Where's the morality of flipping out over what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever. Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?
That mess is the Spam Nazi’s fault >:-(
Well may as well put this on top of the page
Where's the morality of flipping out over what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever. Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?
Well may as well put this on top of the page
Where's the morality of flipping out over what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever. Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?
This is why hate based politics is so dangerous, once it gets rolling it rapidly spins out of control.So true.
I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today.Care to offer examples? First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society? As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn't much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society, and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair. It wasn't perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of 'accepting one's lot' in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable. Such as pure unrestricted Capitalism, which creates a completely unbalanced economic environment where 1% has 90% of the "shared wealth" and the other 99% has 10% of the shared wealth from commonly owned natural resources which drive the total economy. Frackers can now drill underneath your property without having to pay any compensation for the oil or gas or even the trespassing on your property which you have paid for and actually own. No political system is perfect and satisfies everyone because human beings are not perfect and it would be lovely to live in a world where everyone was humanitarian and worked in the interests of others but this is not reality. The reality is that people are diverse and possess varying strengths and weaknesses and this is reflected in open, democratic societies which allow people to persue their ambitions which inevitably leads to the strong gaining control over the weak. But at least we have laws in place that protect the rights of individuals from excessive exploitation while also providing freedom for everyone to improve their lot through hard work and ambitiion. Capitalism creates jobs don't forget and provides taxes for public infrastructures.
Where's the morality of flipping out over what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever. Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it? Well, yes, there has always been a tendency of some people to feel attraction to the opposite sex, but this is something that is part of the psychology of animals, for whatever reason. The point I am making is that we need to resist and re-evaluate such urges because we have to live in an ordered, cohesive society where people excersise self-restraint and act as an example to others, especially children. When you look at the open decadent practices of other cultures in the past you will see how such extremes led to the eventual demise and destruction of them and brought about the restoration of more balanced regimes. Homosexuality may be an inherent potential in human behavior but then so is murder or sadism and does not mean we should simply accept it as an acceptable way to behave. The fact that somebody does something in private does not lessen the immorality of the act.Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?
IMO, the internet and social sites reveal the incredible variety of human thought processes and self-identification.
Any one who thinks that we can place limits, other than by secular law, has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, rigid prejudicial theocracies only breed prejudicial treatment of others who are different and stifles creativity, causes frustration, and inevitably results in violent conflict.
History is rife with examples of trying to enforce a single and restrictive standard by which all should live. It just does not work.
This is why I consider our Constitution as a brilliant attempt to find a secular middle ground, which allows for freedom of individual expression, but forbids encroachment on individual rights of others, as expressed in the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, as well as the right for people to “peaceably assemble” The keyword is “peaceably”.
This has led to a vibrantly creative society, in spite of the occasional pockets of criminals, who seek to eradicate these rights of peaceful individual freedoms by violence.
I don’t like the term “fundamentalist terrorist”, because it assigns to these criminals a specific cause in the name of some perceived right to do harm and commit murder against a peaceful individuals and societies, because they are of a different cloth. Which in turn creates a hatred against the non-violent fundamentalist who practice their beliefs peaceably and we enter a vicious cycle of individual crimes and mass reprisals.
I prefer to name them “murderers”, and “mass-murderers” which are not justifiable for any reason. Unfortunately, having the need to prepare oneself to defend against murderers by buying guns, just exacerbates the problem.
webplodder said, As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn’t much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society, and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair. It wasn’t perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of ‘accepting one’s lot’ in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable.Such as pure unrestricted Capitalism, which creates a completely unbalanced economic environment where 1% has 90% of the "shared wealth" and the other 99% has 10% of the shared wealth from commonly owned natural resources which drive the total economy. Frackers can now drill underneath your property without having to pay any compensation for the oil or gas or even the trespassing on your property which you have paid for and actually own.
