School suspends kid for voicing opinion in opposition to homosexuality

[HAL9000]

No, "majority rules" is not an adequate description. The majority's "rights" are not without any limitations.

True...

Such changes, particularly at the federal level, are exceedingly difficult to make. Broad and lasting consensus is required.

Yet they happen, because something is written down on a piece of paper, doesn't really change anything if the majority want it to change.

 

[werepossum]

werepossum: One's ego SHOULD be connected to one's morality,

M: So morality, then, is anything the ego wishes to believe is true and thus purely relative. Interesting point of view.

SNIP

You have that exactly backward. One's ego should provide motivation to be a moral person, and be a measure of that success or failure.

What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right.

Freedom of speech is essential to ensuring we can tell which is which.

Well said.

News flash. There is no absolute right to free speech in public school. Kids have been suspended for wearing anti-(fill in the President) t-shirts.

Schools districts are just trying to keep the peace.

True, and I can support punishing kids for wearing clothing that breaks the rules of decorum. That would include wearing a tee shirt stating that homosexuality is bad. There is a difference between stating an opinion with the context of a discussion, and stating an opinion all day long, which can be obnoxious. Perhaps that difference is more subtle than it seems to me, but it's definitely there.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Please pity yourself as you're the one that projecting their hate on someone.

I don't quite think you understand what that means. It would figure, for reasons I've already noted.

 

[Moonbeam]

yes "popular voice" because swaying the German people into any movement is oh so hard. remember how hard it was for hitler to convince the German people that Jews were responsible for all their problems? god it took him forever!

So true, the German people are genetically defective and need only a marching band to boot up and march off to war. This is why music is banned there today. And by the way, you're a brainwashed fucking bigot. You're probably German. You poor sick bastard.

 

[ShawnD1]

So true, the German people are genetically defective and need only a marching band to boot up and march off to war. This is why music is banned there today. And by the way, you're a brainwashed fucking bigot. You're probably German. You poor sick bastard.

He is German and he dislikes German. He is full of self hate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is it immoral for hetero anal sex?

Is lesbian sex immoral?

For someone that is ok at declaring part of the population immoral for the way they are born... you sure have problems clarifying your convictions with reasoning.

They are very clear to him. That's how it is with bigots. What he can't do is explain it rationally to you. He will call what he says rational but it won't be and anybody not bigoted as he will see that.

 

[zsdersw]

Yet they happen,

Yes, they happen... because societies change, grow, and face new challenges. Constitutions shouldn't be changed often, but the mechanism for making changes exists... and sets the bar extremely high.

because something is written down on a piece of paper, doesn't really change anything if the majority want it to change.

Incorrect. Didn't you notice that the majority's rights are not without limitations?

 

[Moonbeam]

He is German and he dislikes German. He is full of self hate.

At least it would explain his need to express his imbecility on a public forum and go into a rage when it's pointed out. It takes some kind of special motivation, I am sure, to first lace up one's jack boots and then march out and stomp on one's own head.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have that exactly backward. One's ego should provide motivation to be a moral person, and be a measure of that success or failure.

The flaw in this reasoning is obvious in this thread. These bigots here are very, very, very, proud, exceedingly proud, titanically proud of their bigotry. It is the essence of their morality. As I said, this is so because their morality is attached to their egos and there egos are defense mechanisms that are there to delude ourselves we are in pain. The more we were damaged as children the greater the magnitude of our egos, the more defensive we are, and the more dangerously we defend against the truth. It is you who have it backward because you love your ego and do not see the danger it represents.

Now what every person does have might be called a breathing tube that still connects them to life, a feeling there is some ultimate good somewhere, even if they don't know where. The ego can claim that for itself but the ego is the constriction.

The ego can and will believe anything that inflates it's self worth. It turns intelligence into rationalization and cunning, the enemies of truth. It is there to make you feel better than others because, of course, you actually feel much worse, the worst in the world, in fact.

 

[Atreus21]

Is it immoral for hetero anal sex?

Yes it is.

Is lesbian sex immoral?

I find it immoral, yes.

