Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
RussSchultz said:
Can you change yours, Russ? Go ahead and try, I dare you.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
But Natoma,
Homosexuality is not natural!
(Leaves thread immediately never to return....)
Homosexuality is not natural!
(Leaves thread immediately never to return....)
I tend to believe that sexuality (beyond run of the mill procreative urges) is a psychological thing that is molded rather than innate.
I don't believe people are destined to be into fetishes or bondage, nor do I think they are innately gay.
While you can't imagine yourself any other way, I don't think that means that you haven't been molded into it, rather than born into it.
I don't believe people are destined to be into fetishes or bondage, nor do I think they are innately gay.
While you can't imagine yourself any other way, I don't think that means that you haven't been molded into it, rather than born into it.
Well I grew up in a very tightly knit christian family with a very tightly knit christian community around me. Didn't know what "gay" or "faggot" meant until I was 13, other than they were insults thrown around by everyone in the schoolyard. Had no clue what sex was until 7th grade (thank you very much for spoiling my innocence St. David's Catholic School sex-ed courses. ). Was never molested. Never saw any porn. Well, I was 16 when I saw my first porn, and it was hetero. Did nothing for me. Now the gay porn, wow that did a number on me.
Seriously though, I don't see how you believe that people are molded into their sexuality rather than discovering what they enjoy and then doing that. You discovered that you liked girls. Were you molded into that by society or was it something that you felt innately?
I discovered I liked guys. My environment certainly was not in any way shape or form conducive to that conclusion. Everything about my environment and the person I was at the time would have certainly molded me to be heterosexual. Hell I must have spent the better part of a decade trying to be straight, to no avail, in part because I wanted to be "normal," didn't want to upset my family, wanted the grandkids and all that, wanted to follow my religion, yadda yadda yadda. Through it all, homosexuality just felt innately right. That feeling when I saw good looking guys walking down the street or in the locker room at school, or in the tight track and field spandex clothing never dissipated. In fact it grew as I became fully sexually aware. I'm sure you had the same feelings for girls as you became fully sexually aware.
Oh and fetishes are in a completely different category than orientations. Fetishes focus on objects for sexual gratification (handcuffs, whips, shoes, etc), not people. Fetishism is an extension of orientation, not an equal category.
). Was never molested. Never saw any porn. Well, I was 16 when I saw my first porn, and it was hetero. Did nothing for me. Now the gay porn, wow that did a number on me. Seriously though, I don't see how you believe that people are molded into their sexuality rather than discovering what they enjoy and then doing that. You discovered that you liked girls. Were you molded into that by society or was it something that you felt innately?
I discovered I liked guys. My environment certainly was not in any way shape or form conducive to that conclusion. Everything about my environment and the person I was at the time would have certainly molded me to be heterosexual. Hell I must have spent the better part of a decade trying to be straight, to no avail, in part because I wanted to be "normal," didn't want to upset my family, wanted the grandkids and all that, wanted to follow my religion, yadda yadda yadda. Through it all, homosexuality just felt innately right. That feeling when I saw good looking guys walking down the street or in the locker room at school, or in the tight track and field spandex clothing never dissipated. In fact it grew as I became fully sexually aware. I'm sure you had the same feelings for girls as you became fully sexually aware.
Oh and fetishes are in a completely different category than orientations. Fetishes focus on objects for sexual gratification (handcuffs, whips, shoes, etc), not people. Fetishism is an extension of orientation, not an equal category.
So, is liking chocolate innate? Or is it molded? What about seafood?
If you grew up where you never saw fish, would you like it when exposed to it?
What about if you grew up in a fishing village and it was part of every meal?
Vegetarianism? Innate or molded?
Can you change your tastes? Can you grow to like what you once thought was distateful? Or grow to dislike what you once loved? (for example, hot dogs now make me ill, whereas as a kid I loved them)
Was I molded into heterosexuality? No, I believe its the natural order of procreation; without it life doesn't continue.
You show your formative life as anti-gay to show that it couldn't have molded you. My immediate thought was to question whether you suffer from "preacher's son/daughter syndrome".
Sorry, but I believe what I believe. I can see how you believe what you believe, though I tend to think its more out of need for self validation rather than any hard evidence. Of course, I fully recognize there's scant evidence behind my own beliefs.
Or, my alternate theory on homosexuality is that its "God's way" of culling the herd. Feel free to replace God with nature, if you so desire to interpret my feelings in an agnostic manner.