No political system is perfect and satisfies everyone because human beings are not perfect and it would be lovely to live in a world where everyone was humanitarian and worked in the interests of others but this is not reality. The reality is that people are diverse and possess varying strengths and weaknesses and this is reflected in open, democratic societies which allow people to persue their ambitions which inevitably leads to the strong gaining control over the weak. But at least we have laws in place that protect the rights of individuals from excessive exploitation while also providing freedom for everyone to improve their lot through hard work and ambitiion. Capitalism creates jobs don't forget and provides taxes for public infrastructures.IMO, that is a naive interpretation of unrestricted Capitalism. "Trickle down" economics do not work. On the contrary, it breeds greed and exploitation, and results in a "Gushing up" economy where that last drop never quite trickles all the way down. Example; a wealthy farmer who had received a large tax cut in the effort to stimulate the economy, was interviewed and asked what he planned to do with this windfall. He responded that he just had put the money in his already large bank account. When he was reminded that this stimulus money was intended to hire more people, his simple reply was, "I don't need additional help, why should I hire people and pay them to stand around doing nothing?" Every major portion of any tax-cut which is intended to stimulate the economy goes to the wealthy, who already have the financial means to hire as many workers as they need. They just put money in the bank and in effect remove that money from the economy. This is why we have an increase of wealth for a few and an increase of poverty for the many. That vibrant middle class has almost disappeared. This can be clearly demonstrated by the constant rise of the stock market, but not in the labor market. Any increase in employment is not due to hiring new workers or raising salaries. It is mainly due to hiring workers and paying them less, as can be statistically proven. But what benefit is that? The poor and elderly share of the tax cuts, may represent a week of food and then they will be back to their original status of poverty. In fact, the perfect unrestricted Capitalist society existed during the time of slavery, when slaves were owned as just a piece of machinery. Once paid for, they only received food and shelter (maintenance), without any opportunity to compete or personally contribute to the economy. You do realize that all great works were build on the backs of slaves, as Michelle Obama so vividly stated, that finally she was able to live in a House that her slave ancestors had built. On the other hand if all tax cuts would be distributed to the working poor, that money would be immediately put back inti the economy to replace that 20 year old refrigerator or washing machine, or buy that little home that has stood empty for years and was a write-off for the wealthy owners as an expense. A Trickle-Up economy is a much better model, as that would benefit both rich and poor alike. Bill Clinton had it right. When he left office, we had near full employment and wage increases,which resulted in a Budget surplus, which could have been used to pay toward the National debt, and use the interest savings for infrastructure and stimulation of research and development.
webplodder said, Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their abilityYes just like in the days of slavery? Are you out of your mind? How can you possibly make such a statement. How do you know what "simple human animals" are capable of when given a chance? As a simple human animal, you have one scary mind set. But of course you see yourself as a sophisticated human animal as most psychopaths do. Well mister, not in my book !
An associate of mine describes libertarians as "liberals who hate taxes". I like that description.So that's sounding to me like libertarians are just like hippies who like a free ride? ... and don't worry too much about who's picking up the tab for them. Am I misinterpreting? It's doubtful libertarians and hippies have much in common besides a "live and let live" attitude. For one thing, libertarians are willing to work, fight, and they're a lot more selfish. Hippies seemed to go with the flow.
Well may as well put this on top of the pageWhat do you consider flipping out? Is questioning the progressive account of human sexuality flipping out?Where's the morality of flipping out over what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Homosexuality and all it's shades has been a part of humanity (and observed in mammalian life also) since forever. Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?
You just have to look at Kansas to see what pure trickle down tax and economic policy results in. The corporate tax rate was cut to zero by Brownback and instead of taking salaries many executives and professionals claimed their pay as “profit” which means they paid no taxes at all.
Kansas is having a funding crisis finding it hard to fund education, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure and more.
