The politically incorrect thread

[Whirlysplat]

You know why this is true?

Because the majority of homosexuals grow up living in repressed environments their entire childhoods, and when they move to more gay friendly cities, they end up having sex and partying because they had missed out on that experience during all the years they had to deal with being insulted and treated like **** by their peers. Never mind the fact that they couldn't get a date, but they were constantly ridiculed as well and therefore socially inactive.

That is a very, very loose interpretation of a sociological article I had to read for a class a few weeks ago... but you know what? Maybe if society was more accepting, maybe if society didn't treat gay youth as "sinners" and "heathens" many of them would be able to move on without feeling the need to have their sexual "outcoming" all at once, with anonymous sources they only knew for ten minutes at a club, several nights of the week. Maybe they wouldn't be reduced to living their lives in a perverse subculture.

So, let me get this straight; You're saying the majority of people don't see homosexuals as normal? You're also saying homosexuals are in a perverse subculture? I guess they aren't normal in your opinion.

And, additionally, heterosexuals can get HIV/ AIDS the same way as homosexuals, so the argument you were making is sort of... flawed.

Although statistically in the west it's far less likely they will.

 

[Schlosser85]

Aside from the Biblical implications, it's been medically proven that homosexuals are generally the leading carriers for STDs, especially HIV. True, they can be spread through other forms of blood contact, but sex is by far the most common...and currently, there's no verifiable way to protect against them except abstinence. That fact alone is more than enough to make people rethink such choices, at the very least...and if it's not, it should be.

Do you seriously believe heterosexuals don't get HIV through sex? Straight black women are currently the largest infected group in the United States...I guess according to you, straight black women should rethink their choice to have sex. And HIV/AIDS is no reason for me to "rethink" my "choice" to be gay (a choice I never made in the first place, whether you think I did or not), since I am in a long-term monogamous relationship with the only person I have had sex with in my life, and therefore am one of the last people who needs to worry about getting HIV or any other kind of STD.

 

[Whirlysplat]

Do you seriously believe heterosexuals don't get HIV through sex? Straight black women are currently the largest infected group in the United States...I guess according to you, straight black women should rethink their choice to have sex. And HIV/AIDS is no reason for me to "rethink" my "choice" to be gay (a choice I never made in the first place, whether you think I did or not), since I am in a long-term monogamous relationship with the only person I have had sex with in my life, and therefore am one of the last people who needs to worry about getting HIV or any other kind of STD.

Thats because so many black people in america, straight, gay, male and female practice unprotected sex.

 

[Schlosser85]

Thats because so many black people in america, straight, gay, male and female practice unprotected sex.

In case you haven't caught on yet, no one is paying any attention to you.

 

[Whirlysplat]

In case you haven't caught on yet, no one is paying any attention to you.

The cry of the politically correct. The irony is you replied.

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/08/we_need_leaders.html

 

[Majic Walrus]

Sorry for the late reply. My daughter kept me up after work yesterday.

Discrimination would be refusing to hire someone for a job exclusively because they're black, white, gay, straight, Christian, atheistic, whatever. However, if there's another reason that merits such action, there's no discrimination (i.e., their resume doesn't qualify, or they don't have the necessary work experience).

When dealing with morals, though, it becomes a little more complex. For example, would it be discriminatory for the manager of a Christian bookstore to request a employee's resignation if they tell him they're gay? I don't think so, because according to Christianity, homosexuality is wrong, and for that person to remain employed there would serve as an inherent moral conflict. The loss of their job wouldn't be due to a personal issue, but rather a spiritual one.

So it's okay not to hire someone based on their religious beliefs if they're working for a FOR PROFIT religiously affiliated outlet?

Just think about that the next time you go to apply for a job and a manager tells you, "Sorry, we're a FOR PROFIT Non-Theistic Employer therefore it would be morally wrong for us to hire you because you're a Christian."

Also, I just want to go ahead and make another argument here.

The loss of their job wouldn't be due to a personal issue, but rather a spiritual one.

Personal issues and "spiritual" are both personal issues. If your personal faith as a personal problem with a person based on his personal choices then you are a ****ing bigot if you think you can claim it's a spiritual matter that you chose to discriminate against him for.

