I have nothing against homosexual people. I do, however, have something against homosexual practices. Say that it's the same thing, if you want, I'll just disagree with you.

Oh, that's fine. I mean, religion should be the same way... It's okay to be Christian, for example, but not okay to practice Christianity.

/sarcasm

Its impossible to be intolerant of the act and not have that carry over to the people.

So, you have something against rape but not rapists? Murder but not murderers? Child pornography but not the ones making it?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Uhh...there's a difference. Murderers, rapists, and child porn producers all practice things that have a strong negative impact on society. And if they reform, great, I have no qualms with them.

I don't agree with smoking, but I don't have anything against smokers themselves. Just because someone smokes doesn't make them bad or intolerable. Just because someone practices homosexuality doesn't make them bad or intolerable.

So..wait.. why do you think homosexuality is wrong then? if it doesn't have any negative impact.. why is it bad? Smoking hurts people.. it does have a negative impact on society. Its addictive and deadly, not only to the smoker but to people around them. What's the argument against being gay?

Edit: Bah, my computer was messing up.

As far as homosexuality goes, there is increased risk of STD's involved. Homosexual men are in the highest risk category for AIDS, for example. Another reason is that we are simply not designed to operate in that manner. A homosexual couple can't have children without adopting or using artifical means.

So, yeah, there was this article, talking about discussion of ideas, and the freedom of speach in regards to the pursuit of higher knowledge and better ways of thinking.

Then people start talking about porn, as if its some speach worth talking about. I'm sorry, but feminism being against pornography has nothing to do with censorship of ideas.

Telling me in a literature class that Ayn Rand is a four letter word, and I shouldn't do a report on Atlas shrugged (Soon to be a movie!) Is on a COMPLETELY different playing field then arguing over being allowed to show Musical visulazations on Winamp (Something I would compare pornography to). The amount of money that people make in a particular activty, also has no bearing on the conversation. Basketball players make 21 Million dollars a year, the guy who invented the Microprocessor would be lucky to make that in his lifetime.

Telling people that they can't brodcast certain images that have no content behind them, is different then telling people they can't think certain ideas.

Having somebody produce videos where they tell other people to hurt others, is a completely different realm then having fictional films where actors inflict harm on other actors.

The problem in my opinion, is that nobody seems to recognize these differences anymore. Nobody seems to recognize the difference between having to pay extra money to see ABC family vs having Desperate Housewives (A show on the generic ABC channel) given out for free.

Homosexual women are the lowest risk group for AIDS, I believe. And if we were doing what we are 'designed' to (We're not designed for anything, in strict terms) we'd be living in the savannah throwing sticks at antelopes.


Yes, yes it is. The problem with censorship and trying to suppress a type of expression or content is that governments and people seldom know where to draw the line - First they come after porn, then after arthouse film, then after you.
It's equivalent to telling them they're not welcome to propagate certain ideas. Also, why should the state be concerned with what private citizens put on the airwaves? Again, we come to the issue of the overbearing state - Censorship is an unnecessary, burdening waste. It serves no real purpose except to create the illusion of safety in watching television.

It's a different type of speech, but neither should be outlawed.

To put it another way....

First they come after spam, then they come after people using word processors, then they come after you.

Sorry, don't see the logic.


This is why I don't think people take it seriously. A kid is expelled from school for wearing a shirt that says "Stop illegal immigration", this is put on the same level of debate as a kid who is expelled from school for wearing a shirt with a marijuna leaf on it.

When people claim that they can't draw the line between those two, is when the current form of censorhip that is cultural and not government mandated becomes more oppressive and harder to defend against. This is the type of censorhip that the article was talking about. When speakers are banned from talking about thier political views, because some portion of the community doesn't want to hear it. Or when a speaker is banned from talking about thier political views, because a group of people threaten to hurt anybody who attends.

*Bzzzt* False analogy alert.

Spam should be made illegal not because of the type of speech it contains, but rather because the spammers do not own the networks they are using to transmit said speech - They are causing undue damage to said networks, the networks do not consent to spam being delivered to them, and the recipients do not consent to having their personal mail boxes bombarded with unsolicited traffic and data. It's the same as certain cities banning advertising signs larger than a certain size - You're not censoring a type of speech, you are outlawing a type of media that is invasive and unnecessary.

