybe I just allow myself to think and say that because I know it will bug you to no end :)

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I'm certainly not required to commit suicide because my state government passes an immoral rule. When the government makes the practice of true Christianity a capital crime, that will be "when it comes to it." And we both know you look forward to that day.

A bigger question on my mind though is your longevity, Heikoku. Practically every post you make is advocating violence against someone - maybe God allows you to stay on this forum so you will see something that will change your heart?

Feel free to prove the bolded.

Homosexual people should really only expect to be unopposed in their lifestyle if homosexuality was innate

It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is innate or not (which, for the record, it is according to the people who have actually studied the issue and aren't just making things up.)

It still is not a moral or a social evil, because it's completely harmless and perfectly healthy.

True, and I am prepared to die for it when it comes to that.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to reinforce your apparent delusions of oppression.

vis a vis various attacks and threats on churches across the country in response to Prop. 8 support.

This right here shows how prejudiced you are. From "Some gays (and/or people sympathetic to the gay rights movement) have committed attacks and threats on churches that promote campaigns of bigotry", you conclude that this is somehow a defining feature of homosexuality... despite the obvious fact that straight people commit violent and illegal acts all the time too.

But it's so very rarely true, that it's not worth being said.

What specific claim are you referencing?

Non state-sanctioned violence constitutes an illness or a crime in most people's playbooks.

A crime, yes, but not an illness (not usually).

Furthermore, the science you reference is biased, and not real science. The director of the human genome project established that no gene can be found which could predetermine sexual preference, same-sex or otherwise.

You would be better off if you referenced identical twin studies, which do not attempt to prove a negative in the above manner and which do not report constant sexual orientation in every case. However, it is absurdly simplistic to pretend that strict gene determination is the only kind of biological determination existing... or that biological determination is the only kind of determination that would result in "innateness."

What scientists have found is ample evidence of biological cause--the twin studies I referenced earlier found that the likelihood of homosexuality increased massively among both identical twins and fraternal twins, with it increasing more among identical twins (indicating a high likelihood of a genetic component), and there are differences on average in brain structure, too, and responses to certain smells.

Not to mention the overwhelming evidence of the experiences of millions of gay and bisexual men and women who insist that they didn't suddenly choose to be attracted to the same sex... though some of us really like it anyway. ;)

Also: IT DOESN'T MATTER. You need an actual moral argument for why homosexuality is wrong regardless of whether or not sexual orientation is innate.

By definition, opposing worldviews do not allow for other worldviews

...which does not mean that they cannot have independent rational/reasonable foundation.

my BELIEF is that mine is correct

Blah, blah, blah... do you have any evidence? An argument?

But I don't hate the sinner.

I don't care about your self-righteous condescending generosity. I'd rather be hated.

Clearly in the sense that it is self destructive,

No, it isn't.

and does not benefit society or the human race in any biological way.

Presumably you refer to reproductive capacity, but heterosexuality is not inherently reproductive either, and gay people can not only choose to have children but can also adopt them and raise them.

(Not that reproduction is particularly beneficial to the human race at this point.)

If you look up a dictionary definition of bigot, you will see that this a far cry from the actual definition, and reinforces my contention that you are hijacking the word.

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Seems perfectly in accordance with what I said.

Also, by nature of the debate, you can't really say that I am using an arbirtray, unfounded base of reasoning without being a worse bigot!

Yes, I can, as long as I am not prejudiced against you or close-minded to your argument (though even this sense of "bigot" is rather outdated and not in accordance with the way the word is typically used.)

Because homosexual behavior gives some people pleasure with no apparent harmful effect, it's more easily spun as acceptable, so over time people begin to accept that it might be biological, but it's still a lie.

Evidence, if you please.

What the hell is an unfertilized embryo? :confused:
The shot that missed the spot? :D

There are a lot of faith-based programs which have rescued people out of homosexual lifestyles

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings."

APA: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatabout)

So who should I trust... "faith-based" organizations who trust in their own arbitrary convictions, or professional scientific organizations interested in actual research and empirical evidence?

I wonder. :rolleyes:

The shot that missed the spot? :D

rofl

Homosexuality is, in and of itself, not inherently "wrong".

If someone wants to get jiggy with someone of the same sex, I say let them. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, and who are we to judge them? They're not hurting anyone, there's no crime there.

Homosexuality is, in and of itself, not inherently "wrong".

If someone wants to get jiggy with someone of the same sex, I say let them. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, and who are we to judge them? They're not hurting anyone, there's no crime there.

Exactly.

Science surrounding the matter is inherently biased. I've made this point in reference to other topics before. Every one of those studies at it's core is started, funded, or studied by someone who has a vested interest in proving a positive that is not true. It's an unfortunate fact that very little science nowadays is true investigative science in the sense of mixing two chemicals together to find out what they do, but rather starting from a worldview supposition and attempting to prove one's own point.

