Posted on 12/06/2007 11:04:30 AM PST by yorkie
Agreed, but as the saying goes, "You don't have a right not to be offended." As an individual, you have the choice of availing yourself of any of those things. If your faith calls on you to reject them, then that's the price of your faith and more power to ya. Complaining that your faith inconveniences you, though, seems odd.
Oh, by the way, I looked at your homepage. Nice taste in movies! I was amazed to see Jigoku on your list. I went to a screening of that several years back that was apparently the first time it had ever been shown in the States, as far as the people at the Japanese consulate (who had arranged the screening) could tell. I was surprised when I saw Criterion had put it out.
I'm not complaining that it inconveniences me. I'm willing to place my faith first and sacrifice if need be. However, I don't see why people should have to sacrifice their faith on behalf of a worthless, unnatural, and destructive sex fetish. What is it about homosexuality that its practitioners deserve protection from "discrimination", enforced to the point that good people are now being shut out because they won't prostrate themselves in front of some pervert who wants to take little boys on camping trips and to pass himself and his perversion off to them as worthy of emulation?
It's as ludicrous as telling dieticians that they can't use public facilities unless they endorse gluttony.
Name one positive thing about homosexuality.
I was amazed to see Jigoku on your list. I went to a screening of that several years back that was apparently the first time it had ever been shown in the States, as far as the people at the Japanese consulate (who had arranged the screening) could tell. I was surprised when I saw Criterion had put it out.
Criterion is amazing! Another great resource for Asiaphiles is the website yesasia.com!
Sure sounds like it to me. At the end of the day, no one is demanding that you do anything. You can go avail yourself of public services without anyone forcing you to renounce a tenet of your faith. And the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate in whatever way they want, as the courts have held. The issue is whether they can claim a right to government subsidy, and the courts so far have held that they don't.
good people are now being shut out because they won't prostrate themselves in front of some pervert who wants to take little boys on camping trips and to pass himself and his perversion off to them as worthy of emulation
Again, the Boy Scouts have refused to change their policy. No one has been forced to go on a camping trip with a gay scoutmaster, or forced to choose not to go on such a trip.
Name one positive thing about homosexuality.
I know lots of gay people, I work with a lot of gay people. And I don't recognize any of them in the stereotypes of predatory, child-molesting, coprophilia-lovin', disease-ridden animals that I see described here. I know them as good people, many in long-term relationships. For the most part they're just as happy, or unhappy, as my straight friends. And as far as I can tell, no more likely to roll around in excrement or molest a child as anyone else. Maybe my sample is skewed, but there it is.
Incorrect. The Scouts have been abused for years now over their failure to capitulate to homosexual (and also atheist) demands. They had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won a narrow 5-4 ruling to keep from being booted out of the public schools and initially out of the National Parks. Even with that narrow victory, the left has continued trying to marginalize the Scouts at every opportunity by denying them public benefits that are readily available to groups which approve of homosexuality. Again, why should the Scouts have to adopt the religious ideals of the radical left?
And the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate in whatever way they want, as the courts have held.
Barely. By one vote.
The issue is whether they can claim a right to government subsidy, and the courts so far have held that they don't.
No. That would be the issue if they were going to court over this Philadelphia issue. The issue here is a political one. Should male-on-male sodomy be considered a superior value to the values of the Boy Scouts?
Again, the Boy Scouts have refused to change their policy. No one has been forced to go on a camping trip with a gay scoutmaster, or forced to choose not to go on such a trip.
Only because the Scouts won their court case 5-4, and because Congress passed a law protecting them. Those things can be reversed unless we stand up to the bullying tactics being used by militant homosexuals and their leftist allies against the Scouts.
I asked you to name one positive thing about homosexuality. Instead, you told me that you know homosexuals who are good people. I know alcoholics who are good people, but I wouldn't defend alcoholism. I couldn't. Just as you obviously couldn't think of anything good to say about homosexuality. I certainly wouldn't defend booting a children's organization out of a public building unless they agree to hire alcoholic leaders and provide alcoholic role models for the kids. Homosexuality is a behavior, and even if you were correct that homosexuals are no more likely to molest kids than heterosexuals (which I doubt), it's a moot point since pedophile heterosexual males obviously aren't interested in molesting little boys. Pedophile homosexual males are, and we'd be endangering these kids if we placed them in their care. Nor should we present such people as role models for children.
I can name plenty of positive things about Scouting. About Christianity. About heterosexuality.
Can you name one positive thing about homosexuality? Given the desire of so many people to protect this activity, and even to promote it above Scouting, surely there must be all kinds of wonderful things to say about it. So let's hear them.
It allows people who are attracted to the same sex to be happy. Can you name one negative thing about homosexuality that can't also be attributed to heterosexuals?
That isn't a good thing. Booze makes an alcoholic happy and a fix makes an addict happy. Same thing.
Check this site out for a look at the negative pathology of homosexuality:
http://www.narth.org
Can you name one negative thing about homosexuality that can't also be attributed to heterosexuals?
Sure. Homosexuality is always unnatural. It's also always sinful. And it spreads diseases more than heterosexuality. And it leads to a variety of problems (see site above). And it must be predatory to propagate itself. And it can't produce offspring. It also produces immaturity in its practitioners, particularly the males, who never grow out of the "girls have cooties" mode.