That's ****ing bigotry and if the tables were turned and we were all still persecuting Christians for their faith you can bet the damned ACLU would be high up some judges ass talking about how it's discrimination for a Muslim bookstore not to hire a Christian employee.

(Also I'd like to cite precedent in the case of Mrs. Robin Lowe vs The Grace Christian Bookstore. Mrs. Lowe was awarded the decision and an undisclosed settlement after losing her job at the GCB for telling a fellow employee that she didn't even believe in God anymore.

This is a local case that was handled by a West Virginian court)

 

[Majic Walrus]

The cry of the politically correct. The irony is you replied.

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/08/we_need_leaders.html

I hadn't really been paying attention but I want to let you know in the language of your /b/rothers.

GET lulz tr0lz. FTW

 

[The Senator]

Do you seriously believe heterosexuals don't get HIV through sex? Straight black women are currently the largest infected group in the United States...I guess according to you, straight black women should rethink their choice to have sex. And HIV/AIDS is no reason for me to "rethink" my "choice" to be gay (a choice I never made in the first place, whether you think I did or not), since I am in a long-term monogamous relationship with the only person I have had sex with in my life, and therefore am one of the last people who needs to worry about getting HIV or any other kind of STD.

Same with me. Though I've had other relationships with sexual acts involved, but they were all virgins and not infected.

 

[Marx]

"Political Correctness" is constantly changing, based on how much the "politically correct" people think they can get away with. The way things are going, the following "politically correct" policies will be introduced in the near future:

Making motor vehicles illegal unless you can demonstrate to a public servant that you have a "need" for a vehicle, since vehicles produce "greenhouse gases", and we are obligated by an international treaty to reduce "greenhouse gases".

Making pedophilia legal, since it is already legal for homosexuals to adopt children, which violates the right of children to be brought up as normal people, and since many of the political activists who promote "Political Correctness" are pedophiles.

I say let's stop all this polical correctness and give more people guns so we can deal with this future horde of pedophiles.

Congratulations! That is one of the most ignorant posts I have read in quite some time! Good job!

 

[Whirlysplat]

Congratulations! That is one of the most ignorant posts I have read in quite some time! Good job!

Whoosh.....

 

[The Guard]

There used to be difference between political correctness and what is "socially acceptable". That seems to be changing. Political correctness is now, more or less, just people being "safe" about the ideas they share with people, for whatever reason. I tend to have very little respect for people who are either easily offended or quick to change their statements due to political correctness.

Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion.

I think you hit it pretty close to the mark on this point. In recent decades, nearly every subject - health, taxes, religion, national security - has fallen victim to this. People are so scared they'l hurt each others' feelings, that it stops them from having the important discussions, and making the tough choices.

There it is.

However, unless someone is a homoesexual pedophile, I'm trying to find out how being homosexual equals being a pedophile...

 

[Moviefan2k4]

There used to be difference between political correctness and what is "socially acceptable". That seems to be changing. Political correctness is now, more or less, just people being "safe" about the ideas they share with people, for whatever reason. I tend to have very little respect for people who are either easily offended or quick to change their statements due to political correctness.

I feel pretty much the same way, although it's notable that, being human, all of us can be easily offended at times, about one suject or another. I personally believe a lot of people spend too much time and energy worrying about who they'll tick off. We as people should always do our best to present ourselves with integrity and common respect. But in the end, it comes down to truth vs. comfort, and sometimes the two simply don't match up.

However, unless someone is a homoesexual pedophile, I'm trying to find out how being homosexual equals being a pedophile...

In the strictest sense, it doesn't...although I do understand on some level what Whirly was trying to say with that post. People often mimic the environments they are exposed to, and children in particular. I'm not saying that every child raised by gay parents will end up gay...but I do think being brought up in that environment makes such a choice more likely.

 

[The Guard]

I feel pretty much the same way, although it's notable that, being human, all of us can be easily offended at times, about one suject or another.

True. I suppose what irks me is people who are personally offended about "everything" that is the least bit spicy. But they're not offended because they're actually offended, but because "society" expects it to offend. Does that make sense?

