Free speech has consequences

[superstition]

The notion that people can say whatever they like is true. The notion that people can say whatever they like and face no consequences is false.

 

That's life. What the consequences are and how much people can get away with - those are matters of culture, situation, etc.

 

Here's what one of our representatives said when she thought only a small group of fellow bigots were listening:

 

I honestly think (homosexuality is) the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.

What's happening now is they're going after, in schools, two-year-olds.

The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation.

No society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades.

 

 

That's from an Oklahoma lawmaker's speech about {censored} people. A secret recording has just emerged of State Rep. Sally Kern speaking to a Republican group in January, where she equates both sexual orientation and religion with terrorism.

 

She thought no one was listening. Now hundreds of thousands are. 'She refuses to apologize and wants us to think "free speech" allows her to say whatever she likes without consequences.'

 

This recording, first released in a video by the {censored} and {censored} Victory Fund, is all the more troubling given the recent spate of hate violence against {censored} and transgender youth.

(The single quote sentence is one I restated because theirs was less accurate.)

 

Again, certainly she is free to say whatever she likes and we are free to hold her accountable.

[l2uso]

The same applies for {censored}: you can be {censored} if you want to, but not without consecuenses... Be {censored} is ANTINATURAL period! It is all about detrimental of sex health. We live (mostly) in a free world, be {censored}, be free, but don't think everybody is as mentaly sick as you are...

[apowerr]

Shes ignorant and intolerant. If shes that fanatical don't even worry about her.

 

She was elected to lead, and maybe this is what she thinks Oklahoma wants.

 

They're not teaching facts and knowledge anymore, folks

[dark4181]

^+1 be {censored} if you want to. don't expect straight people to like it

 

i can't recall how many times i've been called "breeder" by {censored}. wow, their tone of voice was so full of hate. i'm like "yea, damn me for wanting to continue the human race" ...bloody hipocrits

[superstition]

The same applies for {censored}: you can be {censored} if you want to, but not without consecuenses... Be {censored} is ANTINATURAL period! It is all about detrimental of sex health. We live (mostly) in a free world, be {censored}, be free, but don't think everybody is as mentaly sick as you are...

There are critical flaws in this logic.

 

1. Homosexuality isn't a disorder.

 

That's scientific consensus and it's grounded in research as old as the work of Dr. Hooker's 1950s findings which were the first of many studies done on {censored} men with no history of mental illness (instead of a polluted sample that yielded an illusory correlation between homosexuality and mental disorder).

 

2. Natural is irrelevant, and you're incorrect in stating that homosexuality isn't natural. It certainly is.

 

Natural, however, is irrelevant as a basis for moral or rationality judgements, because murder is natural and so is hugging.The only consequence of being {censored} in a world that is rational is that being {censored} is seen as one of the two sexual orientations. There are two, and neither of them is a disorder. There is a lot of telelogical reasoning that can yield faulty prejudicial logic such as yours, and those arguments can go either direction. For instance, one might argue that {censored} are defective because {censored} sex doesn't result in pregnancy and someone can turn that around and argue that heteros are defective because of overpopulation. Such teleological argumentation is specious. It all comes down to the fact that there are two orientations and neither are disorders.The true problem, which Dr. Hooker identified, is irrational prejudice, such as your post shows. Such prejudice is learned from a culture although it is based in ignorance; as such it can be overcome. The problem is not the existence of {censored} people. The problem is bigotry.

 

can't recall how many times i've been called "breeder" by {censored}. wow, their tone of voice was so full of hate. i'm like "yea, damn me for wanting to continue the human race" ...bloody hipocrits

Bad behavior on the part of some does not excuse bigotry against a class. And, the "breeder" complaint, which I've seen often used in an attempt to justify homophobia/heterosexism, is more humorous than anything given the fact that homosexuality is not sterility. While homosexual sex doesn't yield children, homosexuals can and do have offspring. So, anyone can be dubbed a breeder, heterosexual or not. Further, given that the world is heavily biased against {censored} people, many of them have pent up aggression that comes from being constantly mocked, vilified, and condemned. Instead of sophomorically condemning these people, you should help them feel valued as members of the community. If they feel valued, then they're unlikely to use insulting class-based epithets.