I'm as guilty as the next person, but I am using a good bit of logic which the opposing side conveniently ignores in making their arguments.
Ultimately, the only arguments which hold any sway are genetic or chemical, and I've just explained to you why there is no genetic proof. The developmental things you've referenced so far don't appear to address a chemical component - although I concede that a woman abusing her body during pregnancy could bring hormonal imbalances which could cause a child to be predisposed to homosexual urges, this still does not mean that homosexuality is acceptable but rather a birth defect that we should be seeking to correct.

Soheran - who do you think wrote the text of the article you quoted? A member of the homosexual agenda marketing team. Do you see the conundrum? It's not science if you have to market it.

The developmental things you've referenced so far don't appear to address a chemical component

You don't think the fact that increased genetic linkage correlates with increased incidence of homosexuality is evidence for biological cause?

although I concede that a woman abusing her body during pregnancy could bring hormonal imbalances which could cause a child to be predisposed to homosexual urges,

...or just, you know, the ordinary course of human biology, which does not work in the neat ways some people suppose....

this still does not mean that homosexuality is acceptable but rather a birth defect that we should be seeking to correct.

To be a birth "defect" there would have to be something defective. There is not.

Soheran - who do you think wrote the text of the article you quoted? A member of the homosexual agenda marketing team.

You think the American Pyschological Association is a "homosexual agenda marketing team"?

You are indulging in the most pathetic and vulgar variety of skepticism: incapable of proving your own point, you assert that we shouldn't be bothering with evidence at all because it is "inherently biased." Presumably we should resort, like you, to arbitrary subjective conviction instead.

It would be laughable if it weren't being used to endorse an abhorrent and evil ideology that results in immense misery and suffering for countless millions of undeserving people.

And you still refuse to engage the central issue of the morality of homosexuality--to which its innateness has no connection whatsoever.

You don't think the fact that increased genetic linkage correlates with increased incidence of homosexuality is evidence for biological cause?

It's been clearly demonstrated there is no genetic component.


To be a birth "defect" there would have to be something defective. There is not. To debate two opposing absolute statements would be unconstructive.


You think the American Pyschological Association is a "homosexual agenda marketing team"?

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists. In a way it is ironic that psychologists would defend behavior that is arguably a mental illness. For reference I would suggest looking up "Kinsey psychology"

You are indulging in the most pathetic and vulgar variety of skepticism: incapable of proving your own point, you assert that we shouldn't be bothering with evidence at all because it is "inherently biased." Presumably we should resort, like you, to arbitrary subjective conviction instead. I don't see how this is any better behavior, or an acceptable debate response.

And you still refuse to engage the central issue of the morality of homosexuality--to which its innateness has no connection whatsoever.

To engage you on the moral decision, it would have to be an argument from personal conviction, I can't see that being fruitful. There really aren't any moral arguments for or against it from a "humanist" morality, but then there are not many moral arguments against anything from that basis.

For purposes of the logic from my personal conviction - it says in the Bible in the beginning and the end that homosexuality is wrong, and that's all I need.
Ironically, Jesus didn't directly address this, but he did tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to "go and sin no more" and spared her life, so that is what I am advocating. Don't sin any more, whether you are heterosexual or believe yourself to be homosexual. Am I going to struggle with this? Sure, just as much as you, maybe more.

It's been clearly demonstrated there is no genetic component.

...no, it hasn't.

As a matter of fact, if anything, with twin studies the opposite has been proven: it would be very surprising if there were no genetic component.

To debate two opposing absolute statements would be unconstructive.

People actually interested in justifying what they say do it all the time.

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists.

Actually, homosexuality has "been advanced as acceptable behavior" throughout history in a variety of cultures--historically speaking the Abrahamic religions are the only ones with unequivocal opposition to homosexuality as such, though they imported it to most of the rest of the world.

I don't see how this is any better behavior, or an acceptable debate response.

I can't speak to your sight, but I made a worthy point there.

but then there are not many moral arguments against anything from that basis.

Except, you know, things that are actually harmful, like murder, or rape, or slavery....

For purposes of the logic from my personal conviction - it says in the Bible in the beginning and the end that homosexuality is wrong, and that's all I need.

Logically speaking, from "The Bible says so" it does not follow that "It is wrong." You need something better than that, especially if you intend to make your views law.

Snip.

All right! We'll settle this like penguins!

Do you Americans ever feel depressed, knowing that this complete non-issue is one of the biggest topics in your country right now?

For purposes of the logic from my personal conviction - it says in the Bible in the beginning and the end that homosexuality is wrong, and that's all I need.
Ironically, Jesus didn't directly address this, but he did tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to "go and sin no more" and spared her life, so that is what I am advocating. Don't sin any more, whether you are heterosexual or believe yourself to be homosexual. Am I going to struggle with this? Sure, just as much as you, maybe more.

The Bible says a lot of things are wrong that the church ignores. The Church says and does a lot of things that aren't in the Bible at all. Lent for example. Or Popes.

So what makes homosexuality so special?

The Bible says a lot of things are wrong that the church ignores. The Church says and does a lot of things that aren't in the Bible at all. Lent for example. Or Popes.

So what makes homosexuality so special?

It's the gay sex. They start thinking about the concept that you could set up a big chain of men having sex in a really big circle - closed loop. That concept burns their brain.