Kansas is short on cash—again. The state’s fiscal woes have been a recurring theme during the two-term tenure of Governor Sam Brownback, who ushered in a series of deep tax cuts after taking office and has been watching them blow a hole in the budget ever since. The latest bad news came on Wednesday, when the Kansas budget office reported that because of missed tax revenue projections, the state now faces a shortfall of more than $290 million over the next 15 months. Brownback, a conservative Republican, responded in the same way he did when confronted with a similar budget gap last year: by refusing to revisit the generous tax breaks he won five years ago, even in the face of a Republican revolt. “I do not believe it would be useful to have a debate about raising taxes on small businesses or anyone else," Brownback said. “Instead, we will focus our support and attention on controlling government spending more efficiently."http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-kansas-supreme-court-school-funding-20170302-story.html
The financial woes of Kansas, which is facing a colossal budget shortfall, took another odd twist this week, and an already messy situation got even messier. State government expenses are estimated to outpace income by about $1.1 billion through June 2019. So how to balance the budget? The answer has proved elusive, and the debate over what to do has embroiled the governor, lawmakers and, on Thursday, the state Supreme Court. Depending on the point of view, what’s happening in Kansas reflects disciplined government spending or a foolhardy bet that tax cuts would boost the economy. Here are key things to know about the budget crisis that’s being watched by liberals and conservatives from across the country.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/15/kansas-trump-style-tax-cuts-economic-disaster
Kansas is broke – but you wouldn’t guess it looking at its shining state capitol in Topeka. The imposing limestone monument, crowned by a shiny copper dome and limned with John Steuart Curry’s luminous murals, has just undergone a $325m facelift. What’s happening inside the state house is a lot less pretty, and may well foreshadow the far uglier battle looming over the future of taxation in the United States. Last month, Donald Trump’s two key economic allies, the treasury secretary. Stephen Mnuchin, and Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, unveiled the outline of Donald Trump’s much-trailed tax plan. The biggest tax cuts “in history" would slash taxes for business, simplify taxes for everyone else, and “pay for themselves" by stimulating economic growth, Trump’s fiscal duo claimed.The wealthy aren't hurting, they have more money than they know what to do with. What is going on is that people who are spending huge amounts of money to fund political campaigns after the Koch backed Citizens United Supreme Court decision now expect results that include them not having to pay any tax at all. Which is likely why Trump won't release his tax returns and why he'll be more than happy to cut taxes to the people who need no tax relief at all.
Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?What do you consider flipping out? Is questioning the progressive account of human sexuality flipping out? Hmmm. Seriously? You do like playing the innocent. What are they complaining about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States The history of violence against LGBT people in the United States is made up of assaults on gay men, lesbians, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals (LGBTQI), legal responses to such violence, and hate crime statistics in the United States of America. Those targeted by such violence are perceived to violate heteronormative rules and contravene perceived protocols of gender and sexual roles. People who are perceived to be LGBTQI may also be targeted. A hate crime is simply defined as when individuals become victimized because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.[1] Hate crimes against LGBTQI people often occur because the perpetrators are homophobic or transphobic. Violence targeted at people because of their perceived sexuality can be psychological and physical up to and including murder. These actions may be caused by cultural, religious, or political mores and biases. . . .
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/lgbt-legislation/
DougC said, The wealthy aren't hurting, they have more money than they know what to do with. What is going on is that people who are spending huge amounts of money to fund political campaigns after the Koch backed Citizens United Supreme Court decision now expect results that include them not having to pay any tax at all. , Which is likely why Trump won't release his tax returns and why he'll be more than happy to cut taxes to the people who need no tax relief at all.And we end up with cutting other programs like ACA. Apparently health care has become a "negotiable" commodity. Perhaps the sacred right granted by our Maker;
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...will be repealed and replaced by a new paradigm "Life, & Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness, & Death Panels".