 

The fact is that {censored} has been adopted by children as a substitute word for bad because children pick up on prejudice in society and are anxiously conformist. Anti-{censored} slurs and expressions of disgust top the list in schools. That makes complaints about breeder pale in comparison. Guess how many times I heard the term breeder used in a school? Zero. Guess how many times I've heard the word {censored} used instead of bad/stupid? More times than I can count.

[rollcage]

I honestly think (homosexuality is) the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.

Since when has Islam been a threat to the US? The only way I can see religion being a real threat to any nation would be religious extremists. That could be any religion though.

The fact is that {censored} has been adopted by children as a substitute word for bad because children pick up on prejudice in society and are anxiously conformist. Anti-{censored} slurs and expressions of disgust top the list in schools. That makes complaints about breeder pale in comparison. Guess how many times I heard the term breeder used in a school? Zero. Guess how many times I've heard the word {censored} used instead of bad/stupid? More times than I can count.

Totally agree with that.

[dark4181]

1) "scientific consensus" has been wrong before, and i expect it will be wrong again in the future.. remember the big "global cooling" flap, back in the 70's? i wonder what happened to that... probably the same thing that will happen to "global warming" in the next 5-10 years. science is a trial and error process, just because a lot of them agree on an aspect of it now, doesn't mean that it's true. the agreed-upon aspect my be disproven in the future. like i said.. "trial and error"

 

2) prejudice exists on both sides of the line. it's been that way for the whole of history. i'd welcome a world where equality was a real tangible thing, but it's not. some are born stronger or faster or smarter than others.. taller, healthier, whatever. equality is an impossible goal. no form of government or authority can make a tall person and a short person the same height

 

since i'm a christian, i'll boil my argument down to this:

if i chose to live my life as much in accordance to the bible as i can.. and i'm wrong.. i've lost nothing

if you chose to disregard the bible, and you're wrong... then you've lost everything

 

if that sounds condescending, sorry, but i'm sure you'll think of something even more condescending in response, so i'm not worried

 

Since when has Islam been a threat to the US? The only way I can see religion being a real threat to any nation would be religious extremists. That could be any religion though.Totally agree with that.

 

islam isn't JUST a religion, it's also a system of law and a way of life. the danger lies in the fact that all proponents of islam want to see their way of life/government/religion replace all others, and see those that refuse put to death... and don't forget, islam is even more "death to {censored}" than christianity is. at least the christians only want to save their souls/help them find god, etc etc. followers of islam cut off limbs if they catch you twice. and on the third time, they kill you

[superstition]

"scientific consensus" has been wrong before, and i expect it will be wrong again in the future..

No study has, since Dr. Hooker's work in the 1950s, shown that homosexuality is a disorder. That's over fifty years of scientific consensus. And, the reason Hooker's work differed from prior work is that she was the first one who correctly avoided using a polluted sample.

 

Anyone, including you, who wants to invalidate science faces the burden of proof. Nothing is stopping you from doing studies in a manner consistent with legitimate contemporary science. There aren't any that support bigotry against homosexuals. While a good scientist doesn't do research in order to prove anything, if you want to disprove the consensus, it's up to you to produce the research. Until you do, you can't simply plug your ears, cover your eyes and dismiss the consensus.

