Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:52:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2123 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
Hmmm... I think the so-called “homophobes” are simply frustrated with having
a decision made for them and then forced upon them. It is their right as a
human being to decide what they want to believe and what they don’t want to
believe.
|
Yes, until they try to dictate the behavior of others based on their own sense
of morality. You can be a homophobe all you want, but the line is crossed when
you try to restrict them from having the same freedom to participate that
heteros have. They are and should be free to say that they’re dating someone of
the same gender just as you are and should be free to say that you’re dating
someone of the opposite gender. And you are and should be free to ignore them
when they do so, just as they are and should be free to ignore you whenever you
do so. Their freedom to be trumps your freedom to not see.
| |
Homosexuality advocates need to learn that they can’t force people to think
as they do, and if they truly practice this “tolerance” they speak of, they
will graciously allow other people to have their say.
|
S’funny, a lot of us were thinking the same thing about those who have been
trying to oppress the LGBT group based on religious grounds.
| |
I can say right now that other people in this thread prominently display
that they believe they are the source of infallible truth.
|
Like you? The sword cuts both ways.
| |
I believe his point can best be articulated like this: It’s a matter of
manners; I don’t blatantly proclaim my sexuality, and I would appreciate it
if you would act in a similar manner. Many people feel that the request for
a LGBT newsgroup is a request for special attention/blatant proclomation of
sexuality. This is what upsets them, not the fact that people are gay (1).
|
As I’ve said before, the world assumes heterosexuality, so if they don’t say
anything, they’re misidentified.
| |
This returns to your fallacy in thinking that hating an action (or lifestyle)
precludes loving a person. Some people find it a hard concept to understand,
but it’s really quite simple.
|
Hating an individual’s lifestyle makes it much harder to let any underlying love
show through. And even if you’re doing so, it also makes it harder for the
subject of that love to see it as genuine (if they see it at all).
| |
This may not be entirely true; many, many people believe that homosexuality
is a choice.
|
Belief is not proof, and what evidence has been gathered points to it being
physiological in origin, not psychological.
| |
Supposing evolution is fact,
|
Evolution is fairly well proved by an island that Darwin wasn’t able to visit
during his trip to the Gallapagos. It’s populated by birds whose beak size
changes from year to year based on how their food supply is affected by the
yearly climate. If there’s a good growing season, the plants produce large
seeds and the small-beaked birds can’t crack them, so only the large-beaked
birds survive to breed. If the growing season isn’t as great, they produce
small seeds, and the large-beaked birds can’t get enough nourishment from them
to recover the extra energy expended by carrying such large beaks around, so
only the small-beaked birds survive to breed. And this entire process can and
does flip-flop within the span of a single growing/breeding season.
| |
all homosexual creatures would have died off millions of years ago because
they could never produce offspring.
|
The other nice thing about that example is that it shows how just because living
beings exhibiting a single genetic characteristic can die out without ever
breeding, the genetic material that results in that characteristic can survive
through other breeding strains.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Agreed, sir, but my point is simply that these people feel this way, whether they are being oppressed or not, and that is what they are reacting to. (...) Again, I agree, but in every case in life (not just this), a judgement call has to be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Sir, I see from your post that you have a child. Consider this: According to your reasoning, parents (you) must hate their (your) children because they are disobedient, poop in their diapers, write on the walls, and get the flu at the most (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