Jesus, Vermont, just join Canada already. We'll give you a legal and cultural framework you can understand and appreciate, you'll help us strengthen our global monopoly on maple syrup. It's win-win.

It's the gay sex. They start thinking about the concept that you could set up a big chain of men having sex in a really big circle - closed loop. That concept burns their brain.

Probably because they want to join. :p

Probably because they want to join. :p

Negative N347Z, the pattern is full.

There are a lot of faith-based programs which have rescued people out of homosexual lifestyles, and many of them are much happier when they are free. Some have the trauma so deeply ingrained that they go back or commit suicide, which is very sad.

Being told that one's innate feelings are evil, wrong, unnatural, ect. is pretty traumatizing.

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I'm certainly not required to commit suicide because my state government passes an immoral rule. When the government makes the practice of true Christianity a capital crime, that will be "when it comes to it." And we both know you look forward to that day.

Practicing Christianity will never be made a capital crime. It will however be taken as a sign of severe mental illness and be treated appropiately.

I'm as guilty as the next person, but I am using a good bit of logic which the opposing side conveniently ignores in making their arguments.

You use an odd sort of logic. Think about screwing a dude, then a chick, and an then a non-humanoid alien, Which of the three arouses you? If its a choice you can be aroused by all three. It not then its not a choice. Another test of logic, who wishes to be in a persecuted minority group?


It's been clearly demonstrated there is no genetic component.

Where has it been demonstrated?

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists. In a way it is ironic that psychologists would defend behavior that is arguably a mental illness. For reference I would suggest looking up "Kinsey psychology"

Heterosexuality and religious belief/practice are arguably mental illnesses.

Probably because they want to join. :p

It makes sense. Who else could think its a choice other than those who want to do it but choose not too. They all just need hot man luvin'. Poor guys.

Heterosexuality and religious belief/practice are arguably mental illnesses.

Don't be ridiculous.

It's the gay sex. They start thinking about the concept that you could set up a big chain of men having sex in a really big circle - closed loop. That concept burns their brain.

are you a moron?

Just a reminder; this is the topic:

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved a bill that, if passed, would legalize same-sex marriage. The Vermont Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

Not this:

Heterosexuality and religious belief/practice are arguably mental illnesses.

You are welcome to make a new thread to discuss the latter, but, to avoid having it closed as trolling, please provide something substantive to debate.

Other players, please don't abet a threadjack.

Just a reminder; this is the topic:



Not this:



You are welcome to make a new thread to discuss the latter, but, to avoid having it closed as trolling, please provide something substantive to debate.

Other players, please don't abet a threadjack.

I ask for clarification. Is there the insinuation that I am trolling with said comment or is it something more along the lines of let's stop arguing over whether sexuality(either in general or specific sexual orientations) an theism( or atheism) are mental illnesses because we're heading off topic? Or something else? Its unclear in the above.

I would think, "This is the topic, not this" would be a clear enough indication that the discussion was going off the quoted topic, and that the off-topic direction in which it was going had been led that way by the quoted comment.

"Trolling" was mentioned because if you were to start a thread on your alternative topic, and provide no argument, but merely the statement you used here, you would be trolling.

However, what I was objecting to was the use of throw-away remarks that are controversial enough to hijack a thread -- threadjacking. That's why I asked other players not to abet a threadjack, ie, to not reply to the off-topic remark.

I, for one, am glad that Vermont is finally taking that sort of step, and wish my state (New York) would do the same (although, to be fair, it recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere).

Hell, I wish congress itself would allow same-sex marriages for the whole country.

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists. In a way it is ironic that psychologists would defend behavior that is arguably a mental illness. For reference I would suggest looking up "Kinsey psychology"

Are you referring to the writings of Alfred C. Kinsey?

Do you Americans ever feel depressed, knowing that this complete non-issue is one of the biggest topics in your country right now?

Yeah, all the time.

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I'm certainly not required to commit suicide because my state government passes an immoral rule. When the government makes the practice of true Christianity a capital crime, that will be "when it comes to it." And we both know you look forward to that day.

A bigger question on my mind though is your longevity, Heikoku. Practically every post you make is advocating violence against someone - maybe God allows you to stay on this forum so you will see something that will change your heart?

Or maybe I just allow myself to think and say that because I know it will bug you to no end :)

It is a very interesting day when this is reported and disciplined as a personal attack, despite Heikoku's repeated calls to violence against other posters and public figures in general.

Could a Jolt forum moderator please provide me with the postal address for your legal department before you delete my nation?

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists. In a way it is ironic that psychologists would defend behavior that is arguably a mental illness. For reference I would suggest looking up "Kinsey psychology"

You're arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness despite being fully aware that psychology considers homosexuality acceptable?

I don't suppose you have anything to back up your presumptions of being more qualified to comment on mental illness than established psychologists and psychiatrists?

Eww, thats sick. Homosexuality is a sin

Homosexual people should really only expect to be unopposed in their lifestyle if homosexuality was innate, which it isn't. No amount of jerrymandering can ever change the fact that it is a choice.

If it is a choice, so is its opposite. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings."