 

prejudice exists on both sides of the line

The bottom line is that we're talking about heterosexism (the prejudicial belief that heterosexuality is superior) and homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuality). Without those, {censored} people aren't going to get hurt feelings and use weak epithets like breeder.

it's been that way for the whole of history

Homophobia and heterosexism are not immutable constants of the human condition. They are cultural and therefore able to be diminished via education. Prejudice is learned, and its underlying ignorance can be overcome by facts.

some are born stronger or faster or smarter than others.. taller, healthier, whatever. equality is an impossible goal. no form of government or authority can make a tall person and a short person the same height

Homosexuality isn't a disorder, so this line of reasoning is irrelevant.

 

if you chose to disregard the bible, and you're wrong... then you've lost everything

As soon as a person invokes religion and rejects science, there is no room for argument and no room for learning or reason. The person may as well proclaim the tastiness of a green cheese moon.

 

And, even in a religious context, "the Bible" is no trump card. It's a political document that exists in many forms.

[dark4181]

No study has, since Dr. Hooker's work in the 1950s, shown that homosexuality is a disorder. That's over fifty years of scientific consensus. And, the reason Hooker's work differed from prior work is that she was the first one who correctly avoided using a polluted sample.

 

Anyone, including you, who wants to invalidate science faces the burden of proof. Nothing is stopping you from doing studies in a manner consistent with legitimate contemporary science. There aren't any that support bigotry against homosexuals. While a good scientist doesn't do research in order to prove anything, if you want to disprove the consensus, it's up to you to produce the research. Until you do, you can't simply plug your ears, cover your eyes and dismiss the consensus.

The bottom line is that we're talking about heterosexism (the prejudicial belief that heterosexuality is superior) and homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuality). Without those, {censored} people aren't going to get hurt feelings and use weak epithets like breeder.

 

Homophobia and heterosexism are not immutable constants of the human condition. They are cultural and therefore able to be diminished via education. Prejudice is learned, and its underlying ignorance can be overcome by facts.

 

Homosexuality isn't a disorder, so this line of reasoning is irrelevant.

 

As soon as a person invokes religion and rejects science, there is no room for argument and no room for learning or reason. The person may as well proclaim the tastiness of a green cheese moon.

 

And, even in a religious context, "the Bible" is no trump card. It's a political document that exists in many forms.

 

i don't care about validating or invalidating science. it doesn't concern me, i'm not a scientist. thus, i don't care. i believe i already said "be {censored} if you want." that doesn't mean i have to accept it, and that doesn't mean i have to embrace that lifestyle myself. i've never felt any attraction to another male, and i can't imagine why any man would. it remains outside of the purview of my experience. i'm simply pointing out that some scientific beliefs are disproven and rejected every so often, and that perhaps in the future, this one will be as well. if not, oh well

 

i never said whether homosexuality was a disorder or not, only that science is trial and error. that line of reasoning was about equality, not homosexuality. thus, i threw in references to disparate physical attributes. you're taking things out of context to make your point

 

i'll give you a personal example. my brother was sexually abused by a man when he was a child, now he's {censored}... i was not, and so i don't accept being {censored} as natural occurance

 

i also never claimed i rejected science. i'm personally able to reconcile my religion with science (i'm not a church-bound christian, btw) ...i view science as the rules that god wrote to define the physical world. there is a lot of research out there that supports this view. even the way we refer to science as "rules" implies the existence of a higher power. someone with greater authority writes rules, after all.

[Numberzz]

What was the original point of this thread anyway? Yes, she said that, and yes, she will get bashed for it. What's there to argue? When I first saw this thread with no posts in it I was tempted to say "/thread."

[superstition]

What was the original point of this thread anyway? Yes, she said that, and yes, she will get bashed for it. What's there to argue? When I first saw this thread with no posts in it I was tempted to say "/thread."

She's not being "bashed". She's taking heat for trying to turn {censored} American citizens into monsters to further her political agenda.

 

There's a lot to argue, as the discussion in here already demonstrates. People are discussing this in other forums, too, and no one has, until this point, questioned the existence of the topic.

 

I'm really baffled that you think this isn't worth talking about. It's like a re-hash of Nazism in 2008's America.