But, then again, this is the third, if not fourth discussion about your undeniable right to be gay and force acceptance of it on others.
Since, this is a thread on freedom of speech, lets contain the discussion to that.
Mfa: Sure, only the state can take away freedom of speech, _however_, there are laws in the US that prohibit hiring practices based on race, religion, (in some places) sexual orientation, etc. Though most states (texas included) is a "employment at will" state (meaning they can fire for any reason), no large corporation with deep pockets would fire anybody for expressing ideas outside of work, especially when they border on religious ideology.
If you grew up where you never saw fish, would you like it when exposed to it?
What about if you grew up in a fishing village and it was part of every meal?
Vegetarianism? Innate or molded?
Can you change your tastes? Can you grow to like what you once thought was distateful? Or grow to dislike what you once loved? (for example, hot dogs now make me ill, whereas as a kid I loved them)
Was I molded into heterosexuality? No, I believe its the natural order of procreation; without it life doesn't continue.
You show your formative life as anti-gay to show that it couldn't have molded you. My immediate thought was to question whether you suffer from "preacher's son/daughter syndrome".
Sorry, but I believe what I believe. I can see how you believe what you believe, though I tend to think its more out of need for self validation rather than any hard evidence. Of course, I fully recognize there's scant evidence behind my own beliefs.
Or, my alternate theory on homosexuality is that its "God's way" of culling the herd. Feel free to replace God with nature, if you so desire to interpret my feelings in an agnostic manner.
But, then again, this is the third, if not fourth discussion about your undeniable right to be gay and force acceptance of it on others.
Since, this is a thread on freedom of speech, lets contain the discussion to that.
Mfa: Sure, only the state can take away freedom of speech, _however_, there are laws in the US that prohibit hiring practices based on race, religion, (in some places) sexual orientation, etc. Though most states (texas included) is a "employment at will" state (meaning they can fire for any reason), no large corporation with deep pockets would fire anybody for expressing ideas outside of work, especially when they border on religious ideology.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
RussSchultz said:
Damnit...there's that word again!
RussSchultz said:
Food likes and dislikes are in many ways hard wired in the same way sexuality is. We have basic taste receptors and olfactory receptors that express themselves in many ways. We all have a general predilection toward bitter foods. We generally like sweet foods. These apparently formed in part through evolutionary factors. Bitter being poisonous, sweet being nutritious, etc.
There are many things that can change what we eat however, that goes beyond the sweet/bitter. Allergic reactions (peanuts, hot dogs, etc), philosophical beliefs (vegetarianism, etc), wanting to lose weight (cutting out sweets), etc etc etc. These factors are different however than the way in which we process sexuality in that many people still love the foods that make them sick or fat or go against their philosophical beliefs.
I wouldn't be surprised if that hot dog you hate today that makes you ill, really is some allergic reaction that formed. Do you really hate the taste of hot dogs, or the reaction that hot dogs give you? One of my friends in college absolutely loved cheese, but it always made him break out and gave him a pretty nasty bout of gas. Every time he promised himself he'd never eat cheese again cause it caused him so much pain, but he always ate it afterwards.
Comparing this particular facet of food likes/dislikes to sexuality would be more akin to barebacking and getting some painful STD like gonorrhea. Sure you could grow to hate barebacking because of the results, but wouldn't the barebacking still feel good and you would still enjoy it? Ok that was a far out tangent but it's getting late and I'm tired. anywho...
RussSchultz said:
I can procreate Russ. Does that make me beholden to form a life long relationship with a woman?
RussSchultz said:
I couldn't win either way. If I grow up in a very anti-gay life, I'm rebelling against that and I choose to be gay. If I grow up in a very pro-gay life, it was obviously the life style my parents introduced me to that led me astray. hehe.
RussSchultz said:
We all have a need to validate the reasons we do the things we think and do. That need for validation doesn't make what we do or do not do any less or more "good" and is a different discussion altogether.
RussSchultz said:
Or it could be that homosexuality was a necessary precursor to stabilize male dominated societies. It's a theory that some socio-scientists are parroting today. If you want to know more I can pull it out of another thread I first brought it up in.
RussSchultz said:
Hey you don't have to accept me being gay anymore than I have to accept you being straight. But just as long as that lack of acceptance doesn't extend to impinging on my life, then hey, more power to you.
RussSchultz said:
It depends on what that ideology entails. If it entails defamation of another group, then they could very well fire that person based on their anti-defamation employee policies. Granted they'll probably get sued, but it doesn't stop them from doing it.