Well, yes, there has always been a tendency of some people to feel attraction to the opposite sex, but this is something that is part of the psychology of animals, for whatever reason. The point I am making is that we need to resist and re-evaluate such urges because we have to live in an ordered, cohesive society where people exercise self-restraint and act as an example to others, especially children.How does individual sexual orientation disrupt "an ordered cohesive society" ? What about the celebration of greed and avarice? What about the acceptance of blatant misrepresentation and out-n-out lying about critically important fundamental facts? What about the acceptance of hate speech as free speech? What about speech becoming a bludgeon, rather than an avenue towards learning and understanding? What about ignoring our changing world, instead erecting alternate vapor realities to hide in? Think any of that stuff can help speed civilizations to demise?
When you look at the open decadent practices of other cultures in the past you will see how such extremes led to the eventual demise and destruction of them and brought about the restoration of more balanced regimes.Have any examples? Do you think perhaps you are over simplifying complicated real world events?
Homosexuality may be an inherent potential in human behavior but then so is murder or sadism and does not mean we should simply accept it as an acceptable way to behave.Wow, now that's an eye opener response. Illuminating for sure, thanks. I'm curious do you see human's as on an evolutionary continuum from primate and mammalian decent? Or are we special, put here by a jealous God in a creative fit?
The fact that somebody does something in private does not lessen the immorality of the act.You seem to be certain about morality - who dictated that two guys can't enjoy each other's bodies if that's what they want to do? I'm wonder what business is it of your's or most anyone else's? I would not want to witness it, or be part of it, but a simply no thank you takes care of that. What is it that's so wrong with that? Is sexuality and our bodies a bad thing in your eyes?
simple
webplodder said, As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn’t much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society, and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair. It wasn’t perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of ‘accepting one’s lot’ in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable.Such as pure unrestricted Capitalism, which creates a completely unbalanced economic environment where 1% has 90% of the "shared wealth" and the other 99% has 10% of the shared wealth from commonly owned natural resources which drive the total economy. Frackers can now drill underneath your property without having to pay any compensation for the oil or gas or even the trespassing on your property which you have paid for and actually own.
No political system is perfect and satisfies everyone because human beings are not perfect and it would be lovely to live in a world where everyone was humanitarian and worked in the interests of others but this is not reality. The reality is that people are diverse and possess varying strengths and weaknesses and this is reflected in open, democratic societies which allow people to persue their ambitions which inevitably leads to the strong gaining control over the weak. But at least we have laws in place that protect the rights of individuals from excessive exploitation while also providing freedom for everyone to improve their lot through hard work and ambitiion. Capitalism creates jobs don't forget and provides taxes for public infrastructures.IMO, that is a naive interpretation of unrestricted Capitalism. "Trickle down" economics do not work. On the contrary, it breeds greed and exploitation, and results in a "Gushing up" economy where that last drop never quite trickles all the way down. Example; a wealthy farmer who had received a large tax cut in the effort to stimulate the economy, was interviewed and asked what he planned to do with this windfall. He responded that he just had put the money in his already large bank account. When he was reminded that this stimulus money was intended to hire more people, his simple reply was, "I don't need additional help, why should I hire people and pay them to stand around doing nothing?" Every major portion of any tax-cut which is intended to stimulate the economy goes to the wealthy, who already have the financial means to hire as many workers as they need. They just put money in the bank and in effect remove that money from the economy. This is why we have an increase of wealth for a few and an increase of poverty for the many. That vibrant middle class has almost disappeared. This can be clearly demonstrated by the constant rise of the stock market, but not in the labor market. Any increase in employment is not due to hiring new workers or raising salaries. It is mainly due to hiring workers and paying them less, as can be statistically proven. But what benefit is that? The poor and elderly share of the tax cuts, may represent a week of food and then they will be back to their original status of poverty. In fact, the perfect unrestricted Capitalist society existed during the time of slavery, when slaves were owned as just a piece of machinery. Once paid for, they only received food and shelter (maintenance), without any opportunity to compete or personally contribute to the economy. You do realize that all great works were build on the backs of slaves, as Michelle Obama so vividly stated, that finally she was able to live in a House that her slave ancestors had built. On the other hand if all tax cuts would be distributed to the working poor, that money would be immediately put back inti the economy to replace that 20 year old refrigerator or washing machine, or buy that little home that has stood empty for years and was a write-off for the wealthy owners as an expense. A Trickle-Up economy is a much better model, as that would benefit both rich and poor alike. Bill Clinton had it right. When he left office, we had near full employment and wage increases,which resulted in a Budget surplus, which could have been used to pay toward the National debt, and use the interest savings for infrastructure and stimulation of research and development.
