Claims of homophobia

[royal_archer]

How many of you personally know someone who is homosexual? I do, and he is one of the nicest, best people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. You can try to justify your positions, but in the end it is homophobic and painful for some. Seriously, get to know someone who is homosexual, and then see if you have such an easy time saying that they should be denied love and called sinners.

First the term “homophobic” is a derogative term that should be refrained from. Second, I have not seen anyone saying these people should not be denied love or disregarded as people. Only that the act is wrong and should be addressed.

 

[Daddums]

How many of you personally know someone who is homosexual? I do, and he is one of the nicest, best people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. You can try to justify your positions, but in the end it is homophobic and painful for some. Seriously, get to know someone who is homosexual, and then see if you have such an easy time saying that they should be denied love and called sinners.

Oh my. Of course most of us know people who are homosexual. We just reject the reasoning that since so and so does such and such, and so and so is a nice person, therefore such and such can’t be a sin. That is just false reasoning. And no one is denied love. I think part of the problem here is we don’t seem to know what love is anymore. We’ve thrown it away and replaced it with sex.

Daddums

 

[BlaineTog]

no more than you can prove that acceptance of this act is instinctive rather than cultural indoctrination.

Perhaps, but I’m not the one trying to prove something I have no way of proving.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don’t know if you can assume that all know that or agree on the same definitions.

Those are valid concerns. Let’s say the good ole’ USA decides, with all it’s states agreeing, that “homosexual marriage” is valid, OK, acceptable, etc. How long do you think it would take for the government to try to force the RCC and other churches to accept such “homosexual marriage”. The “separation of church and state” mantra would go out the window in a second when the shoe is on the other foot.

Hasn’t happened in Massachusetts yet and it’s been around for quite a while.

Have Catholic churches in other countries that allow gay marriage been forced to marry gay couples?

I would think the Church would want to put more energy into ending Divorce and changing some of the attitudes about marriage in the larger culture than about the unions of what is probably less than 10% of the total population.

 

[huckleberry]

Tell them that Catholics that also happen do be patriots do not have a right to use government force to limit humans’ rights to free association and mutual contractual agreements. Tell them that Catholics should NEVER agree that the state has jurisdiction over marriage. Tell them that in a free country, the government has nothing to do with marriage. The government can only help enforce contracts among adults. The adults in question get to decide the parameters of these contracts. Lets get the government out of marriage. But in the meantime: Gays have the right to any raft of privileges and benefits that is floated.-----------

 

[Annn]

Daddums, if it is natural to be “repulsed” by the idea of what two men do in bed and this is because homosexual behavior is against nature, how do you explain the cultural fascination (at least in the US) among straight men with two women having sex?

 

[huckleberry]

Daddums, if it is natural to be “repulsed” by the idea of what two men do in bed and this is because homosexual behavior is against nature, how do you explain the cultural fascination (at least in the US) among straight men with two women having sex?

Sweet. I am a man who is very much turned on by 1 man + many women, or just many woman having sex. One possible explanation is that men can fantasize that they could engage both of them at the same time in sex, and this is a simple MULTIPLIER of sexual attraction. For instance, exaggerated sexual identifiers are triggers for men’s appetites. Larger breasts than are actually needed for nursing, and larger hip/waist ratios than are needed for birthing. So, a group of women who are clearly interested in sex, but no penis is around. The male voyeur sees scene as fertile ground for his entry.​

That being said, I would like someone else to opine on this matter.

 

[huckleberry]

Daddums, if it is natural to be “repulsed” by the idea of what two men do in bed and this is because homosexual behavior is against nature, how do you explain the cultural fascination (at least in the US) among straight men with two women having sex?

It could indeed be termed “natural” to be repulsed by gay man sex. I think gay sex is completely natural. Simply a result of evolution. Yet I also think it is natural for some heterosexual men to be “repulsed”. Though it might be the case that “aversion” to gayness is natural, but “repulsion” is a societal construct.-------------------------- But of course it is also natural to be
repulsed by those who would advocate violence against gay people.

 

[Brendan]

. The government can only help enforce contracts among adults. The adults in question get to decide the parameters of these contracts.

Do you believe that any adults get to decide the parameters of a contract with no government intervention.

For example, currently Stock Analysts and Stock Brokers are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts. It is considered insider trading.

Corporate officials are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts with officials in competing industries, that is called price fixing.

Do you believe that the government has no role over prohibiting contracts between adults at all? If so, would you support contracts for insider trading and price fixing?

And the very fact that you consider that government to have a role in enforcing it means that the government has a role (by defintion)

If the government ‘gets out of marriage’ that means that it does not enforce it. A hospital could, then, pick and choose who it allows in to see a dying patient, or a landlord can pick and choose who he recognizes as a married couple and thus rents to.

Is that your understanding, that that government has no role?

 

[huckleberry]

Do you believe that any adults get to decide the parameters of a contract with no government intervention.

For example, currently Stock Analysts and Stock Brokers are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts. It is considered insider trading.

Corporate officials are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts with officials in competing industries, that is called price fixing.

Do you believe that the government has no role over prohibiting contracts between adults at all? If so, would you support contracts for insider trading and price fixing?