APA: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatabout)

So who should I trust... "faith-based" organizations who trust in their own arbitrary convictions, or professional scientific organizations interested in actual research and empirical evidence?

I wonder. :rolleyes:

Always a good source. I like the comments it has about choice as well - very useful.

I have it on good authority (a Vermont senator, albeit secondhand) that there are hidden provisions in the bill which would lead to state sanctions against churches who refuse to perform homosexual weddings for moral reasons. Since this is a clear violation of First Amendment principals, I very much hope it does not pass.

Curious - do you actually live in Vermont?

Not suprisingly, you are either lying or have been lied to.

Here is the text of the bill. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Intro/S-115.pdf) Not only does it not have any such provision, it has provisions that specifically protect religious from solemnizing a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
Curse you, TCT, and curse my new job for making me miss this thread until now. I wanted to be the one to tear down Wuldani's obvious bald-faced lie.

Oh, well, 'tis done, and that's what matters.

Also, cheers to good old Vermont for doing the right thing.

Eww, thats sick. Homosexuality is a sin

Not in my religion. Who are you to legislate your religious beliefs onto me? That's forbidden in the USA.

Curse you, TCT, and curse my new job for making me miss this thread until now. I wanted to be the one to tear down Wuldani's obvious bald-faced lie.

Oh, well, 'tis done, and that's what matters.

To be fair re: your bolded, I did some investigating and could not find anything in the bill which supported the claims which were made to me, which I based my original post on, but I stand by all the rest of my comments.

So I'm a little annoyed that I was given bad data, but I can still sometimes agree with someone's aims even if they manipulate my emotions.

Well, that's a function of your worldview. Having grown up in affiliation with churches, my worldview says that a subclass of people who make controversial decisions and then set fire to churches and slander people who disagree with those decisions should be treated as mentally ill.

Since you grew up in a totally different environment, you feel this behavior is ok and seek to punish me for being normal.

You can still change though. It won't be a function of me if you do. God loves you no matter what you believe or do. My worldview says, however, that He can never condone homosexual behavior. Therefore my issue is not so much with people who struggle with homosexuality as it is with those who attempt to normalize it as a social good, which it clearly isn't.

I am not a bigot by any reasonable definition of the word. Just remember that you are hijacking the real meaning of the word next time you exercise your worldview.
No, Wuldani, you are a bigot, by the dictionary definition of the word.

You are also a liar, again following a standard English dictionary.

The more potentially controversial term for what you are is "internet troll." See, a lot of people apply a somewhat narrow definition to that term, requiring a person to do a short list of quite specific things to be called a troll. I, however, choose a broader definition with looser requirements that merely requires a person to get onto net forums and post bullshit that is so obnoxious there is no way they could get away with saying it in any mixed company in person in the real world, where other people could connect their face and name to their outrageously offensive words.

But on the net, you get to hide behind the anonymity of a screen name and no visuals, and toss your little stinkbombs and never suffer any personal blowback for it.

Suggests another word, too.

But the bottom line is this:

1) Everything you say about gays is bigoted, and

2) Your claim that the Vermont law would force churches to perform gay marriages is a lie.

Homosexuality, while it has existed for a very long time, has only recently been advanced as acceptable behavior, and that by psychologists. In a way it is ironic that psychologists would defend behavior that is arguably a mental illness. For reference I would suggest looking up "Kinsey psychology"Are you referring to the writings of Alfred C. Kinsey?

Since you ignored it once I'm bringing it to the forefront again.

Eww, thats sick. Homosexuality is a sin

Not thinking for yourself is a sin.

Since you ignored it once I'm bringing it to the forefront again.

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to, but I figured since I probably won't have this nation much longer I should prioritize my posts.

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to, but I figured since I probably won't have this nation much longer I should prioritize my posts.

As a suggestion, if you think that what you are saying might lead to your deletion, it could make sense to rephrase it to ensure it's within the rules, or not just not say it.

Wuldani, none of the (admittedly few) homosexual people I have met chose to be gay. That's just how they were born. Likewise, most heterosexual people don't "choose" to be heterosexual. They just are.
In addition to which, who gives a shit one way or the other? Wuldani is doing nothing but declaring (without any foundation in fact, of course) a completely arbitrary "standard" that he then unilaterally and arbitrarily declares gives him permission to discriminate against a group of people who have never done him any harm nor have anything to do with him at all. It boils down to nothing more than "I don't like them, therefore I'm allowed to abuse them."

What he would like to ignore -- and get others to ignore, too, by luring us into arguing his bogus "points" -- is that there is no possible way to explain, understand, or spin homosexuality that would justify treating them as he claims they should be. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of why the bigot discriminates.

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to, but I figured since I probably won't have this nation much longer I should prioritize my posts.

Posting unpopular things isn't going to get you banned so long as you follow the rules.

Also, I'm a little unsure as to why you would suggest we read his works as his position does not support yours.

It is a very interesting day when this is reported and disciplined as a personal attack, despite Heikoku's repeated calls to violence against other posters and public figures in general.

Could a Jolt forum moderator please provide me with the postal address for your legal department before you delete my nation?

For what purpose?

