A perfect example...

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".

Synaptrik

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

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.

oilFactotum

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.

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.

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

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

Of course not. Why would you think otherwise?

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.

oilFactotum

Of course not. Why would you think it should?

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.

oilFactotum

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