And the very fact that you consider that government to have a role in enforcing it means that the government has a role (by defintion)

If the government ‘gets out of marriage’ that means that it does not enforce it. A hospital could, then, pick and choose who it allows in to see a dying patient, or a landlord can pick and choose who he recognizes as a married couple and thus rents to.

Is that your understanding, that that government has no role?

Here comes the education: No I do not “consider that government has a role in enforcing…” I merely concede that it acts as if it does. You mentioned “stock analysts” and “stock brokers”. These are government entities. They scraped and begged to get certain designations. They are fascist entities, so they would be subject to their host-governments control.​

And yes, a landlord would get to “pick and choose”, and a hospital would get to “pick and choose”. This is called freedom. I am sorry that you think the state should have such power.​

You are a bigot. I support your right to be a hateful waste of space. If you wanted to start a business that disallowed gays or Hindus, I would support that right. I would spit in your face, but I would never say that government has a role.

 

[Brendan]

Here comes the education: No I do not “consider that government has a role in enforcing…” I merely concede that it acts as if it does. You mentioned “stock analysts” and “stock brokers”. These are government entities. They scraped and begged to get certain designations. They are fascist entities, so they would be subject to their host-governments control.

No, Stock analysts and Stock brokers are not government entities, they are employees in privately owned firms.

---

And yes, a landlord would get to “pick and choose”, and a hospital would get to “pick and choose”. This is called freedom. I am sorry that you think the state should have such power.

So what, would be a marriage contract then? If noone is legally obligated to recognize it in certain ways (such as being the default inheritor if a person dies without a will, or being the default decicion maker in case of medical issues.)

Under your proposal, if a “husband” owned a house and died without a will, the “wife” would have no legal claim to live there and the government could not, or should not enforce a claim if a stranger came and took over the house.

Is it your premise that perhaps the government then owns the house and any person must then bid equally for the right to reside in that house?

 

[huckleberry]

No, Stock analysts and Stock brokers are not government entities, they are employees in privately owned firms.​

So what, would be a marriage contract then? If noone is legally obligated to recognize it in certain ways (such as being the default inheritor if a person dies without a will, or being the default decicion maker in case of medical issues.)

Under your proposal, if a “husband” owned a house and died without a will, the “wife” would have no legal claim to live there and the government could not, or should not enforce a claim if a stranger came and took over the house.

Is it your premise that perhaps the government then owns the house and any person must then bid equally for the right to reside in that house?

Oops. My bad. I thought people who dealt with stocks in those ways had to get government licensing. Well, they are regulated.​

thanks for pointing out that my cry to get “gov’t out of the marriage business”, is a bit misleading. Gov’t would still have a role to play (if you wanted them to), only as a third party enforcer. As it stands now, the gov’t dictates the terms of the contract from its golden throne.

Anyways, If a person wants all the nice legal conveniences of todays marriage “infrastructure”, then they could indeed choose the exact same contract that is offered now, or they could tweak it (to include multiple wives for instance). When I say government should not be in the business of marriage, I mean that it should not dictate the terms of the “marriage.” That through the eyes of this entity we call “the state”, marriage is just another contract (with some pre-fab arrangements to cater to the top few situations).-​

I hope that answers your questions. I know it is difficult to imagine a less centralized and more liberty-oriented society, but I think Americans are up to the task.

 

[fix]

I hope that answers your questions. I know it is difficult to imagine a less centralized and more liberty-oriented society, but I think Americans are up to the task.

Is this how you define liberty? As in anything goes?

 

[huckleberry]

Is this how you define liberty? As in anything goes?

Either you are being dishonest or are simply misconstruing what I said. Have you purposely constructed a straw-man argument? I never said anything remotely like “liberty is defined as ‘anything goes’”. I went on and on about contracts. Do you know what a contract is? It is a mutual agreement.

 

[fix]

Either you are being dishonest or are simply misconstruing what I said.

Niether.

Have you purposely constructed a straw-man argument?

Are you not the poster who claims calling some union simply a type of contract may be “tweaked” allowing for multiple wives and such?

I never said anything remotely like “liberty is defined as ‘anything goes’”.

True, you just implied as such.

I went on and on about contracts. Do you know what a contract is? It is a mutual agreement.

Does that mean because two, or more, parties agree that such activities should be legal? Is agreement some magical way of making bad into good?

 

[huckleberry]

Do you believe that any adults get to decide the parameters of a contract with no government intervention.

For example, currently Stock Analysts and Stock Brokers are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts. It is considered insider trading.

Corporate officials are prohibited from entering into certain types of contracts with officials in competing industries, that is called price fixing.

Do you believe that the government has no role over prohibiting contracts between adults at all? If so, would you support contracts for insider trading and price fixing?

And the very fact that you consider that government to have a role in enforcing it means that the government has a role (by defintion)

If the government ‘gets out of marriage’ that means that it does not enforce it. A hospital could, then, pick and choose who it allows in to see a dying patient, or a landlord can pick and choose who he recognizes as a married couple and thus rents to.

Is that your understanding, that that government has no role?