Science surrounding the matter is inherently biased.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :D In other words: You are full of crap.

Jesus, Vermont, just join Canada already. We'll give you a legal and cultural framework you can understand and appreciate, you'll help us strengthen our global monopoly on maple syrup. It's win-win.
They can't. They hate the Montrealers too much. It's why they deliberately grossly mispronounce all the French place and family names in Vermont. If they bordered anything but Quebec, the switch might have happened already.

As a suggestion, if you think that what you are saying might lead to your deletion, it could make sense to rephrase it to ensure it's within the rules, or not just not say it.

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.

You can't choose your skin color, but I'm pretty sure you can choose not to have sex with another guy.

Question: Did you get to pick the people that turn you on, or did you just look up at someone one day and semiconsciously think that person was attractive?

In addition to which, who gives a shit one way or the other? Wuldani is doing nothing but declaring (without any foundation in fact, of course) a completely arbitrary "standard" that he then unilaterally and arbitrarily declares gives him permission to discriminate against a group of people who have never done him any harm nor have anything to do with him at all. It boils down to nothing more than "I don't like them, therefore I'm allowed to abuse them."

What he would like to ignore -- and get others to ignore, too, by luring us into arguing his bogus "points" -- is that there is no possible way to explain, understand, or spin homosexuality that would justify treating them as he claims they should be. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of why the bigot discriminates.

Precisely. Let me go dig up my previous sig - Lunatic Goofballs said this perfectly some time ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14208103&postcount=235):

Who cares if it's a choice or not? Being blue-eyed or brown-eyed isn't a choice. Being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice. None of these people deserve to be treated any differently, do they?

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.

Ok, burn the witch! Where the hell is the NSquisition when you need it.

Precisely. Let me go dig up my previous sig - Lunatic Goofballs said this perfectly some time ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14208103&postcount=235):

Wuldani would say yes.

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.

Ah, I see, the "mods are biased against me" `argument'. In my many years on this forum, I've never seen a decent case of mod bias - I have seen mods refuse to rule because of possible bias, instead getting an uninvolved party. I also see no evidence in this case.

Nor did I see Heikoku making threats of violence based on religion, as the mods also agreed. It's simpler all round if you just keep your rhetoric clearly within the rules.

You can't choose your skin color, but I'm pretty sure you can choose not to have sex with another guy.

Or with a girl. I ask again: when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Ah, I see, the "mods are biased against me" `argument'. In my many years on this forum, I've never seen a decent case of mod bias - I have seen mods refuse to rule because of possible bias, instead getting an uninvolved party. I also see no evidence in this case.

Nor did I see Heikoku making threats of violence based on religion, as the mods also agreed. It's simpler all round if you just keep your rhetoric clearly within the rules.


I strongly suggest you actually look at his posts before defending him, you will see plenty of violence against religious people advocated. If you then go and look at my posts too, you'll see that I've been nothing but nicer to him then he deserves, and certainly committed nothing that could be construed as flaming by reasonable people. Hence - mod bias.



Or with a girl. I ask again: when did you choose to be heterosexual?
Age fourteen.

Or with a girl. I ask again: when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Historically, those who have sworn themselves to celibacy manage to choose not to be either homosexual or heterosexual.

Not that they all succeed - but many do.

I, for one, am glad that Vermont is finally taking that sort of step, and wish my state (New York) would do the same (although, to be fair, it recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere).

Hell, I wish congress itself would allow same-sex marriages for the whole country.

It will, soon. :D

I strongly suggest you actually look at his posts before defending him, you will see plenty of violence against religious people advocated. If you then go and look at my posts too, you'll see that I've been nothing but nicer to him then he deserves, and certainly committed nothing that could be construed as flaming by reasonable people. Hence - mod bias.



Age fourteen.

So you find men equally attractive as women and just chose to pursue women? That means you're bi spanky.

Leaving aside Wuldani's descent into self-pity and returning to the topic:

I personally believe that same-sex marriage being legal in all US states is inevitable, although it will take many years, working state by state, to get us there. I am heartened by Vermont upgrading from civil unions to full marriage, as I believe a number of other state legislatures are likely to follow suit. We may start to see a geographic divide as "Bible Belt" states dig into even more rigid positions against gay rights in backlash against the increasing progressivism of other states (on the coasts), but this is par for the course in US history and should only encourage us who support civil rights.

I've been saying since the 80s when the extremity of anti-gay bigotry first started to "come out," that gay rights would be the civil rights movement of our generation, and I looked forward to the fight. I sincerely hope that progressive Americans will continue to embrace this issue, not only because gays deserve to have their rights protected, but also because I think it will signal another general shift towards progressivism in US social attitudes, and dammit, we fucking need that. US progressivism has historically proven to be good for women, children, minorities, public health, international policy, trade, labor and the environment -- all areas in need of work right now.

It is a very interesting day when this is reported and disciplined as a personal attack, despite Heikoku's repeated calls to violence against other posters and public figures in general.

Could a Jolt forum moderator please provide me with the postal address for your legal department before you delete my nation?

Prove the bolded NOW or you will be the one needing a lawyer.