 

Here's some more discussion:

 

Having said all that, I'm not sure how this woman's comments have been "rationalized"

next quote

Repugnant words are in need of defending. Not the ones we call agree are mild and inoffensive. So I don't know if you are advocating censorship or not.

So, if she were to embrace, verbatim, Hitler's Final Solution and the like, that should be defended? In what way?

 

The notion that hate speech is somehow more deserving of being condoned than normal speech is absurd. Hate speech is hateful. It's not fuzzy bunnies and flowers. It's about hurting people. It's violent behavior. Fear-mongering about members of the population via hate speech can carry a serious price in human happiness. What right does she have to hurt others?

 

Censorship happens constantly. If people spoke in stream of consciousness no one would want to deal with them. If people gave voice to every vicious horrible thought in their minds, the world certainly would be a lot more chaotic. There are limits to acceptable speech, in all contexts, whether you realize it or not. Those limits are necessary in order for society to function. Indeed, there are limits to your "free speech" in this forum itself.

 

What she's doing is far worse than accidentally giving voice to stray vicious thoughts. She is promoting the harm of {censored} people by trying to scare people into believing they're evil.

[Numberzz]

No one should argue about it because obviously she should be held accountable, and she was wrong. That is not right for anyone to say, especially her. Also, there wasn't even a question in the original post.

[superstition]

i don't care about validating or invalidating science. it doesn't concern me, i'm not a scientist. thus, i don't care.

A worthless position for a rational person.

"be {censored} if you want." that doesn't mean i have to accept it, and that doesn't mean i have to embrace that lifestyle myself. i've never felt any attraction to another male, and i can't imagine why any man would. it remains outside of the purview of my experience.

If you didn't think science can be blithely ignored, you'd know some scientific facts.

 

1. Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, so your comment "be {censored} if you want" is specious.

 

2. Whether or not you accept reality isn't particularly important to reality.

 

3. If you mean convert your orientation by "embrace", then you would know that sexual orientation isn't chosen.

 

4. Sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle". A {censored} fireman and a hetero fireman have similar lifestyles as compared to a {censored} nun or a {censored} priest.

 

5. That you use your experience as a heterosexual to say "I can't imagine why anyone would" shows why it's necessary to have science. You are limited by your biases.

i'll give you a personal example. my brother was sexually abused by a man when he was a child, now he's {censored}... i was not, and so i don't accept being {censored} as natural occurance

If you check the science, you won't see a correlation between sexual orientation and childhood sexual abuse. In reality, the most common sexual predators are heterosexual men who abuse girls. Anecdotal accounts are not evidence. Again, you need to understand basic science.

i'm personally able to reconcile my religion with science (i'm not a church-bound christian, btw) ...i view science as the rules that god wrote to define the physical world. there is a lot of research out there that supports this view. even the way we refer to science as "rules" implies the existence of a higher power. someone with greater authority writes rules, after all.

Then maybe it's time to start learning what those rules are instead of rejecting them. The scientific evidence is quite clear on many fronts that would help you avoid the mistakes in logic you've made concerning homosexuality.

No one should argue about it because obviously she should be held accountable, and she was wrong. That is not right for anyone to say, especially her.

People are arguing about it. Some people don't think she should be held accountable.

Also, there wasn't even a question in the original post.

I'm willing to add a question if it's necessary.

 

Here's another forum where someone is very intent on arguing that her words should be condoned if anything:

 

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=185654

[Superhai]

since i'm a christian, i'll boil my argument down to this:

if i chose to live my life as much in accordance to the bible as i can.. and i'm wrong.. i've lost nothing

if you chose to disregard the bible, and you're wrong... then you've lost everything

 

if that sounds condescending, sorry, but i'm sure you'll think of something even more condescending in response, so i'm not worried

islam isn't JUST a religion, it's also a system of law and a way of life. the danger lies in the fact that all proponents of islam want to see their way of life/government/religion replace all others, and see those that refuse put to death...