Before we begin, let’s recognize that we are dealing with “corporations”, which are legal fictions masquerading as individual humans. It is a bit of a non-sequitur to compare the role of government in the contracts of HUMANS with that of CORP’S.

But lets talk about “insider trading”. First, insider trading does not involve the initiation of force against someone, so it shouldn’t be illegal even under a minimal state. Insider trading laws are designed to prevent corporate insiders from profiting from non-public information obtained in the performance of their fiduciary duties to the corporation. At worst, this could result in a civil suit (if the insider violated an agreement with the corporation), but not a criminal charge levied by government prosecutors. If profiting from non-public information should be illegal in one instance, why not in all? Shouldn’t everyone who’s ever gotten a job because they knew the right person be prosecuted?

And even if insider trading in some instance resulted in the loss of stock value for other shareholders, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. There is no such thing as the right to the value of something. Value is determined by the interaction of a multitude of individuals and their economic decisions. To claim a right to the value of something is to claim the right to control the decisions of all those other people. This simple reductio ad absurdum shows that there is no right to value, only to actual property.

Insider trading prohibitions have to do with information and its use. Information is not inherently owed to anyone. Information has value. It takes effort to acquire information. Some entities specialize in acquiring information. They can charge others for access to that information. Some information requires more effort to acquire and would thus command a higher price in an open market. In a completely free society, it’s likely that businesses and organizations would emerge to collect and disseminate information about insider trading. Today we already have things like Consumer Reports–people pay money to get the scoop on various goods and services. The Wall Street Journal already publishes insider trading information on a weekly basis.

More to the point, insider trading is actually a good thing. Corporate executives unloading the stock of their own company sends a signal that all is not well with that company, and it does so much faster and more completely than any process resulting from government mandates and restrictions.

There is no rational basis for the prohibition of insider trading. It stems from envy–from a deep socialistic impulse in many people to prevent others from being wealthier than themselves.

 

[huckleberry]

Niether.

Are you not the poster who claims calling some union simply a type of contract may be “tweaked” allowing for multiple wives and such?

True, you just implied as such.

Does that mean because two, or more, parties agree that such activities should be legal? Is agreement some magical way of making bad into good?

Of course I defend anyones right to form any contract they want. This is simple morality. If a person wants to make an agreement with other persons, then none can stand in their way. What are you calling bad? I am calling bad the monstrous attenuation of human rights. If a party agrees to do something that does not involve harm against non-signatories, then none can intervene.

 

[fix]

Of course I defend anyones right to form any contract they want.

Why? Any contract?

This is simple morality.

Not trying to be sarcastic, but a better term would be primitive.

If a person wants to make an agreement with other persons, then none can stand in their way.

So, if two want to kill themselves does the state have any interest in stopping that?

What are you calling bad?

Well, for one thing faux unions that contradict the natural law and redefine marriage.

I am calling bad the monstrous attenuation of human rights.

Which human rights?

If a party agrees to do something that does not involve harm against non-signatories, then none can intervene.

How do you define harm? Simply, and exclusively, direct physical harm?

 

[huckleberry]

Why? Any contract?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but a better term would be primitive.

So, if two want to kill themselves does the state have any interest in stopping that?

Well, for one thing faux unions that contradict the natural law and redefine marriage.

Which human rights?

How do you define harm? Simply, and exclusively, direct physical harm?

I was describing “simple morality”. I meant that you cannot use undue force upon others. Is it “primitive” to suggest that you cannot force others to bend to your will unless you can prove that they are harming someone?​

I love how you must bring up the extreme case to try to prove your point. Does the state have a moral right to interfere in a suicide pact between two people? No they do not. It would be nearly impossible to enforce. And the state would have to prove that somehow the parties involved were not in agreement. You use the term “interest” like a true communist. If the state has an “interest” in something, that does not give them the right to control that thing. For instance, the “state” has an interest in healthy citizens. It does not follow that they can outlaw smoking, excessive eating, cheetos, beer, or sedentary lifestyles.​

I do not define harm as simple and exclusively “direct harm”. But that is the only kind of harm that a government has jurisdiction over.​

You asked “which human rights?” I don’t understand your question. I was obviously referring to the rights of humans to enter into mutual contracts.

 

[fix]

I was describing “simple morality”. I meant that you cannot use undue force upon others. Is it “primitive” to suggest that you cannot force others to bend to your will unless you can prove that they are harming someone?​

I love how you must bring up the extreme case to try to prove your point. Does the state have a moral right to interfere in a suicide pact between two people? No they do not. It would be nearly impossible to enforce. And the state would have to prove that somehow the parties involved were not in agreement. You use the term “interest” like a true communist. If the state has an “interest” in something, that does not give them the right to control that thing. For instance, the “state” has an interest in healthy citizens. It does not follow that they can outlaw smoking, excessive eating, cheetos, beer, or sedentary lifestyles.​

I do not define harm as simple and exclusively “direct harm”. But that is the only kind of harm that a government has jurisdiction over.​

You asked “which human rights?” I don’t understand your question. I was obviously referring to the rights of humans to enter into mutual contracts.

Where do rights come from?