I strongly suggest you actually look at his posts before defending him, you will see plenty of violence against religious people advocated. If you then go and look at my posts too, you'll see that I've been nothing but nicer to him then he deserves, and certainly committed nothing that could be construed as flaming by reasonable people. Hence - mod bias.

If it is such an easy, open and shut case, then you should have no problem linking even one post where Heikoku advocated violence against you or anyone else based o their religion. A single post where you can demonstrate advocacy for violence against anyone because of relgion. It shouldn't be hard since they're everywhere, right? So, put your money where your mouth is and do something other than cry about mod bias.

Prove the bolded NOW or you will be the one needing a lawyer.

Slander, vicious libelous slander!

Prove the bolded NOW or you will be the one needing a lawyer.

Based on what? God, you never help your case at all.

Seems we have a bunch of junior justices running around NSG.

Wuldani would say yes.

And would also be wrong.

I strongly suggest you actually look at his posts before defending him, you will see plenty of violence against religious people advocated. If you then go and look at my posts too, you'll see that I've been nothing but nicer to him then he deserves, and certainly committed nothing that could be construed as flaming by reasonable people. Hence - mod bias.


I have. I often disagree with Heikoku - I consider his opinions sometimes reprehensible, the way he expresses them needlessly confrontational. I have seen him step over the line and get punished for it in the past. He didn't step over the line, and didn't get punished - I fail to see how that is bias.

Still, if you are convinced, the correct action at this point is to raise it for review on the thread in Moderation.


Age fourteen.

If both heterosexuality and homosexuality are choices, how can one of them be natural? Furthermore, how do you account for the APA, who say that neither is a choice? Finally, please explain how you felt it was a choice - did you really consciously decide it, or did you just find yourself attracted?

are you a moron?

No, I'm silly.

Age fourteen.

Again, I ask: Did you get to pick that the girl turned you on, or did it just happen?

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.

Will you prove this, recant it or should I simply sue you and be done with it?

If both heterosexuality and homosexuality are choices, how can one of them be natural?
Nice point. :) *awaits answer from W*

Based on what? God, you never help your case at all.

Seems we have a bunch of junior justices running around NSG.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in mine advocating religious-based violence is a crime. And claiming without basis that someone else is a criminal is also grounds for a lawsuit.

Will you prove this, recant it or should I simply sue you and be done with it?
[off topic] Wouldn't it be fun if there was a Net Forum Court where posters could virtually sue each other over disputes in forum arguments? The judges could be volunteers from moderation teams all across the webtube-o-sphere, and the awards could be some kind of net-based community service, or virtual pillory, or something. And of course, even greater penalties for bringing frivolous suits. Hm... *considers the possibility of setting something up on Second Life for that* [/off topic]

Still, if you are convinced, the correct action at this point is to raise it for review on the thread in Moderation.

No, his correct course of action would be to find posts that can CLEARLY be taken to meant I advocated violence towards him before the mods make a ruling on my other complaint about flaming and, enjoyably, ban him.

Historically, those who have sworn themselves to celibacy manage to choose not to be either homosexual or heterosexual.

Not that they all succeed - but many do.

No, they don't. Celibacy does not equal asexuality. A brief primer, I suppose:

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to people of the same biological sex*
Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to people of the opposite biological sex
Bisexuality is sexual attraction to people of both biological sexes
Asexuality is no sexual attraction to people of either biological sex

Celibacy, by contrast, is deliberately not engaging in any sexual activity. The distinction is important. One might be a celibate asexual, where you don't have sexual attraction and do not engage in sexual activity. Or one might be a celibate asexual, where you are attracted to the opposite sex, but do not engage in sexual activity. For complicated reasons, one might even be homosexual but engage in heterosexual activity, generally because of social stigma.

Now, what actions one takes are a choice, that is true. People who are celibate choose to swear off sex, to suppress their attractions. But this does not remove them - not engaging in sex does not make you asexual, not desiring to engage in sex does. A person's sexual attraction is an inherent and natural part of who they are, be it homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual**. Celibacy is not a change of sexual attraction, it is a choice to give up sexual activity. And claiming that celibacy shows sexual attraction is a choice is quite simply wrong.

*note the use of sex not gender - I'm not even going to get into that mess.
**or many others, I've simplified rather a bit.

(Also, thank you Muryavets - started this post before you commented back there)

I don't know how it works in your country, but in mine advocating religious-based violence is a crime. And claiming without basis that someone else is a criminal is also grounds for a lawsuit.

The burden of proof on "advocating religious-based violence" is more than posts on an internet forum. The same for "claiming without basis that someone else is a criminal". Stop being completely idiotic and admit that you have no basis for a lawsuit in your country or his country or the country where it actually matters, the UK.

Now, what actions one takes are a choice, that is true. People who are celibate choose to swear off sex, to suppress their attractions. But this does not remove them - not engaging in sex does not make you asexual, not desiring to engage in sex does.

I agree - but in any case, people can choose not to have sex. Their orientation may not be a choice, but acting on it certainly is.