Do you think we should outlaw alcohol? Should we not let people who occasionally have a drink be scoutmasters?
Sure. Homosexuality is always unnatural.
And yet homosexual behavior can be found in all kinds of animals
And it spreads diseases more than heterosexuality.
Anal sex spreads diseases more than vaginal sex, it's true. But not all gays have anal sex, while many heterosexuals do.
And it must be predatory to propagate itself.
Because heterosexuals never seduce people, right?
And it can't produce offspring.
Lots of things don't produce offspring. In fact, I can only think of one thing that does. Doesn't mean the rest of them are bad.
It also produces immaturity in its practitioners, particularly the males, who never grow out of the "girls have cooties" mode.
You don't actually know many gay people, do you?
Philadelphia won’t enforce this same policy on Muslims...
Here's a quick Gedanken mind experiment to clear the picture: you own a mobile home. You pay a land-owner $1 per year to lease his land so that you have a place to put your mobile home.
He terminates your lease after 80 years.
Is that his mobile home now, or yours?
But now that the Boy Scouts have been unceremoniously expelled...watch out here it comes.
Did I formally give the mobile home to the land owner in return for the low rent, with an agreement that he could terminate with one year's notice?
From the Philadelphia City Council resolution cited at #117:
WHEREAS, In 1928 the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as “the Boy Scouts”) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; andWHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become “at once the property of the City”; and
WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts, pursuant to that grant of permission, built a building at that location,
Have you seen that agreement or just the Council Resolution claiming such?
I haven’t seen the actual agreement, but the termination clause has been cited in articles sympathetic to the Boy Scouts, so I can’t imagine it’s some ruse. As I’ve stated above, the Scouts don’t seem to be pursuing any kind of legal “you can’t do that” strategy here, which makes me think they recognize that what Philadelphia is doing is within the law.
I have an occasional drink myself. But I would object if my hometown booted an organization out of a public facility because they require their members to abstain from alcohol. It's up to the Scouts or any other organization to make those decisions for themselves. BTW, there's a difference between drinking and alcoholism, just as there's a difference between heterosexuality and promiscuity.
And yet homosexual behavior can be found in all kinds of animals.
Animals react to stimuli, and sometimes stimuli can trigger a false reaction. For example, when a dog "humps" your leg, he isn't trying to engage in bestiality, and it would be absurd to argue that bestiality was natural on the basis of that. In any event, what possible natural reason could there be for a male inserting his organ into another male's rear opening? Whether animal or human?
Anal sex spreads diseases more than vaginal sex, it's true. But not all gays have anal sex, while many heterosexuals do.
How many heterosexual males are likely to desire anal sex with a boy, as opposed to homosexual males? That's the relavent issue vis-a-vis the Scouts.
Because heterosexuals never seduce people, right?
I don't have the stats handy right now, but do some research. You'd be amazed how many homosexuals report that they were "introduced" to sex as a minor by an older person.
In addition, heterosexuality is natural and examples of it abound every day. The reproductive ablility of heterosexuality is obvious every day. Every Boy Scout came into being because of heterosexuality. Homosexuality, in contrast, must constantly propagandize because nothing in the natural world would lead one to it. This is why homosexuals, when they get political clout, immediately move to try to change school curricula, as in California.
Lots of things don't produce offspring. In fact, I can only think of one thing that does. Doesn't mean the rest of them are bad.
God and/or nature (take your pick) provides us with two sexes, who are naturally opposites, and who can bond to reproduce. Homosexuals can't do that....EVER....because there is no way for them to naturally bond in the blessed act of creating a new human being.
You don't actually know many gay people, do you?
Not a whole lot, but some.
Gee, and homosexuals wonder why they are hated?
I know. I have a close friend who lives outside Philadelphia, and her caucasion children are in a very significant minority in the public school system. Muslims are the majority - and she said most of them have the same last name. (Whatever that means.)
Agreed.
just as there's a difference between heterosexuality and promiscuity.
And there's a difference between homosexuality and promiscuity, too.
In any event, what possible natural reason could there be for a male inserting his organ into another male's rear opening? Whether animal or human?
It feels good?
How many heterosexual males are likely to desire anal sex with a boy, as opposed to homosexual males? That's the relavent issue vis-a-vis the Scouts.
And the scouts are entitled to ban gay scoutleaders. But it's certain acts practiced by both gays and straights that are more likely to spread disease, not homosexuality in and of itself. Your position was that homsexuality was bad because it spread disease.
You'd be amazed how many homosexuals report that they were "introduced" to sex as a minor by an older person.
I can say the same of heterosexuals. There's usually someone experienced leading someone inexperienced.
God and/or nature (take your pick) provides us with two sexes, who are naturally opposites, and who can bond to reproduce.
I guess I just don't see reproduction as the end-all and be-all of human existence.
Not a whole lot, but some.
Like I said, I know lots, and I've never seen that gynophobic behavior you describe. I've seen far more misogyny from straight men.
What can we do to boycot this evil city?
Do you therefore advocate that children in the public schools be taught that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and just as good and just as valuable to society as heterosexuality?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.