webplodder said, Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their abilityYes just like in the days of slavery? Are you out of your mind? How can you possibly make such a statement. How do you know what "simple human animals" are capable of when given a chance? As a simple human animal, you have one scary mind set. But of course you see yourself as a sophisticated human animal as most psychopaths do. Well mister, not in my book ! I'm not quite sure what you are advocating here. Are you suggesting that the state brings in more welfare for the needy and nationalises certain sectors of industry to provide more jobs and cut down profits? The fact is people have the opportunity to cast there vote every four years and if people refuse to excersise that right it is not the fault of the system. Governments do not impose themselves on the population, the people who vote them in accomplish that, and what other system of government would be any better, even given all the flaws you have referred to. People are free to persue any course of self-improvement they desire to and often there are barriers to overcome but in overcoming we become stronger, something that would not be the case in a more socialist regime were to be put in place. If people could simply hold out there hand for handouts they would lose the desire to work hard and the ambition to improve their lot. Slavery was abolished long ago so everyone is now equal before the law and it is really up to the individual to make the kind of life they aspire to and yes, although human beings have a set of simple imperatives in life, given the opportunity they can achieve wonders within our system of government. This is not something you can apply to many other countries and it seems disingenuous to criticize our system just because not everyone has not fulfilled their dreams.
Where's the morality? What morality??? From my travels, I know that the people who flip out the most about homosexuality in others are those who are struggling with those tendencies themselves. I have never and doubt I will ever see a well balanced heterosexual get bent out of shape over someone else's tendencies. I think it would be way the hell more moral (and societally constructive) to focus on one's own psychological sexual struggles and strive to find peace with your own particular sexual urges and insecurities. Another thing I am curious about this "rational view of society" you speak of. Care to define it?What do you consider flipping out? Is questioning the progressive account of human sexuality flipping out? Hmmm. Seriously? You do like playing the innocent. What are they complaining about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States The history of violence against LGBT people in the United States is made up of assaults on gay men, lesbians, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals (LGBTQI), legal responses to such violence, and hate crime statistics in the United States of America. Those targeted by such violence are perceived to violate heteronormative rules and contravene perceived protocols of gender and sexual roles. People who are perceived to be LGBTQI may also be targeted. A hate crime is simply defined as when individuals become victimized because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.[1] Hate crimes against LGBTQI people often occur because the perpetrators are homophobic or transphobic. Violence targeted at people because of their perceived sexuality can be psychological and physical up to and including murder. These actions may be caused by cultural, religious, or political mores and biases. . . .
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/lgbt-legislation/Nice red herring. I asked if you consider questioning the progressive account of sexuality as flipping out.
Well, yes, there has always been a tendency of some people to feel attraction to the opposite sex, but this is something that is part of the psychology of animals, for whatever reason. The point I am making is that we need to resist and re-evaluate such urges because we have to live in an ordered, cohesive society where people exercise self-restraint and act as an example to others, especially children.How does individual sexual orientation disrupt "an ordered cohesive society" ? What about the celebration of greed and avarice? What about the acceptance of blatant misrepresentation and out-n-out lying about critically important fundamental facts? What about the acceptance of hate speech as free speech? What about speech becoming a bludgeon, rather than an avenue towards learning and understanding? What about ignoring our changing world, instead erecting alternate vapor realities to hide in? Think any of that stuff can help speed civilizations to demise?