For someone that is ok at declaring part of the population immoral for the way they are born... you sure have problems clarifying your convictions with reasoning.

I challenge you to identify one immorality in people that can't be excused by saying, "They're born that way." If genetic predispositions can be used to excuse any and all behavior, then nothing is truly immoral.

Apart from this, the debate is about whether people have a right to make moral pronouncements without reprisal, not whether or not those moral pronouncements pass certain standards of validity. In other words, I have no problem with people saying, "You're moral standards are retarded." My problem lies with them saying, "You're moral standards are retarded, and I'm using authority to silence you." Setting that precedent is very dangerous.

 

[ShawnD1]

I challenge you to identify one immorality in people that can't be excused by saying, "They're born that way." If genetic predispositions can be used to excuse any and all behavior, then nothing is truly immoral.

You're really bad at this.

Normal people define things as immoral if someone is victimized in the process. Shooting you is immoral because you don't want to be shot. Ass pounding is not immoral because there's no victim.

 

[werepossum]

True...

Yet they happen, because something is written down on a piece of paper, doesn't really change anything if the majority want it to change.

Not sure how you mean that. There has to be substantial support for something to change, but nowhere near majority support. That's the beauty of living in a constitutional republic rather than in a democracy, the majority cannot enforce its will arbitrarily on the minority. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner; a constitutional republic is the sheep pointing out its right to not be eaten.

The flaw in this reasoning is obvious in this thread. These bigots here are very, very, very, proud, exceedingly proud, titanically proud of their bigotry. It is the essence of their morality. As I said, this is so because their morality is attached to their egos and there egos are defense mechanisms that are there to delude ourselves we are in pain. The more we were damaged as children the greater the magnitude of our egos, the more defensive we are, and the more dangerously we defend against the truth. It is you who have it backward because you love your ego and do not see the danger it represents.

Now what every person does have might be called a breathing tube that still connects them to life, a feeling there is some ultimate good somewhere, even if they don't know where. The ego can claim that for itself but the ego is the constriction.

The ego can and will believe anything that inflates it's self worth. It turns intelligence into rationalization and cunning, the enemies of truth. It is there to make you feel better than others because, of course, you actually feel much worse, the worst in the world, in fact.

The ego is the constriction?

I like that!

 

[Atreus21]

You're really bad at this.

Normal people define things as immoral if someone is victimized in the process. Shooting you is immoral because you don't want to be shot. Ass pounding is not immoral because there's no victim.

First, that's beside the point. My challenge was to identify a crime that can't be excused by saying "They're born that way." I could claim I was born a thief, and hence have no control over my actions, and hence am not a criminal. Not to equate homosexual behavior with a crime.

So why should we not allow adult siblings to have sex? There's no victim. You could say genetics, but why should society stop two loving siblings from engaging in their own victimless activity? What right does society have to dictate to them who they're allowed to love, especially if they use the "I was born this way" defense?

 

[fskimospy]

First, that's beside the point. My challenge was to identify a crime that can't be excused by saying "They're born that way." I could claim I was born a thief, and hence have no control over my actions. Not to equate homosexual behavior with a crime.

So why should we not allow adult siblings to have sex? There's no victim. You could say genetics, but why should society stop two loving siblings from engaging in their own victimless activity?

There is considerable scientific evidence that sexual preference has a major biologically determined component. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that shows thievery to be biologically determined.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Don't pretend to have any insight into my character.

Hehehehe. How many times do I have to say that because you say something that doesn't makes it true. Do you see that just because I say something that doesn't make it true but saying that is a true statement?

This is the difference between you and me. What I say is true because it is true on the face of it but there is no such truth in what you said. You have to show that I don't have the slightest clue to prove that point and I have just shown that I am way ahead of you. It is you that don't have the slightest clue because your arguments are baseless. It is a true statement that when a person produces a baseless opinion as truth they do not have a clue. I win again. Hehehe.

As to your second point, that I have no insight into your character, that is a statement with an assumption. It presumes that to understand you, more precisely your bigotry, requires that I have insight into your character, whatever that might mean, and what that means to you and to me may in fact be very different. This is also a true statement is it not? If not than please show me why.