In the strictest sense, it doesn't...although I do understand on some level what Whirly was trying to say with that post. People often mimic the environments they are exposed to, and children in particular. I'm not saying that every child raised by gay parents will end up gay...but I do think being brought up in that environment makes such a choice more likely.

I guess I'm saying...what does being gay or not have to do with pedophilia? Is Whirly saying they're likely to be sexual with their own children if the children are the same sex? Because that would be like saying that all straight fathers want to be sexual with their daughters, and straight mothers vice versa with their sons. Not that we need to go there...

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I guess I'm saying...what does being gay or not have to do with pedophilia? Is Whirly saying they're likely to be sexual with their own children if the children are the same sex? Because that would be like saying that all straight fathers want to be sexual with their daughters, and straight mothers vice versa with their sons. Not that we need to go there...

I don't think that was Whirly's intent at all (although he'd probably be the best source of reliable info on that). What I took from it is the following sentiment: since it's now technically legal for homosexual couples to adopt children, what's to stop the government from legalizing such things as pedophilia? While I don't agree with Whirly's view of "most political activists being pedophiles", I think the point being made is that if the government has already legalized the former, what's to prevent them from doing it again, when "politically correct" citizens remain silent?

 

[The Guard]

Ohhh.

 

[Schlosser85]

What I took from it is the following sentiment: since it's now technically legal for homosexual couples to adopt children, what's to stop the government from legalizing such things as pedophilia?

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Pedophilia involves children being preyed on and abused.

 

[thedeadite]

I don't think that was Whirly's intent at all (although he'd probably be the best source of reliable info on that). What I took from it is the following sentiment: since it's now technically legal for homosexual couples to adopt children, what's to stop the government from legalizing such things as pedophilia? While I don't agree with Whirly's view of "most political activists being pedophiles", I think the point being made is that if the government has already legalized the former, what's to prevent them from doing it again, when "politically correct" citizens remain silent?

Homosexual adoption takes rights away from no one
Pedophilia takes rights away from children

HUGE difference

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Homosexual adoption takes rights away from no one
Pedophilia takes rights away from children. HUGE difference

As one poster mentioned earlier, it takes away from the children's rights to be raised in a home with both a mother and father.

 

[Schlosser85]

As one poster mentioned earlier, it takes away from the children's rights to be raised in a home with both a mother and father.

What about children raised by single parents?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Pedophilia involves children being preyed on and abused.

And it's likely that many people, whether they'd ever admit it or not, likely think of homosexuality as a form of spiritual abuse.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think raising children to fear and be prejudiced against others is a form of abuse and stunts their moral development as human beings. Being raised accepting of gays does not "turn" children gay anymore than being raised in a very conservative anti-gay environment necessarily makes them straight.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

What about children raised by single parents?

That serves a similar purpose, although that situation is usually caused by one of them walking out. With a homosexual couple, the child never gets that option to begin with. I was raised by a single mother myself, and my dad walked out before I was born. My rights were violated in this manner, and a lot of kids (especially in this country) have become victimized in similar fashions.

 

[Schlosser85]

That serves a similar purpose, although that situation is usually caused by one of them walking out. With a homosexual couple, the child never gets that option to begin with. I was raised by a single mother myself, and my dad walked out before I was born. My rights were violated in this manner, and a lot of kids (especially in this country) have become victimized in similar fashions.

So single parents cannot be good parents?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I think raising children to fear and be prejudiced against others is a form of abuse and stunts their moral development as human beings. Being raised accepting of gays does not "turn" children gay anymore than being raised in a very conservative anti-gay environment necessarily makes them straight.

I'm not talking about prejudice against people for their choices (and it is a choice, no matter what anyone else says), but rather raising kids to know that some ways of living are wrong, even if society accepts them. I've often used one of my favorite movie quotes in situations like this, and I think it fits well here, too: "I don't blame people for their mistakes...but I do ask that they pay for them." Homosexuality is a choice, and it is a mistake. Children should not be raised to believe such a choice is morally right...period.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

So single parents cannot be good parents?

It's not a matter of being "good" or "bad" parents; the point is that the family was designed to include both a mother and a father...not two mothers, and not two fathers.