Unsolicited mass-mailing is a vehicle; pornography is content. You can't compare them.
What's the difference? Both shirts make statements, direct or implied. Censorship is censorship; the problem with deciding that some ideas are more valid than others is that, again, where do you draw the line?

This is censorship enforced by social norms, rather than censorship enforced by legislation - The net effect is generally the same.

Not quite accurate. Sexually speaking, people who have receptive anal sex are in the highest risk category for contracting HIV. I have many female friends who let their boyfriends have anal sex with them. They are as at much risk as homosexuals. Heterosexuality or homosexuality doesn't change your risk factor really, your sexual practices (and other blood-to-blood practices) do.

Moving away from sex, you have to consider unsafe needle practice amongst drug users and other such things when talking about HIV statistics..

I understand what you're saying about hating the practice of homosexual sex so I'll ask you this question: is it the two men/women being together you hate or the sexual practices themselves? From your posts it seems you hate anal sex which is not exclusively a homosexual practice. So either you do not hate homosexuality though you do hate anal sex, or you hate homosexuality itself, which makes you (insert whichever label you want to use for someone who dislikes/hates/fears homosexuals).

As for the original topic of rights to speech, I don't even want to get started. The rise of the nanny-state is one of the most infuriating trends I see in countries such as Australia and the US.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that there are important differences between socialised norms which amount to censorship and institutionalised censorship.

I totally agree with Verithrax and Quidgyboo, and they seem far more articulate than I could ever hope to be. Hurray them.

No it isn't.

Especially not for a Christian, as this dichotomy is absolutely central.

Luke 23
23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Matthew 5:38-42
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

etc etc etc

No Christian 'loves' murder or rape or etc. But Christians are supposed to love their neighbours as themselves, regardless.



Edit: before the assembled atheists attempt to preach, or the assembled Christians regard me as 'on side', I'll just quickly state my own agnosticism.

I still can't imagine any way you can hate an act but not the person performing it. Good trying attempting to split the socially unacceptable part from it, though.

I can think of some examples. But either way, even if you do end up hating a person because of the hateful acts he commits, you shouldn't confuse the act with the person. I've just realised that I slightly misread what Forren wrote. I'm going to have to modify my post accordingly.

Christians are meant to and should try to "hate the sin, love the sinner", but I can't think of a case where this has worked in practice totally.

I actually know several people, especially those that work with some type of inner-city missions or other type of community outreach, that regularly spend time with drugs users and prostitutes. Although they definitely don't approve, and some have very personal reasons to despise the practices, they have no problems with the people themselves.

Granted, I understand this is overgeneralizing and doesn't necessarily or even logically represent the whole. My point was just that there are at least some cases where people strongly dislike or even hate the practices but still have no problems with, or can even love the practitioner.

Oh I know people like that as well but I mean, when I get to talk to them you find a hatred they find difficult to slice between the act and the person. Maybe that's just my experience though.

There's one person in particular that I'm thinking of that I truly believe loves the people. Although I'm not entirely certain she hates the practices, she definitely strongly dislikes them. One of her really close friends tried to kill her while on drugs. I just kinda assumed the rest of the people I know in that line of work are like that. I could be wrong.

On the other hand, she did have trust issues with him for rather a while afterwards, but she still loved him (Platonically, not abused girlfriendly) so is that what you're talking about? Because if they hadn't had a prior relationship, other than being slightly more cautious I really don't think she would have thought differently about this person at all. But she's a rather exceptional person anyway.

Some of my dearest friends do things I utterly disagree with. I love them, but not as much as if they didn't do those things. You can't condemn what someone does without at the same time condemning them, because that's a part of them. If you hate Wicca, you hate a large part of me, regardless of how much you like me otherwise.

If you hate homosexuality, you could love gay people as much as you want, but it doesn't matter. If you don't want to ever see homosexual affection, or hear them talk about their love life, or even the culture surrounding it, then you aren't a very good friend to them. How can you say someone is free to believe something, or be something, if you then turn around and condemn any expression of that?

It's ok to be a minority religion, in general. But if I talk about it to the wrong people, pray to my gods in the wrong place, I could end up in a good bit of personal trouble. If I hug or kiss one of my male friends in public, that's wrong, but no one blinks if they're female.

If you have to change the way you naturally behave around someone, they don't love you, they love half of you, the part of yourself you are when you're around them.