Comprehension fail. Can't help you there.
Simply saying "fail" doesn't cut it in a politically-oriented conversation. I know it's the cool thing to do nowadays and makes you appear like you've achieved some sort of victory, but it doesn't magically attach logic to your previously unfounded statements.
You claimed that the "last time you checked," sexual proclivities were an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. I merely asked you where you checked this at, to which you didn't answer. If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when asked.
You've never seen me parade my religion here or anywhere else. I do so in response to attacks from others, not as a first strike.
It doesn't matter
why or
when you flaunt something. My point is that freedom of speech is a right of every person. If you can flaunt your moral views (whether provoked or unprovoked), others can flaunt their views as well. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't have a provocation requirement to it.
Again you speak of what you do not know. As a member of the church board of trustees I've already had to deal with this issue. Openly gay couple wanted to attend, wanted to sing in the choir. As a church we decided that was inappropriate unless they were there looking for help/answers or redemption. I know I'm a sinner. I go to church hoping to help keep myself on a better path. If you're coming to church to flaunt the sin, that doesn't work for me. No different than someone who was having an affair and bringing his hook-up to church.
First, a church is a private organization. If you choose to deny someone access to your church for whatever reason, then that is your prerogative. This discussion had nothing to do with private organizations outside of the government; it had to do with the government creating laws that altered a person's rights and privileges.
Second, the fact that they wanted to be in the choir didn't necessarily mean they were going to flaunt anything. Unless, of course, you fully expected them to wear an "I Suck Dick" sign around their neck while singing in the choir. Again, your church and you can decide to do whatever you want, but there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual only wants to do something so as to bring attention to their homosexuality. You seem to believe that homosexuality makes a human no longer a person, but instead that they are some uncontrollable exhibition of gayness that will spontaneously erupt in radiant flamboyancy and glamorous glitter at any given moment, bringing gay shame upon you and your congregation. Again, completely your choice, but unrealistic nonetheless.
And don't fucking even TRY to hand me the bullshit "turn off the tube" argument. That is the biggest load of horseshit imaginable. You know what? If gays don't like the military telling them they can't flaunt their choice, they can just stay out. What was that you said about shoes and feet? The "turn off the TV" shit is a crock and the lamest attempt to justify garbage in the world. It's not realistic.
You were bitching about them voicing their sexuality and how it affected your right to religion. I'm sorry, but if you don't like someone voicing their opinion, you can turn off the TV, browse to another website, switch the radio station, etc. Someone else's free speech does not affect your rights. Gays aren't knocking down your door to tell you about how a penis feels in their butt while you're trying to have quiet time with Jesus.
As much as they may annoy you, they are not altering your rights in any way by voicing an opinion. Creating laws that prevent a person from doing something, however,
is altering rights. If you're going to deny something, then you typically have to have a legitimate reason behind the denial. I have not heard one legitimately supported reason yet; the only reason I've heard is that homosexuality is immoral. As I've pointed out, the morality of a person is not only a subjective opinion that differs from person to person, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether a person can efficiently serve in the military.
Oh, so now you're establishing the line at five. Okay. At least we're clear on that. Ten year olds are fair game.
Nice straw man argument; I never set the line anywhere. I clearly stated that the age issue was up for debate. I then went on to use the five year old as an example of a person which we all would agree is too young to consent. You wanted to dance around the iffy ages of 16 or 17 and derail the conversation; I'm trying to point out to you with an extreme example that age does play a part in consent. People do mature as they get older. At what age are they mature enough to consent? Again, it's up for debate, but a five year old is certainly one who can not be expected to have the intellectual capacity to knowingly consent to sex.
Way to avoid the question asking if you view the rapist of a five year old the same as you do a gay man in a consensual, adult relationship.
I do not rail against people having affairs, or bigamy (you ignored that one, I see) . . .
Umm, no. Reread my last response to you. I quoted your portion about bigamy and stated the following immediately after:
"It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you."
My one and only issue comes when it is made into a public spectacle and when behaviors that the vast majority of humanity considers to be perverse are passed off as a normal alternative.
Free. Speech.
You can be concerned with their actions all you want, but you can not prevent a person from making a "public spectacle" by protesting laws or announcing in public that they are gay. It doesn't matter what the vast majority of the public thinks about anything; free speech applies to everyone.
Believe what you want. Do what you want. You, and only you, have to answer for and live with the choices you make. But don't deign to call me narrow minded or unenlightened because I reject your bohemian morality. You have the right to do whatever you want, but you do NOT have the right to insist that I accept it. Because I don't and I never will.
As I've stated before and will state again, my intent is not to sway people's minds when it comes to topics of subjectivity. Morals are far too subjective for me to look a person dead in the eye and say, "My morals are right. Yours are wrong." Maybe you can do that, but I can not. Nor have I called anyone narrow-minded or unenlightened. I am only pointing out that for every Christian who is annoyed by a gay talking about his homosexuality, there is a homosexual who is annoyed by a Christian talking about his Christianity.
If you can point to a reason why immorality is a reason to be barred from joining the military, then that is applicable to the discussion. Otherwise, the fact that you are annoyed by a gay person's free speech is pretty much moot. It is a personal opinion that you hold dearly, and no one can take that away from you, but that personal opinion can't be forced upon everyone else in the form of "curing" all gays, forcing them to keep certain speech private, or barring them from the military.
338 Replies
64892 Views