Silent_One
Newcomer
Silent_One said:
Hi, Silent_One,
While I share your distain for Neo-Nazi's I have real quarrels with ideals that would negate their right to voice their opinions. Granted, these race haters are of no real service to any country. However, we ought to tolerate their dissent, just as we do for any other group. The idea behind Freedom of speech is that people be allowed to speak their thoughts and convictions so that they may be compared and weighed out. People must to be able to articulate their thoughts without fear of reprisals from the state. Yes that includes people we hate and disagree with utterly, otherwise you settle for thinking and politics that don't think outside the box, so to speak. Freedom of Speech is in all probability the single most important human right in the constitution and if you make a precedent ruling against that liberty mechanism it creates a situation where by other cases may be put in place against it and inadvertently against all. For example it may set a precedent where anyone whom is offended by another's convictions may take court actions against them. It truly is a slippery slope and once you embark on such politics where do you draw the line?
Instead what we ought to do is leave the right to Freedom of Speech alone. Let the citizens determine social mores and political aspirations by means of competing ideas what is good public policy and what is not. But the only way we can have such an environment is to restrict the powers of the state to effect what can be said publicly and what cannot. We must to keep in mind all the while for the sake of innate human freedom that free dialogue does not stand for freedom for the speech we consent to and it is as Hunter said if we agree with the speech it does not need protection. Free speech means shielding the speech we find hateful or even insulting. In truth the reason that free speech is in the constitution is because the creators of the constitution were wise enough to realize that in reality they cannot control the thoughts and opinions of people. Law that limit free speech are the sort of lawmaking is indicative of a controlling top down model. (Collectivist.) Free Speech is an innate primary right of humanity and there is no paper anywhere that can in reality take it away from individuals.
I have to laugh at MFA's veiled threat that there will be consequence to my speaking my opinion. I could only suppose that he means to ban me because of my opinions. Ironically he will only prove my point about Freedom of Speech in doing so. The only thing that can apply a consequence is the authority or state in charge of allowing for Freedom of Speech by taking it away, then who is next? Boy is that ever a prescription for tyranny. In the context of a simple web page message board it is really of little consequence and as opposed to exhilarating debate about real issues that matter there will be less disruption to what is argued. Everyone agree and move on, yawn. But in the larger political realm of the globe it is a considerably more serious consequence particularly in terms of human liberty. It is not that such lawmaking would ever be tolerated by all for ever or anything of the sort but rather it would seriously delimit individuals ability to effect their environment to an even greater extent but not entirely, that is impossible.
To criticize of human rights law making, its grounds or its aggressive advocates, has come to be considered as socially improper antiquated at best and at worst racist. Often if you speak out against Affirmative Action type legislation for example you are labeled and unfairly so, a racist. To speak against human rights is to blaspheme against Equality, the new established religion of our time. The appeal of human rights is essentially theological. In modern civilization, the pursuit of equality is an withered edition of past centuries craving for God. The religious revelation of Heaven has been substituted by a utopian delusion of an egalitarian society that can be achieved through charter law, human rights tribunals and legislated conduct. Freedom of speech is not included there in, particularly should someone disagree with absolutist morality of equality for all. Two hundred years ago, the perceptive Tocqueville documented the theological appeal of the concept of Equality he calculated that the democratic pursuit of equality would in the end would effect individual liberty. He was right. Infringements on Freedom of Speech in terms of constitutional precedent rulings would most definitely set in motion liberty killing state imposed laws. The modern utopian welfare state is just that. I oppose these proponents of these kinds of governments that would take the cause of Human rights over the right to Freedom of Speech, a primary right of any free people.
So as a reminder a prerequisite of a free society is that all can express their opinions without fear of state reprisals. Otherwise there is no freedom. Some have said that the state is the protector of Freedom of Speech but in the case where courts rule against it in anyway based on egalitarian principles of absolute equality because some were offended…[shakes head, roles eyes ..etc.] This sets precedent where by the state is the taker of Freedom of Speech, in such a case we need to remember that government needs to be told to just "shut up and sit down" else we become slaves to bureaucrats rather then them being our paid servants. Freedom of Speech is the single most important liberty… by a long shot.
Silent_One
Newcomer
Sabastian,
Just to make sure you understand......I agree with you. My post was to remind everyone that free speech must be protected, even the KKK's, the Neo-Nazis's, ....everyones. As the post said "Does the first amendment guarantee the right to express hate-filled and prejudice ideals? The US District Court said it did, and this is the way it has to be."
