[Rictor]

Alright, guys, take a deep breath and repeat after me: there's no such thing as "hatespeech".

People do not, and should not, have the right not to be insulted, belittled, mocked and demonized. If I met Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets or speak on the street corner.

They have every right not to be physically assaulted, to be granted the same freedoms under the law as everyone else, to participate in the democratic system etc etc. Speech is not, and in my eyes will never be - must never be - a crime.

If I saw Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets and give speeches.


Oh, what? You all saw that coming.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Rictor
If I saw Hitler on the street, I would beat him to death, but I would not forbid him to hand out pamphlets and give speeches.

I'd be interested to know your definition of "forbid".

[Rictor]

Disallow through the use of state authorized force, the threat of force, state sanctioned legal action, the threat of legal action or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property.

If you want to get technical about it.

[Bobboau]

he wouldn't do anything to his undead zombie corpse after it came back after he killed him.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Rictor
Disallow through the use of state authorized force, the threat of force, state sanctioned legal action, the threat of legal action or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property.

If you want to get technical about it.

So technically he isn't being deprived of his right to free expression because the force being used against him is not state authorized. I like it!

[Rictor]

"or by not affording him proper protection provided to all citizens from attacks on his person or property."

Which means they would have to protect him if anyone tried to lynch him, or set his booth on fire or whatever.

[Ford Prefect]

So really what you mean to say is, if you saw Hitler in the street, you would beat him to death, but you would demand that you be arrested for your infringement of his rights.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by mikhael


Actually, Clinton signed off on a bill that basically threw that one out. States do NOT have to recognize marriages formed in other states that are deemed illegal locally.

Ok, so he signed an unconstitutional bill. just because there is a bill or law passed doesn't make it legal.

[Bobboau]

but it is legaly binding untill it's throughen out.

[redmenace]

Yes it is legally binding and another example of the Clinton Legacy. But, what I don't get is, if Bill Clinton is so smart, why would be have signed an obviously unconstitutional bill into law.

[Bobboau]

to appease the conservtives.

[redmenace]

that and the fact he is from Arkansas...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


There's a huge evolutionary advantage to having homosexuals in your family group... just not for the homosexuals. In social groups led by a breeding pair (which is the norm for most social animals, though not always, I believe, true of the more intelligent ones), they provide all the benefits of additional members of the pack - assisting in food gathering, assisting with defense, assising with communal offspring raising etc. etc., but they will never challenge the leaders for breeding rights.

That said, I don't see how it could be carried through the generations, as it's clearly a genetic disadvantage not to be able to reproduce.

The only reason i could think of it being carried would be societal pressure (i.e. against homosexuality and thus to form - unwillingly - hetereosexual relationships as 'cover').  But i'm not sure that'd explain the gene occuring across pretty much the entire spectrum of human ethnicity/area, as AFAIK in order to do that it'd have to have mutated at a fairly early stage in human development and one which probably(?) was before the existance of such societal pressures.

The other thing I was thinking about was the existance of homosexuality in animals; that's highly unlikely to be spread by breeding (for obvious reasons; unless it's non-exclusive sexual preference, I guess) IMO, but there's also no societal factors I can think of to account for it either.

Oh, and RE: xq27 I had a wee rummage out of curiosity and found some stuff (originally pdf files, textified by google - so hopefully this'll be readable to you lot)
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AZUvkEF7RtYJ:ibgwww.colorado.edu/~rhee/Study%2520Guide%2520for%2520Exam%25204.pdf+Xq27+homosexuality&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:_d9Pood-DUQJ:etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD-209/Thesis_M_DuPree_10_3.pdf+Xq27+homosexuality+female&hl=en&client=firefox-a
(huge one; probably more relevant. )

[Martinus]

Originally posted by TrashMan
but from my POV homosexsuals are sick people (damaged gene) and therefor deserve compassion, not hatered.

[color=66ff00]Why?
[/color]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Maeglamor

[color=66ff00]Why?
[/color]

I think he's one of those hard-core christiany people who can't balance the sort of sense of charity and compassion I also heard (I did go to Sunday School when I was young - till I was given a choice ) with condemning a group of people as sinful for nothing more than who they are.