 

The reason why islam "is more dangerous" than christianity is because most modern christians have rejected most of what is written in the bible. Remember that sharia law in islam is largely based on the same scriptures as both christianity and judaism. Actually many points are picked up from the bible and torahs when there is nothing found in the koran and hadiths. This is why it is wicked that some islamic countries have banned the bible and the torah, but they have in most cases choosen a more extremist way of the religion.

 

A worthless position for a rational person.If you didn't think science can be blithely ignored, you'd know some scientific facts.

 

While science in this case discussed is very clear, one should in general still be careful to believe science is correct. And a rational person what would that be... In arguments it is wiser to use facts that science comes up with and not use science as itself as an argument.

 

The bottom line... of course everything has consequences. Any political rights are mostly in the eye of the beholder. History shows tough that some rights have protected the general population more than others. But the question is if it is good in its own purity or should it be restricted so in this case the freedom to speech ends up in a freedom to insult.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I was tempted not to reply in this thread, but you made me do it.

Here is my response:

 

[killbot1000]

1) "scientific consensus" has been wrong before, and i expect it will be wrong again in the future.. remember the big "global cooling" flap, back in the 70's? i wonder what happened to that... probably the same thing that will happen to "global warming" in the next 5-10 years. science is a trial and error process, just because a lot of them agree on an aspect of it now, doesn't mean that it's true. the agreed-upon aspect my be disproven in the future. like i said.. "trial and error"

 

While you are right that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that it will most likely be wrong again, you are mistaken in your view that Christianity is right.

 

Christianity is already wrong, It is a astrological, Mythological hybrid, with Jesus as its Patron Deity.

 

Science can never be right, it can only be less wrong, and so far, it is less wrong that Christianity, because Christianity has a very rigid view of how things work, and "how things work" was pretty much just pulled from a few people's collective asses. It provides one clear concise explanation for everything, the only problem is, is that if only one thing in there is wrong, the whole thing is wrong, because according to the Bible, the word of god is perfect, and since the bible is the word of god, if we can find just one thing in the bible that is incorrect (minus translation errors, etc.) then the word of the lord is not perfect, hence the bible wasn't written by the lord, hence any evidence for god's existence goes strait out the window.

 

If science weren't around, we would still be huddling around wood fires for warmth and we would still be hunter/gatherer people.

 

If you think for one second that science has very little to do with the success of our civilization than you are extremely delusional.

[JonTheSavage]

Oh, so {censored} think they have some "Divine" right to bash Christians?

 

The tables have turned. Let the war begin.

[socal swimmer]

Oh, so {censored} think they have some "Divine" right to bash Christians?

 

The tables have turned. Let the war begin.

 

haha not so "divine", more like self-defense with a touch of retribution.

[killbot1000]

Oh, so {censored} think they...

 

See its this kind of {censored} that pisses me off, you are breaking down being {censored} into one thing that they all do, you are generalizing to hell, seriously, this statement you just made sounds like this:

 

"Oh, so Strait people think that they..."

 

As you know strait people have been all kinds of people, rapists, heros, average, etc.

 

{censored} people are the same way: Dumb people, smart people, angry, happy, etc.

 

The only thing thats the difference is the sexual preference, it doesn't make them any more different as a person.

 

Open your mind a little bit and let people chill.

[Alessandro17]

The same applies for {censored}: you can be {censored} if you want to, but not without consecuenses... Be {censored} is ANTINATURAL period! It is all about detrimental of sex health. We live (mostly) in a free world, be {censored}, be free, but don't think everybody is as mentaly sick as you are...

 

I have 2 suggestions for you:

 

1)Learn English

2)Use your brain before you use your keyboard

 

since i'm a christian, i'll boil my argument down to this:

if i chose to live my life as much in accordance to the bible as i can.. and i'm wrong.. i've lost nothing

if you chose to disregard the bible, and you're wrong... then you've lost everything

 

If we replace the word "bible" with the title of any book you like, does the meaning of your sentence change that much? I think not.

