Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. A perfect example...

A perfect example...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
htmlcomtutoriallounge
51 Posts 12 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Stan Shannon

    Synaptrik wrote:

    But its not defining morality. Its defining what qualifies for restriction by the state.

    Which becomes an issue of morality. That is why you have Frank condmening someone for being a homophobe. People who are homophobes can be restricted by the state. People who are homosexual cannot. It is simply a mirror image of our old moral traditions.

    Synaptrik wrote:

    Who's moral principles? I don't have a moral interest in two people loving each other and wanting a serious life long commitment with the legal benefits accorded by the law. I would accept your argument a little easier if we truly had a separation of church and state. But the word marriage is in thousands of legal documents. So, its either take the language out of the system, offering no tax support, or any other benefits if you're married and make it a religious institution.

    Well, everyone else for the last 200 years decided differently. Sorry...

    Synaptrik wrote:

    I think at times that you argue against the tyranny of the majority and minority, but you are suggesting that its acceptable at the state level.

    It is no more tyranical to condemn homosexuality than it is to condemn homophobia. It is exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the former was a form of social tyranny based upon the traditions and moral beliefs of the people, whereas the latter is political tyranny coming from a ruling elite.

    Synaptrik wrote:

    The pressure is coming from the people despite your theories of media and leftist propaganda. Time will tell of course.

    No it isn't. The people are responding to the formulation of a new moral imperative being defined for them by the institutions of our society which are controlled by people with a single minded dedication to destroying our social infrastructure. We have been taken over by a form of religious fundamentalism - it just has one less God then does the others.

    Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Synaptrik
    wrote on last edited by
    #42

    I don't approve of Frank's comments. As a public figure it was inappropriate. As a citizen on a forum it was more than acceptable. As well as Scalia's Heterophobe comment regardless if that was real or not. But discrimination and prosecution is a different story than some personal comments from a politician. And all sides of the fence are guilty of similar statements in different topics.

    Stan Shannon wrote:

    Well, everyone else for the last 200 years decided differently. Sorry...

    Then if marriage is a state matter, its not a moral one, its a civil one. Which under the 14th amendment should be guaranteed to all. But an easy solution is to return it to the religious sphere and remove it from government.

    Stan Shannon wrote:

    No it isn't. The people are responding to the formulation of a new moral imperative being defined for them by the institutions of our society which are controlled by people with a single minded dedication to destroying our social infrastructure. We have been taken over by a form of religious fundamentalism - it just has one less God then does the others.

    That's one perception. I don't share it though.

    This statement is false

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Y Yayozama

      Because he is a homosexual? The same can be said about a heterosexual... In fact, I'm sure there are more vile and immoral heterosexual perverts than homosexual. I'm not making any judgement on Barney Frank (because, to be honest, I don't even know who he is), but I think that's not the point in your post. What I understand from your post is: "He is homosexual, ergo, he is a vile and immoral sexual pervert".

      S Offline
      S Offline
      Stan Shannon
      wrote on last edited by
      #43

      The point of my post is: So what would be the difference between condemening someone for being a homosexual and condeming someone for being a homophobe? Why is my comment in any way different from Frank's?

      Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

      O 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Stan Shannon

        oilFactotum wrote:

        What moral judgement am I making when I say 'Barney Frank is a homosexual.'?

        He is a vile and immoral sexual pervert.

        Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

        O Offline
        O Offline
        oilFactotum
        wrote on last edited by
        #44

        Stan Shannon wrote:

        He is...

        No, I am not making that judgement at all. If fact that statement lacks any moral judgement - it is simply a statement of fact.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Stan Shannon

          The point of my post is: So what would be the difference between condemening someone for being a homosexual and condeming someone for being a homophobe? Why is my comment in any way different from Frank's?

          Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

          O Offline
          O Offline
          oilFactotum
          wrote on last edited by
          #45

          You base it all on a false assumption. Frank wasn't making a moral judgement about Scalia - he wasn't 'condemning' him. He was simply recognizing Scalia's homophobia and it's likely effect on certain cases.

          S 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • O oilFactotum

            You base it all on a false assumption. Frank wasn't making a moral judgement about Scalia - he wasn't 'condemning' him. He was simply recognizing Scalia's homophobia and it's likely effect on certain cases.

            S Offline
            S Offline
            Stan Shannon
            wrote on last edited by
            #46

            So there would be no problem with being concerned with Frank's homsexuality and his likely affect on certain legislation? That wouldn't be considered descrimination since it is a fact that he is homosexual?

            Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

            modified on Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:59 PM

            O 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S Stan Shannon

              So there would be no problem with being concerned with Frank's homsexuality and his likely affect on certain legislation? That wouldn't be considered descrimination since it is a fact that he is homosexual?

              Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

              modified on Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:59 PM

              O Offline
              O Offline
              oilFactotum
              wrote on last edited by
              #47

              Of course not. Why would you think otherwise?

              S 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • O oilFactotum

                Of course not. Why would you think otherwise?

                S Offline
                S Offline
                Stan Shannon
                wrote on last edited by
                #48

                So it would be ok to limit access to political power based upon sexuality?

                Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                O 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Stan Shannon

                  So it would be ok to limit access to political power based upon sexuality?

                  Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                  O Offline
                  O Offline
                  oilFactotum
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #49

                  Of course not. Why would you think it should?

                  S 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • O oilFactotum

                    Of course not. Why would you think it should?

                    S Offline
                    S Offline
                    Stan Shannon
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #50

                    Because that is precisely what Frank is saying about Scalia.

                    Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                    O 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Stan Shannon

                      Because that is precisely what Frank is saying about Scalia.

                      Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                      O Offline
                      O Offline
                      oilFactotum
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #51

                      Bullshit. Frank did not say that Scalia should be removed from the bench.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes

                      • Login
                      • Don't have an account? Register
                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups