By that same argument, no one should be taken seriously when they bitch about how their freedom of speech is being violated or any such ridiculousness, because it's everyone ELSE'S freedom of speech to tell them to shut up and stop being an idiot.

But that's REAL hypocrisy for you.

EDIT: Horrible wording. Fixed.

Hate speach is ugly and it often can go too far, there are laws in place for dealing with this. However banning free speach due to over active PCism is just as damaging if more subtle.

A few things.

There is a difference between a KKK member getting infront of a large crowd and saying..."We hate people, and because we hate them we must kill them, come with me and help me kill them." ... and a bunch of zany people standing on a streat corner and saying "That guy over there hates you... change your ways and maybe he will like you."

Anyone who knows anything about Judaism, Christanity, or Islam knows that 90% of the book is a repetition of the fact that "god hates the act not the person doing the act."

I would compare this to someone saying "god hates people who eat chinese food WHILE drinking Kool-aide on March 5th when its a the year after the second leap year in the decade" Its really just nonsense. However, saying you hate someone because they have a different view than you on things, and then saying 'don't hate me just because I have a different view' is truly the first step towards dehumanization. Just think about the whole 'logical conclusion to the 3 laws of robotics' thing.


Now, on to this thing about slaves and black people from the bible. People can use any random text to validate any random opinion, however in the bible A. Black people are not mentioned save to say that Moses's wife was from the land of Kushi (Dark skin) and B. If you read the laws about slaves, it says that after 7 years they must go free, AND it is your responcibilty as a slave owner to take care of them before you take care of yourself. However, as far as the 'immoral relations' go, the long list of some 9 - 14 relations (depending on how you count) are repeated twice with various differences, however 'male on male action' does not change, and all stories in which two males are with eachother result in 'shame' and/or death.

So before you start going on your hate speaches about people who have faith in a religion, its best to not spout needless hatred.


I have yet to see any public organization outside of Jewish organizations be 'upset' about the use of children by the Palestian authority to cause death and violence amongst thier people. Infact the closest thing to a protest from any group outside a Reglious group was from PETA when the PA used a Donkey to kill some civilians.. here is the letter PETA wrote... http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat/

Again, if you want to say 'There are more important things to worry about than who sleeps with who' then I say.. There are Much more important things to worry about than idiots on streat corners.

This is the crux of the issue. If a religion preaches something that causes people to protest against perfectly moral things, the religion is at fault. People who protest against homosexuality are, again, at fault. They can fall back on the excuse that their religion says it's wrong, but this is an explanation, NOT a justification. If they persist in being wrong, then should we not say so?

I'll quote you, and make it more appropriate.

"So before you start going on your hate speeches about people who have a different view to you, which nonetheless is not justifiably marked as immoral for any reason other than a purely religious one and affects you in no way more than you would be doing with said speeches, remember that it's best not to spout needless hatred."

Tell me.. where do 'morals' come from?

Also tell me, why is it wrong to dislike an act that has evidence in many various perspectives to be harmfull to a person and a society?

If I remember my philosphy and ethics class properly, for something to be moral is has to be moral and beneficial even if all members of a population engaged in it.

If this has any relevance to the issue at hand, please elucidate. I'm sure we'd all love to hear how homosexuality is in fact harmful to society.

I think the rest of my post that you chose to ignore kind of explains it.

The same reason why its bad for one person to take a seashell from a 'protected' beach.

If everyone was homosexual society would not continue past the current generation. Infact, if only half the population was homosexual it would not continue as the death rate would outnumber the birthrate. I could be missunderstanding the various forms of 'ethical decision making' but I'm pretty sure all of them have this idea that something is only moral if 'everyone doing it' would not have negetive affects.

Just as it is immoral to give so much charity that you yourself need charity.

That depends on what theory you are using to define morality. Also, ethics exist without God.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking of utilitarian ethics, and objective view of ethics, and Naturalist ethics. i'm ignoring Ethical sceptism or Realitive morality because one could not claim that anything is moral or immoral in such a system.

I'm really not bringing a god into this at all. I could just as easily say these arguments in a context where the people on the streat corner are telling people that Puff the Magic Dragon hates Frenchmen.

It's more that I believe ethics should not come from a religion, because (as is obvious) it screws things up. This is why I ignored the first part. You have successfully proven to me that this is entirely a religious issue, rather than a moral one. If you were right about morality, abstaining from sex would also be immoral. Are you trying to say this is the case too?

I'm admit I made a mistake in assigning the word "moral" so loosely, however, and you can replace that word with "neither moral nor immoral" where appropriate. It's not relevant to morality. Nor is homosexuality or abstaining from sex.

Yes abstaining from making children is just as immoral.


And I have yet to see how ethics comming from a religion screws anything up. I think it would be more accurate to say that ethics comming from a body of people who are in political control of the population they are teaching the ethics to screws things up.

Hell, any philosphy that says its best to lock yourself in a room and not engage the world you live in is fairly immoral.

Ummmmmmmm.

No. It's not immoral OR moral. Actually, come to think of it, a homosexual couple is more likely to adopt than a heterosexual couple, and so the two would be reducing the number of orphaned children etc. on the streets.
What, are you telling me that's wrong too?

And ethics coming from a religion, as is evident (here and in other examples) end up making things that disturb the creator immoral and so forth rather than things that actually harm people. Such as, (f.e) homosexuality. Sometimes ethics coming from a body of people that teach things screw things up, (f.e - not invoking Godwin's law), yes, that's a given.

It goes something like this. If every person did action X then you would have the consequence of Y. If Y taken to the extreme hurts that particular society then X becomes immoral.

A person is more likely to make resotution if they do something wrong, since resotution is a good thing, should we all do more things wrong?

...I don't understand you. What's resotution?

Daganev, that is an incredibly flawed way to assign morality to something. If you go by your definition, heterosexual, child-producing couples are also immoral, unless they produce 2 healthy children, on average, across the whole world. Anything else eventually leads to extinction, or severe measures against overpopulation.

Bleh. The entire population can be homosexual, and society would live on. Perhaps in a better state. Rid of such ideals as love, an "orgy-porgy" society would be far more interesting and better for human beings. Yes, Brave New World. We have the capabilities to create young without actual intercourse.

Thus, a couple not having children is neither moral nor immoral, nor is a homosexual couple proclaiming their sexuality and embracing it moral/immoral.

The arguement is flawed all around, for Daganev. It looks like he's grasping vainly at roots only he can see.

And, I, for one, am not against religion. And I prefer to keep my sexuality in the bedroom, or out in the open as a joke. I'd like people to keep their self-righteous and obviously flawed systems of belief in the same aspect.

(Yes, I know, I quit Lusternia. But certain things demand Erion's attention!)

Mm, and as an addition, this Fred Phelps character is a filthy, lying, cheating bas ard. Yes, I did. He puts on demonstrations such as these in hopes of inciting violence from people, then turns around and sues them. There's been a couple cases where he claims someone injured him while shaking his hand, and sues them, making large sums of money, to continue his campaign against people of superior intelligence, standing, and penis size.

Doesn't American have laws regarding inciting and propogating hatred? We do here and they, when used properly, supercede anything regarding free speach (perhaps because free speach is not actually enshrined in our laws specifically).

I think it's been tried, but it runs up against free speech a lot. Annoying as hell. Free speech/press/religion/assembly/protest is great in theory, but in practice, free can not be an absolute without anarchy.

That's why you need stronger laws regarding hate, then. But I wouldn't hope for anything like that with American's current government and the puppet-courts .