Newme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:03 pm
Did you know it's a logical fallacy to state, "your post seems to make a few too many highly questionable & logically fallacious claims" without stating exactly which claims contained fallacies?
But it's ok, I understand - you're swamped.
Nah, that's no logical fallacy, it's just laziness.
Apologies, I was out of town but I don't want to keep you waiting any longer! I enter this discussion with some trepidation but I find your position really interesting and I am seeking to understand it. You have provided a ton of content and I will try to respond. One small point of contention: I asked if you could give me examples of
non-believers infringing on the rights of
believers. All the examples you cite include differing opinions on abortion and gay marriage. While the majority of believers may fall stereotypically on one particular side of those issues there are in fact plenty of believers who support the right of gays to marry and for women to choose an abortion if necessary. Perhaps we're falling into that trap previously discussed where just because someone has a certain view on a topic we assume a lot about their positions?
Newme wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:02 am
Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school.
That's a pretty remarkable right to claim...perhaps I've misunderstood your position here? Are you saying children have the right to not hear about or discuss homosexuality at all? Cuz homosexuals exist. Do children have the right to not be taught polynomials? Or to avoid lessons on the chemical carbon? Maybe they do?? Of course I believe any information should be age appropriate but what is the kid with two moms (or even just a gay uncle?) supposed to do when asked to draw his family? Does the picture get censored?
Or perhaps you mean no one should be taught homosexuality is the
preferred relationship goal regardless of orientation? I haven't seen that in the examples you cite but we do have good evidence of heterosexuality being promoted as the vastly superior relationship even if someone is gay. But let's take a look:
Yet, in places where same-sex marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
Not informing parents is definitely concerning however schools are in a difficult situation sometimes. We have run into this here (in Canada) with some new legislation which understandably had parents a little freaked out. However, sometimes the home situation can be dangerous for kids and giving schools a little bit of leeway in what they can keep private for their students can protect them from harm. Admittedly it's a difficult balance and IMHO schools shouldn't be the judge of what parents should and should not know. In these stories the school administrations admitted that not informing parents was a mistake.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
This was a field trip suggested by a parent and the school decided to allow it. Students were given the option of not going which some took advantage of. Seems reasonable to me.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."
From everything I've read about gays and transgendered individuals (and it's been quite a bit on both sides of the aisle as this has affected our lives to a degree), is that providing a welcoming, understanding, loving environment provides for far better mental health prospects than telling them to remain celibate or seek out hetero relationships. These efforts on the schools' part is an attempt to help those kids as they also form part of the school community and enjoy their rights to life, liberty and happiness. I know the Dutch study from your Legal Liability report finds that gays suffer far more mental illness but those who did the study say that more study is required to determine exactly
why that is. Concluding that just being gay leads to mental health issues seems like a stretch to me.
And that's something I've never understood about the religious position, particularly Christians who insist that heterosexual marriage is god's way. Paul had this to say about it:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman...But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion
I've never understood why more churches haven't taken the position of- Yeah, it's not ideal for us but if you're gay find a partner and get married. It's better than burning with passion.
It seems to be a reasonable approach to me and leads to the best mental health of those involved.
Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
I'm gonna need a reference for this one as I've seen no evidence that this is true. While it could certainly lead a gay child to be more comfortable with who they are and therefore live authentically (which I guess would lead to some sort of increase in "experimenting with homosexuality"??) I can't say I've seen a lot of straight kids say -Sweet I'm going to try out homosexuality now!! I know there is the trope of women "trying out" lesbianism for a while but I haven't seen any actual evidence of it other than the apparently supported view that women tend to be bi-sexual more often than men?
Some in the homosexual activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.
Uh...ok?? As mentioned, there were mormons who had different goals than I did when I was mormon. Now that I identify as more atheist, there are atheists who have different goals than I do. There are feminists who I disagree with despite my views on feminism and equality. Just because some member of a group hold radical views it does not de-legitimize all goals of that group.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
Free speech does not mean free from consequences of voicing said speech. I was not able to locate the entire editorial but the bits I did find were fairly offensive. And she was absolutely free to hold those opinions. But as a university admissions adviser I'm not surprised that her employer would have very reasonable doubts about her ability to remain un-biased in her job based on her expressed views. Good for her for telling people how she felt but I can't say I'm surprised she lost her job.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
Yeah, assault is illegal and I'm assuming the perpetrator was charge? It happens unfortunately.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.
Interestingly, the founder of eHarmony said that gay marriage had ruined his company and had this to say about it:
I think this issue of same-sex marriage within the next five to 15 years will be no issue anymore. We've made too much of it. I'm tired of it. It has really damaged our company," Warren said, "and when the attorney general of the state of New Jersey decided that we had to put up a same-sex site and we did it out of counsel that if we didn't do it we were not going to have any business in New Jersey — we literally had to hire guards to protect our lives because the people were so hurt and angry with us, were Christian people, who feel that it's a violation to scripture.
Dang...nothing like that good ol' fashioned Christlike love.
*And one of the biggest: 5 of the supreme Court ignored the democratic check-and-balances and like a king, DECREED that society must now accept same sex marriage, despite the fact that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution and is not under their jurisdiction. Scalia (one of the 4 who opposed this) was vocal about how unlawful 5 of the Supreme Court justices were acting: “[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.” Mysteriously, after being so vocal about this, and calling them out, he was found dead in his hotel room - when recently he had a clean bill of health from his doctor.
That video I linked to discusses how the Supreme Court did not make new law but interpreted existing law. Seems reasonable to me but what do I know...I'm canadian.
And maybe Scalia was murdered by the raving leftist loons but I tend to reject conspiracy theories especially on flimsy evidence. But again, I'm part of the unthinking homosexual herd!
But I do think you make good points on government infringing on private business. I'm conflicted on that particular point. Part of me feels like letting business deny services to whoever they want and let the free market decide if they thrive or not. But the world does have a very ugly history of letting people deny basic services to blacks, Jews, women and yes, even gays, and I understand why there are many out there who refuse to live in a world like that. I find it to be a complicated scenario.