While it sounds unfair and silly to ask someone to not have sex (or a certain kind of sex), many religions today (whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic) seem to ask homosexuals not to act on it (Catholics ask heterosexuals to confine their sex to procreation, so the list can be long).

I agree - but in any case, people can choose not to have sex. Their orientation may not be a choice, but acting on it certainly is.

While it sounds unfair and silly to ask someone to not have sex (or a certain kind of sex), many religions today (whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic) seem to ask homosexuals not to act on it (Catholics ask heterosexuals to confine their sex to procreation, so the list can be long).
Which is fine for those religions but has absolutely nothing to do with US law, which is secular.

Just stating the obvious for the sake of other readers who might be confused about that.

I agree - but in any case, people can choose not to have sex. Their orientation may not be a choice, but acting on it certainly is.

While it sounds unfair and silly to ask someone to not have sex (or a certain kind of sex), many religions today (whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic) seem to ask homosexuals not to act on it (Catholics ask heterosexuals to confine their sex to procreation, so the list can be long).

Unfortunately, I completely destroyed your previous point: that people who are celibate choose to be neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

Anyway, moving on, I can't speak for any other religions. I can speak for Christianity, at least as I see it, and I feel that asking homosexuals not to have sex is ridiculous and absurd. Every bit of the evidence suggests that homosexuality is natural and inherent, and I don't believe that a loving God would create humans with such fundamental desires and then demand they don't act on them.

The burden of proof on "advocating religious-based violence" is more than posts on an internet forum. The same for "claiming without basis that someone else is a criminal". Stop being completely idiotic and admit that you have no basis for a lawsuit in your country or his country or the country where it actually matters, the UK.

He was the one that brought up legal action, wasn't he?

If he dishes it out, he takes it.

He was the one that brought up legal action, wasn't he?

If he dishes it out, he takes it.

Why don't both of you take it to moderation, and stop cluttering up this thread?

Why don't both of you take it to moderation, and stop cluttering up this thread?

I did, if nothing else due to my enjoyment in seeing him punished.

[/this subject]

To be fair re: your bolded, I did some investigating and could not find anything in the bill which supported the claims which were made to me, which I based my original post on
OK: so you listen to these sources which lie and lie and lie and lie to you, and repeat their claims when you yourself know nothing at all about the subject.
but I stand by all the rest of my comments.
All of the rest of your comments sound like the same thing: repeating claims, on subjects you know nothing at all about, from sources which lie and lie and lie and lie to you.
So I'm a little annoyed that I was given bad data, but I can still sometimes agree with someone's aims even if they manipulate my emotions.
So, even though you KNOW that your sources lie and lie and lie and lie to you, you will keep on repeating the lies, because their "aim", to spread hatred against people who have done nothing to you whatsoever, is something you want to assist? You are not just being deceitful, you are being damnably evil.

No, they don't. Celibacy does not equal asexuality. A brief primer, I suppose:

Homosexuality is sexual attraction to people of the same biological sex*
Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to people of the opposite biological sex
Bisexuality is sexual attraction to people of both biological sexes
Asexuality is no sexual attraction to people of either biological sex

Celibacy, by contrast, is deliberately not engaging in any sexual activity. The distinction is important. One might be a celibate asexual, where you don't have sexual attraction and do not engage in sexual activity. Or one might be a celibate heterosexual, where you are attracted to the opposite sex, but do not engage in sexual activity. For complicated reasons, one might even be homosexual but engage in heterosexual activity, generally because of social stigma.

Now, what actions one takes are a choice, that is true. People who are celibate choose to swear off sex, to suppress their attractions. But this does not remove them - not engaging in sex does not make you asexual, not desiring to engage in sex does. A person's sexual attraction is an inherent and natural part of who they are, be it homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual**. Celibacy is not a change of sexual attraction, it is a choice to give up sexual activity. And claiming that celibacy shows sexual attraction is a choice is quite simply wrong.

*note the use of sex not gender - I'm not even going to get into that mess.
**or many others, I've simplified rather a bit.

(Also, thank you Muryavets - started this post before you commented back there)

Excellent post, but... fixed to be what (I assume) you meant to say.

Seriously, though. I'm so proud of Vermont. I only wish my state would do the same thing, but I know it never will. The populace here is too full of bigotry and hate.

Wuldani, Heikoku, cut out this "gonna git the Law on yew" hijack. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

If either of you has a genuine complaint, take it to Moderation. Wuldani, if you consider my ruling biased you are free to say so there and I will recuse myself from that thread. You may also detail your complaints through the Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/page=help) page.

In the meantime, Wuldani, to suggest that you will be banned for an offence that was dealt with and that earned you nothing more condign than a yellow card is ridiculous.

Please note, however, that baseless, mischievous or frivolous threats of legal action against NS are a bannable offence.

Heikoku, this

I did, if nothing else due to my enjoyment in seeing him punished.

He was the one that brought up legal action, wasn't he?

If he dishes it out, he takes it.

No, his correct course of action would be to find posts that can CLEARLY be taken to meant I advocated violence towards him before the mods make a ruling on my other complaint about flaming and, enjoyably, ban him.

is baiting. You already have an unexpired red card for the same offence, so you'll be taking a 24-hour break.