Now I have claimed that you can easily tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much and you are, in my opinion so far, a perfect example. I think, what you are trying to say, is that I don't know you personally, do not know your life history, and therefore can't judge you. But, in the first place, I am not judging you. I am describing what you are. A bigot is a person who believes something irrationally, based, usually of religious text, or caught from the madness of other bigots one grows up around. Now we know you are Catholic so we know you have been exposed to religious text and are opposed to abortion as is the Church and we know you believe there is such a thing as morality and evil, which can perhaps cost you immoral life. So we know there can be motivating factors in your thinking and we know what you have said in this thread.

It is thus, in my opinion, not too big a jump to conclude you are a bigot. But there is other evidence. You claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle very different from the straight way of life and I gather you want to pin that on anal sex, as if some tiny area of difference swamps the massive similarities to gay people and normal people overall. Isn't this the reason that don't ask don't tell was put in place, that gay people have a life style so similar to straight people that, other than their sexual orientation and the differences that will make, sometimes, in sexual relations, there is no difference at all.

So why do the differences loom large in your thinking. The simple answer is that you are a bigot, obsessed with the evils of some forms of sex. And where did you get such a form of thinking. Doubtlessly from your exposure to a brand of Christianity that has had a perverted notion of sex for several thousand years.

So the fact that you are a bigot can be easily adduced from your words but remain totally occluded to you because bigots are blind to their own bigotry.

We know further that you are a bigot because you can easily prove that homosexuality is a choice. All you have to do is fall in love and have a the-rest-of-your-life sexual relations with a man. Then you can say it's a choice and actually know what you're talking about.

Finally, and most importantly, you are a bigot because none of your belief can you actually prove. There is nothing rational about them. You spout off but you don't prove a thing. You can make no argument for your case as I have. You have demonstrated over and over again that you can't prove a single thing you believe. I believe this and you are the proof.

Why is homosexuality immoral? Please prove that it is. If you cannot, shut the fuck up. Your opinions on the matter are nothing but bigotry and bigotry is evil. You are what you should fear. Have a little modesty.

 

[Atreus21]

There is considerable scientific evidence that sexual preference has a major biologically determined component. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that shows thievery to be biologically determined.

Got any links?

Preliminary investigation (5 seconds on google) yields a considerable amount of attention to this subject (no surprise there). Hurriedly found this link. Only browsed the conclusion as I have to go to lunch.

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html

 

[alkemyst]

The length of time something's been established has no relevance to whether or not it is ultimately right.

Grades K-12 are no place for freedom of speech. Most do not have the maturity to handle it even in the later years.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yes it is.



I find it immoral, yes.



I challenge you to identify one immorality in people that can't be excused by saying, "They're born that way." If genetic predispositions can be used to excuse any and all behavior, then nothing is truly immoral.

Apart from this, the debate is about whether people have a right to make moral pronouncements without reprisal, not whether or not those moral pronouncements pass certain standards of validity. In other words, I have no problem with people saying, "You're moral standards are retarded." My problem lies with them saying, "You're moral standards are retarded, and I'm using authority to silence you." Setting that precedent is very dangerous.

Sexuality with other consenting humans doesn't hurt anyone, so your whole slippery slope thing doesn't come into play here at all. It is just you rationalizing.

What does "immoral" even mean to you?

Why would hetero anal sex be "immoral"? Who gives a crap what people do in their bedrooms? Why do you even care enough to make a value judgement on that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Atreus21: Yes it is. I find it immoral, yes.

M: But this is bigotry unless you can rationally argue why.

A: I challenge you to identify one immorality in people that can't be excused by saying, "They're born that way." If genetic predispositions can be used to excuse any and all behavior, then nothing is truly immoral.

M: I have little doubt that the bicameral nature of the brain, the abstractive power of language, ie, the creation of good and evil thusly out of thin air, and the turning of word against ourselves as put downs makes it possible for any human to become a bigot, which of course, because you have never actually sinned by being a bigot but only feel you have, means you are forgiven.

