- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,684
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, what you wrote was that gays are living wonderful, peaceful lives in this country. Don't lie about it. You didn't know what the **** you were talking about and you made an idiot of yourself.My sexual orientation has nothing to do with your distorted world view.
MSgt said:Gays are not murdered and hanged for being gay in America. Gays live quite openly without fear of persecution in America.
Well let's go ahead and pull my post in its entirety..
Words like "wonderful and peaceful" weren't even there. So allow me to reverse your accusation that I lied and accuse you (with proof) that you are a liar. And my world view is more true than you will ever know civilian.
But, since you did bring up words like "wonderful and peaceful"....consider how good you have it in America as compared to countries where you would be hung as a matter of legal recourse.
It is you that has made an idiot of yourself. Gain control of your emotions. You see, my problem really isn't with gays in the military. It's with you civilian gays who want military gays to go through the hardship for your personal emotional needs. I've brought this up before. Perhaps you missed it.
So having sex with children is ok with you as long as the kiddies don't hurt. Got it :roll:
We are. No one is interferring with homosexuals. You want to change the law to go beyond live and let live to equal visibility under the law.. To change the law requires evidence to supporting changing that law. "Live and let live" isn't evidence, its emotion.
I just did with pedos.
Your reasoning is pretty sketchy at best.
Furthermore, if you want to get literal, the words you used were gays can live "without fear of persecution in America." Given that there are gay people who are persecuted and killed in this country just because they are gay, that was a ludicrous statement on your part, but we both know you feel too proud Mr. Military Man, to admit that you were wrong.
Forgive me if I seem emotional, but I'm not stupid.
What reasoning? I reasoned nothing.
It's like you have a learning disability. You invent words out of my post and then accuse me of wanting to be literal when I slap you across the face with the post? And on top of this, you seek to dumb down my post to fit your mistake? I was not wrong. You were wrong because you are emotional. My post was clear for all to see just how wrong you were. I'm afraid a few illegal criminal acts in America does not equal gay legal persecution in the Middle East (on any level). And this is exactly what my post meant. But if you insist on pretending that you can't see this to save face on an Internet Site, what am I to conclude about you?
Pedophiles are the one with the problem, not me. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, I could care less what they do.
Are you dense?
I mean seriously, what the hell are talking about? An adult having sex with a child is not comparable to an adult having sex with another consenting adult. The former is harmful, the latter is not. You are making an irrelevant comparison. If pedophiles aren't out molesting kids, then I could care less what they are doing because they aren't hurting anyone. How does a gay person having sex with a consenting adult hurt you or anyone?
What is the evidence that has been used to deny gays equality to begin with? You guys were the ones who created discriminatory laws to begin with that were based on emotion rather than evidence. We are only trying to do away with those faulty policies and laws.
No, you just made yourself look like an idiot by comparing consenting sex between adults to child molestation. As I said, I could care less what people do with their lives as long as they aren't hurting others. That is the principle of live and let live.
You can't call it discriminatory practice when you can't even prove it isn't a choice.
You accuse me of being emotional, but your own pride keeps you from admitting that America isn't exactly peachy keen on gays.
Furthermore, you ignored my point that American social conservative influence has actually perpetuated the animosity towards gays in many other countries.
Dude, I feel sorry for you. But I'm not going to waste my time casting pearls before swine. As I said, I could care less what other do as long as it doesn't hurt me or others.
That isn't a value judgment, that is the golden rule.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even Jesus Christ said it, as did hundreds of philosophers before him. And that is the basis for live and let live. As long as no one is doing anything to harm me or others then I could care less what they do.
You are the one that has some sort of problem with gays. Even though what gays do in the bedrooms harms no one and even though gay marriage has no affect on your marriage, you still obsess yourself with gays and controlling what they do. And that is why I feel sorry for you. You live your life concerning yourself with controlling others when they are doing nothing to hurt you.
I find that to be pretty pathetic. Furthermore, to justify it in your own mind, you compare that situation, to one that is inherently harmful, pedophiles molesting children. But however you need to delude yourself to continue your power hungry existence is fine by me. I could care less because it doesn't affect me.
Religion is a choice. Political orientation is a choice. Which hand you usually use is a choice. What types of food you enjoy is a choice. Who you fall in love with is a choice.
Creating laws that restrict people based on any those choices would be discriminatory. Perhaps you should actually read the definition of discriminatory...
Discriminatory: prejudiced: being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand
Nothing in that definition that says you can't be discriminatory against a choice. The question is whether it is rational discrimination or irrational discrimination. And I have yet to hear an argument for rational discrimination against gays and lesbians.
But you obviously do or you would accept ALL alternative lifestyles and clearly you do not which is why your live and let live statement is so incredibly hypocritical.
Using your defintiion once again you display your incredible ignorance of using that argument since it would apply to any and all alternative lifestyles. Aren't they all a "choice" too? If you use choice as an excuse to change the law nothing can be excluded. But that would of course force you to actually think about what you are proposing and we certainly cannot have that.
I accept anyone who isn't hurting me or anyone else. They can do whatever they want with their life and I'll live my own. It's as simple as that. I can't imagine how you find that to be hypocritical, but I have found you aren't exactly the most rational person.
You are trying to get me to say I object to pedophilia. I don't. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. What I object to is the behavior of adults having sex with children. That is harmful, and therefore not comparable to consenting adults having sex.
If you can't understand something so simple, then you truly are deluded and there is no help for you.
That is why laws should be based on rational.
There was no rational behind sodomy laws so they were overturned. There is no rational behind denying two people of the same sex the right to a civil marriage. Whether or not it is a choice doesn't even come into play.
You really are hopeless. Until you can understand your ideas of morality are not universal to all people you will never come to grips that your "live and let live" bs answer is based on YOUR morality nothing more.
The arrogance is you pretending your morality is something everyone agrees with or that its the only "rational" point of view.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I'm not saying it is universal. I'm saying I don't care how others live their lives.. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly free to be a controlling tyrant all you want as long as you aren't doing anything to hurt me or others. I'll live my life the way I choose, and as far as I am concerned, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or you, you have no basis to interfere in my life.
See how that works. I'm only responsible for my own choices. I could give a **** how you live your life, because I don't think like you. I don't have to control others to be happy. I can be happy living my own life.
You just lied because you've already said you support changing the law for EVERYONE.
You don't have a "live and let live" policy. You have a "live and let live the way I want it" policy towards the law.
And your doubletake on pedophilia was truly classic. I've never seen anyone say they are for it and against it in the same breath. I take it thats why you didn't respond when I called you on it.
When did I say that? I only said I supported changing laws and policies that were harmful towards me.
I'm not some sort of dictator who can push laws on other people. It takes elections and law makers to change the law. All I can do is vote for who I want to represent me. And that means it takes many, many people to change the law, not just me.
No, I advocate to change only laws that harmful to me or others. You don't listen very well.
Some people are comfortable in living in ambiguity and some are not. I don't know how many times I've met Christians who say they love homosexuals but hate the sin of homosexual behavior. I have a very similar stance to pedophilia because I consider it harmful, but as long a pedophile isn't acting on it, then I don't care.
If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.
Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.
I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?
Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"
The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.
Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.
Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.
I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?
Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"
The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.
Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?