And even if we take the bible as a reference, here is what Jesus said:

 

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

Matthew: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

 

Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

 

Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

 

I can't find any reference to: "don't be {censored}", I can only find a reference to: "Love your neighbor and the law is fulfilled"

Funny, ain't it? If you hate {censored} people, how can you "love your neighbor"?

 

And BTW, I forgot this:

 

John 13:

34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

[dark4181]

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (King James Version)

 

Paul directed this book to Christians in Rome -- a city known for its sexual debauchery. Earlier verses in Romans 1 describe how some former Christians had reverted to Paganism. They once more worshiped idols, and engaged in ritual sex orgies. God caused them to engage in same-sex sexual behavior. This is the only passage in the Bible that directly refers to women having sex with other women.

 

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [makakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (King James Version)

 

The New International Version translates the second highlighted group as "homosexual offenders." In Today's English Version, it is "homosexual perverts." There is an enormous range of interpretations that biblical commentators have made of the word "arsenokoitai."

 

A common religiously conservative interpretation: From a forum on homosexuality and the Bible in the Philadelphia Inquirer: 4

 

A. Mohler: "I believe it explicitly relates to homosexuality. It has been understood that way in the Christian Church from the earliest era."

 

T. Crater: "It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

[Alessandro17]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm

 

Very well. Your link seems to prove my point:

 

A common liberal conclusion:

There is no passage in the Christian Scriptures that condemns same-sex committed relationships or same-sex marriage.

 

With the almost complete absence of dialogue between religious conservatives and others on these topics, the massive gulf over homosexuality and the Bible -- and about the morality of same-sex sexual behavior -- will probably not be resolved in the foreseeable future.

 

So the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, thus even a Christian doesn't have to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

[dark4181]

deny god and you're left with moral relativism. since god defines right and wrong, without god, there is no right and wrong, so any action (rape, murder, incest, etc) could be justified just like you're trying to justify yourself

 

and that website is attempting to present an unbiased view. it lists both sides. i didn't want to be accused of leaving out any relevant viewpoints :-p

[killbot1000]

deny god and you're left with moral relativism. since god defines right and wrong, without god, there is no right and wrong, so any action (rape, murder, incest, etc) could be justified just like you're trying to justify yourself

 

See, this is just wrong. We don't need a universal standard to define right and wrong, we define it ourselves. What you don't know is that you and everybody else are already practicing moral relativism. It sucks, but there really isn't much else we can do.

 

We can determine right and wrong through general consensus or through dictatorship, we've done it before, we are doing it now, and we will do it again. Many of our general morals literally come out of our ass, they are preferences without any kind of logic or reason backing them up whatsoever.

 

However most human beings from around the world really do surprisingly agree on the very basics (dont kill, dont rape, dont steal, etc.) I think the problem with our whole society though is that new things have been introduced to us, and we try to put it in a moral light, rather than just saying "its there". This leads to an unacceptable view of things that pose no harm to anybody, such as homosexuality.

 

My suggestion is just to lighten up and become more accepting of people who are different than you, seriously...

[Alessandro17]

deny god and you're left with moral relativism. since god defines right and wrong, without god, there is no right and wrong, so any action (rape, murder, incest, etc) could be justified just like you're trying to justify yourself

 

Denying the Christian God doesn't mean denying God altogether. I want to believe in a God which makes sense to me, not some old man with a beard sitting on clouds or, if you prefer, some kind of Superman, a human with super powers.

Read here:

 

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...5489&st=161 (post #162)

 

I have written many times myself about a God worth believing in, like the Brahman of the Advaita Vedanta:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

 

Or the Tao in Taoism.

 

Also, can you explain what do you mean by: "you're trying to justify yourself"?