A: Apart from this, the debate is about whether people have a right to make moral pronouncements without reprisal, not whether or not those moral pronouncements pass certain standards of validity. In other words, I have no problem with people saying, "You're moral standards are retarded." My problem lies with them saying, "You're moral standards are retarded, and I'm using authority to silence you." Setting that precedent is very dangerous.

M: And yet we do it all the time. We do not allow hate speech, for example, or kids to disrupt classrooms. They are minors and do not have full rights.

So the discussion is really about when and where are such restrictions legal and proper.

 

[fskimospy]

Got any links?

Preliminary investigation (5 seconds on google) yields a considerable amount of attention to this subject (no surprise there). Hurriedly found this link. Only browsed the conclusion as I have to go to lunch.

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html

Sure, just check the associated wiki article. It's a good summary and it has tons of links to papers if you want more information.

The long and short of it is that there is considerable evidence for a biological component to homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

[Moonbeam]

First, that's beside the point. My challenge was to identify a crime that can't be excused by saying "They're born that way." I could claim I was born a thief, and hence have no control over my actions, and hence am not a criminal. Not to equate homosexual behavior with a crime.

So why should we not allow adult siblings to have sex? There's no victim. You could say genetics, but why should society stop two loving siblings from engaging in their own victimless activity? What right does society have to dictate to them who they're allowed to love, especially if they use the "I was born this way" defense?

Probably because of the greater potential that abuse is the source of the attraction, that coercion was at the root of the bond and that it might have formed before the age of reason when folk are considered to have free will in their decisions in addition to the potential concentration of fatal alleles.

 

[zsdersw]

Grades K-12 are no place for freedom of speech. Most do not have the maturity to handle it even in the later years.

Sure they are. It's a good time/place to learn.

 

[ShawnD1]

So why should we not allow adult siblings to have sex? There's no victim. You could say genetics, but why should society stop two loving siblings from engaging in their own victimless activity? What right does society have to dictate to them who they're allowed to love, especially if they use the "I was born this way" defense?

Don't we already allow that? I've never heard of anyone being arrested for screwing their brother or sister (not including rape cases).

And I don't see anything wrong with that either. If we say it's legal for people with really screwed up genetics (autism/aspergers) to have kids then it would be hypocritical to say siblings can't also have screwed up kids.

 

[werepossum]

Grades K-12 are no place for freedom of speech. Most do not have the maturity to handle it even in the later years.

Total freedom of speech, no. Yet if schools don't teach children to think, to formulate and evaluate arguments for and against positions, then how will they ever learn this?

Sure, just check the associated wiki article. It's a good summary and it has tons of links to papers if you want more information.

The long and short of it is that there is considerable evidence for a biological component to homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Again, this is immaterial. The state should not be able to arbitrarily disallow something merely because it is a choice. And being born a psychopath doesn't give one the right to behave as one wishes, flaunting laws because you were "born this way." Being born with certain proclivities or choosing to act on them should not be a factor in whether the state can and should prohibit or protect.

The question shouldn't be whether homosexuals are born or chosen, or even whether they deserve some particular right. The question should only and always be whether we have the right to deny them (or anyone) a particular right, and even that question should only be asked after it is proven that society really needs to deny them that right. (Those may look like the same question but they aren't; sometimes in a republic the rights of the many have to be suborned to the rights of the few to preserve the greater principle.)

 

[shadow9d9]

Don't we already allow that? I've never heard of anyone being arrested for screwing their brother or sister (not including rape cases).

And I don't see anything wrong with that either. If we say it's legal for people with really screwed up genetics (autism/aspergers) to have kids then it would be hypocritical to say siblings can't also have screwed up kids.

Laws vary widely.. mostly based on taboo. There are indeed states that allow incest between adults. Besides, how are they going to prove anything?

Incest between consenting adults is legal in Spain, Russia, Portugal, Netherlands, Japan, India, France, and others.

So, no.. between consenting adults, there is absolutely no reason to care, declare morality, or to try to sick the law on them.

What Atreus has shown is that things that make him uncomfortable are deemed "immoral." This is the same thing that all bigots say. Just the newest way to rationalize and justify bigotry. "Eww, that must be immoral!"