When you look at the open decadent practices of other cultures in the past you will see how such extremes led to the eventual demise and destruction of them and brought about the restoration of more balanced regimes.Have any examples? Do you think perhaps you are over simplifying complicated real world events?
Homosexuality may be an inherent potential in human behavior but then so is murder or sadism and does not mean we should simply accept it as an acceptable way to behave.Wow, now that's an eye opener response. Illuminating for sure, thanks. I'm curious do you see human's as on an evolutionary continuum from primate and mammalian decent? Or are we special, put here by a jealous God in a creative fit?
The fact that somebody does something in private does not lessen the immorality of the act.You seem to be certain about morality - who dictated that two guys can't enjoy each other's bodies if that's what they want to do? I'm wonder what business is it of your's or most anyone else's? I would not want to witness it, or be part of it, but a simply no thank you takes care of that. What is it that's so wrong with that? Is sexuality and our bodies a bad thing in your eyes? Well, usually, when a ruling elite that is unaccountable to the rest of the population exists, it breeds behavior that isn't subject to the scrutiny of anyone other than by the ruling elite itself. This leads to a disconnect between such a minority regime and the rest of society, thus bypassing the usual checks and balances imposed on moral behavior applicable in more 'balanced' societies. So we see this is a symptom of a dysfunctional state because there lacks any real integration and cohesion in such an arrangement. The fact that such an elite can function within such a framework means it is not fulfilling one of its main roles in setting the kind of moral code that is necessary in maintaining a fully functional and integrated society. For example, homosexuality and same-sex marriage is corrosive in so far as it undermines the traditional heterosexual family setting in which a natural, loving relationship can blossom in the interests of child-rearing, where one parent from each sex provides a balanced environment in which children can identify with both a male and a female. Any other arrangement seems to me to be seriously unbalanced and liable to cause long-term damage to a child's psychological well-being in terms of not providing enough identification with both genders. Such groups as I have mentioned have to exist within a very strict religious or totalitarian set-up in order to protect and insulate themselves from open criticism from the rest of society so this shows how such practices go hand-hand-with dysfunctional systems of governments. At least we enjoy an open democratic form of government where we are free to express our disapproval of abbérant sexual preferences, which does at least keep things in check. To lie with another man or for a woman to lie with another woman is not immoral in itself, especially where deep, sincere emotion are concerned, but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population. The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone "questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.
..but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population. The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone "questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.There is just too much stupid to respond in this one. These assertions you make have been studied. You don't have data to back them up. Where are these stable societies you speak of? The ones you seem to be alluding to were brutal and repressive. They might look stable if you only look at what the elite were doing, but most people didn't want to maintain that "stability" at all. If you live in the US, you live in a country that was designed to have everyone question it all the time. That philosophy has been under attack by fake news, fake science, lawyers, and politicians that know they can lie even when being taped because enough voters don't know how to check facts. You are either one of those voters, or one of the people attacking that philosophy.
webplodder said, At least we enjoy an open democratic form of government where we are free to express our disapproval of abbérant sexual preferences, which does at least keep things in check. To lie with another man or for a woman to lie with another woman is not immoral in itself, especially where deep, sincere emotion are concerned, but it is wrong in terms of maintaining an overall code for behavior as regards the general population. The very fabric of society needs to be kept as resilient as possible and if everyone “questioned the system" it would soon fall into an anarchic mess.The only one who is questioning the system, is Trump, our current president who sees government as HiIS government instead of the People's government. And it was not the majority who elected him! Thus your argument holds no water, except the water does not trickle down, but goes into his and his cronies' pockets. If you want to place restrictions, place them properly on the Baron robbers who now "own" the economy and laws, morals be damned! Yet you dare place the blame on peaceful innocents who only ask for equal treatment under the law. They are not the cause of the fall of democratic humanitarian values. It's greed that is immoral, by all worldwide standards, except for dictatorships. Listen close to George Carlin.; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuaFJaiAx4U