The way I see it is... it's easier on your conscience to say people are 'sick' or damaged.  

Firstly it means you can justify treating them differently to other human beings.  Shunning them, for example.

Secondly it means you don't have to confront the fact that you're a lot like them and it may very well just be societal pressures that make the difference.  

Thirdly, it means you don't have to worry about working to accept people as they are; you can place blind faith that a 'cure' will be found and thus avoid dealing with your own bigotry.

Finally, I think it means that you don't have to examine your own reasons for hating those people (you don't label other normal people as defective without hate, after all); you can just say 'they're wrong' without having to answer why.  Because most people, in my experience with threads here, can't give a proper 'why' for it.  Hell, I used to be somewhat homophobic (simply because other people/society/community - i.e. at school -  was) until I thought about it and realised how stupid and unjustified it was.

TrashMan once called me and some other people 'extremists' for calling for equal rights for civilly married gay couples, IIRC.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I had assumed so but I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

The fantastic thing about the 'gay people are born wrong' argument is that surely God made them that way on purpose, him being the creator of the universe and everything in it etc. etc.

Thus it would stand to reason that not only is God not against being gay, he fully endorses it. Any counter argument in reference to this fact simply means that you're attempting to thwart God's divine plan and that you are in fact, evil.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

I like that one.  We should tell Pat Buchanan or Robertson or whoever that ****wit was.  'Dark land full of homosexuals' indeed.

[Kazan]

hey nuke - the thoughtless use of ad hominem ["uber liberals"] to describe people who are not acting like bigots earns you a flogging


[edit]
something i meant to post last night [when the thread was two pages shorter]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Don't confuse gay marriage with fair rights to gay partners, though.  The issue of being married in a church is kind of a side issue to that of, for example, having the spousal privelges extended to married couples.

um... "gay marriage" isn't "married in a church" and anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage would force churchs to marry them needs to be smacked for not using their brain.

"gay marriage" is GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE - ie extending all those spousal rights

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan

[edit]
something i meant to post last night [when the thread was two pages shorter]

um... "gay marriage" isn't "married in a church" and anyone who thinks that legalizing gay marriage would force churchs to marry them needs to be smacked for not using their brain.

"gay marriage" is GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE - ie extending all those spousal rights

I was making the definition between civil marriage - i.e. the legal framework of spousal priveleges - and religious marriage.  In the UK, i.e. where Sid and myself are IIRC, there's an existing civil union system that covers non married but long term couples and also gay couples (but which can be considered as equating to 'civil marriage').  I felt that, given the context of his post (specifically mentioning the extension of gay rights, which can be said to be covered by the civil union concept and term) that he might have been referring to marriage within the religious context.

There is, I think, a tendency to equate marriage to the religious ceremony, hence my use of it - within that context, as qualified by the 'married within a church' - as an abstract contrast.  I felt it would be clearer to deliniate the word marriage and the concept of civil unions seperately to avoid ambiguity over the former.

That, and save myself the effort of having to qualify every use of the word as being within either its legal or religious state.  I think the entymology of marriage might actually include a religious component or a specific heterosexual origin (can someone clarify the meaning of 'maritus' for me?), anyways.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14

I'd say that's complete bollocks, but I'm off to bed justnow.  I'm sure someone will point out the lack of any 'gay gene' (plus wonder exactly how such a gene would exist for thousands of years across both sexes), the lack of any implication this gene is 'damaging' in a measurable way (i.e. in order to be classified as 'sick' or genetically disordered), and incidences of homosexuality in bonobos(SP?), sheep, and other wild animals.

I recall reading about some experiments preformed on mice. The researches damadged a gene on purpose (don't recall what that gene name was) in one group and they left the other group alone.
The mice with the damaged gene started avoiding the opposite sex and constatnly spent time with their own.. and exibited other..behaviour.
It appears that we humans have the same gene as do all (or most) mammals.

However, this research is still in early stages so we have to wait for the final results.

Be it as it may, it does provide a very logical explanation to homosexual behaviour...

Fistrly gay people normally say that it's not their choce but that they were born that way and tehy can't help it but being as they are.
Second, it allso explains why it isn't an inherant feature.