Excellent post, but... fixed to be what (I assume) you meant to say.

Seriously, though. I'm so proud of Vermont. I only wish my state would do the same thing, but I know it never will. The populace here is too full of bigotry and hate.

Whoops, and thank you.

Indeed. The UK has civil unions, but has still not made the jump to full marriage, which is regrettable,

We simply shouldn't be giving any more credence to the lifestyle then has already been given.

I feel the same way about Christianity. But I dont go around enforcing that view.

Why is it acceptable for Christians to say gays should go to therapy, but if I said the religious, who talk to a big imaginary man, need therapy, thats suddenly too far?

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.

God, youre so full of shit.

I would think, "This is the topic, not this" would be a clear enough indication that the discussion was going off the quoted topic, and that the off-topic direction in which it was going had been led that way by the quoted comment.

The thread had gone off topic long before my quoted comment. This thread had been talking about whether or not homosexuality is innate, the causes of homosexuality, the morality of homosexuality, the homosexual agenda, and the actions of gays towards those of faith long before my comment. Going from that to talking about heterosexuality and religion is pretty organic.

"Trolling" was mentioned because if you were to start a thread on your alternative topic, and provide no argument, but merely the statement you used here, you would be trolling.

I see. There seemed to be the possibility that you implied that any argument that heterosexuality and religious belief would not be substantive and would thus constitute trolling.

However, what I was objecting to was the use of throw-away remarks that are controversial enough to hijack a thread -- threadjacking. That's why I asked other players not to abet a threadjack, ie, to not reply to the off-topic remark.

I'm wondering why Wuldani's comments that homosexuality is arguably being a mental illness wasn't controversial enough to hijack but mine was or if it was why wasn't it quoted. Particularly when my comment was meant to show the ridiculousness of Wuldani's assertion.

It was within the rules, but the mods are biased in favor of a hateful, violent troll, so they adapted the rules.

Which is why I need the legal department address, because it is a violation of the law in Jolt's host nation to protect a poster who makes threats of violence against other posters based on their religion.
Yes, we're biased for him, which is why Heikoku has that 2 behind his name. makes sense. And we're ignoring our publicly published rules (http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq) because (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html) we're out to get you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

We're out to get you because you were mildly warned that what you were posting was not acceptable, and you are therefore in imminent danger of being deleted.

You need our legal department address to force us to change the forum rules to allow you to make the posts which violate our forum rules.

Does this sound as silly to you as it does to me? I really don't think you considered what you were posting before it was posted, because it sounds completely unreasonable.

Not having sex is not a choice its a horrbile and unfortunate cicumstance that nobody should have to deal with.

Yes, we're biased for him, which is why Heikoku has that 2 behind his name. makes sense.

We're out to get you because you were mildly warned that what you post is not acceptable, and you are in imminent danger of being deleted.

You need our legal department address to force us to change the forum rules to allow you to make the posts which violate our forum rules.

Have I got it yet?

Oh, silly Kat. It's not about contacting your legal department, it's about being seen asking for the way to contact your legal department.

But anyhoo....

Yay Vermont! ;)

Also, cheers to good old Vermont for doing the right thing.

It hasn't happened yet...

It hasn't happened yet...
Well, for wanting to do the right thing, which is more than can be said for some people. *glares at California*

In addition to which, who gives a shit one way or the other?

I don't.

Discrimination is wrong, regardless of why the bigot discriminates.

Of course.

Well, for wanting to do the right thing, which is more than can be said for some people. *glares at California*

Agreed. I live in what's usually considered a pretty progressive state, and yet gay marriage hasn't been legalized here. Hopefully that will change.

Agreed. I live in what's usually considered a pretty progressive state, and yet gay marriage hasn't been legalized here. Hopefully that will change.

Oh, it will. Hell, if the judges toss the cursed, horrible idiocy named prop 8, it will happen in California even sooner. Gays will marry wholesale. And it will be within our lifetimes. :D

Oh, it will. Hell, if the judges toss the cursed, horrible idiocy named prop 8, it will happen in California even sooner. Gays will marry wholesale. And it will be within our lifetimes. :D

Don't think overturning prop 8 would be right. Wouldn't be the proper way to proceed.

Don't think overturning prop 8 would be right. Wouldn't be the proper way to proceed.

If Prop 8 was not lawfully passed, upholding the law sounds to me like a damn good way to proceed. If it was, I'm free over the summer in two years time, I'll come and campaign in Cali for it's overturning by ballot.

Don't think overturning prop 8 would be right. Wouldn't be the proper way to proceed.

It was based on intolerance and has no purpose other than to make the lives of people miserable.

My working theory:

The men who argue most ardently against legalized gay marriage are motivated by the fact that the only thing keeping them from leaping out of the closet in a wedding dress and running off with Harold The Pool Boy is that they can't get the glorious church wedding they've been dreaming of.

The women who argue most ardently against legalized gay marriage are motivated by the fact that they found a quiet little folder labeled "tax files" in their husband's web browser and it turned out to contain links that have nothing to do with accounting.