Just to make sure you understand......I agree with you. My post was to remind everyone that free speech must be protected, even the KKK's, the Neo-Nazis's, ....everyones. As the post said "Does the first amendment guarantee the right to express hate-filled and prejudice ideals? The US District Court said it did, and this is the way it has to be."
Natoma sexual orientation has never bene proven to be hardwired in the slightest. In fact I myself have demostrated why the bulk of research proclaiming such is bunk. Why do you keep aspousing sexuality as an innate inborn characteristic?
Well since you have never demonstrated how sexuality is hardwired i'll take then comment with a grain of salt.
However our taste can change. They can be altered. This is a fact. Much of a desire to eat is born from the hypothalamus. Our likes and dislikes can be changed easily by our exposure to certain types of food. Natoma i would say evolution in the sense you are viewing this has little or nothing to do with this. What you are suggesting is more of a intelligent observation by primitive cultures. Genes do not understand how things taste Natoma. Your mind does. Look at culture today! The variety of food is endless ranging from sweet to sour to bitter. Texture (which has almost as much if not as much to do with enjoyability) ranges provides as many examples. I find it hard to believe these likes and dislikes could be completely ingrained and unable to change
Well since you have never demonstrated how sexuality is hardwired i'll take then comment with a grain of salt.
However our taste can change. They can be altered. This is a fact. Much of a desire to eat is born from the hypothalamus. Our likes and dislikes can be changed easily by our exposure to certain types of food. Natoma i would say evolution in the sense you are viewing this has little or nothing to do with this. What you are suggesting is more of a intelligent observation by primitive cultures. Genes do not understand how things taste Natoma. Your mind does. Look at culture today! The variety of food is endless ranging from sweet to sour to bitter. Texture (which has almost as much if not as much to do with enjoyability) ranges provides as many examples. I find it hard to believe these likes and dislikes could be completely ingrained and unable to change
Legion said:
You haven't provided any research that would show that sexuality isn't hardwired Legion. Oh, the research that shows how gay men and women "change" after undergoing psychotherapy and intensive trials at christian camps? Yea.....
Legion said:
There's much empirical evidence to support this, as I've given time and time again. I'll probably end up restating this stuff anyways, so I'm all geared up for it.
Legion said:
I wasn't debating that. All I said was that we have a natural (quiet joe) inclination toward certain kinds of foods, based on evolutionarily learned responses (sweet is nutritious, bitter is poisonous, etc), and that inclination gets expressed in myriad ways. That in and of itself is what is hardwired. For instance, I used to eat Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches all day every day when I was a kid. Now I can only eat maybe one every once in a while. I still love taste, but I prefer different types of food and I don't like eating that same food over and over again. As you said, my palette has expanded and my tastes have as well. My liking that food hasn't changed, merely how much I like to sample it, based on my experiences, as you've stated.
There is a small but perceptible difference there.
One wonders if in the case of these neo-nazis, or similar cases, if freedom of speech has been impinged for fear of public distress. For instance, would a city be within its rights to deny the march of a black power group through a white supremacy town? Would a city be within its rights to deny the march of the KKK through Brownsville, NYC? What about the right of a pro-abortion/anti-gun group to march through a bible-belt fundamentalist anti-abortion town that also believes in owning guns?
While I would like to say that the cities would not have the right to block those marches, at what point does common sense for the "common good" override free speech? That's something I've never really given thought to, but that neo-nazi example made me think about it...
While I would like to say that the cities would not have the right to block those marches, at what point does common sense for the "common good" override free speech? That's something I've never really given thought to, but that neo-nazi example made me think about it...
Legion,
You seem happy to jump on Natoma whenever you get the chance, but you've never once offered up your own personal experiences wrt being bisexual (as you said you were a few threads back).
Do you do it because you watched too much QAF? Or how about because its the cool thing that all those raver-types are doing these days? Or perhaps you're innately attracted towards men? Have you had sex with a man? Have you been in a LTR with one? If so, what made you do it?
As you've said you're engaged, it'd seem you're the 'bi now straight later' type, but I find it amusing that you can dish out truckloads of criticism without giving up any support from your own (reported) bisexual personal life.
You seem happy to jump on Natoma whenever you get the chance, but you've never once offered up your own personal experiences wrt being bisexual (as you said you were a few threads back).
Do you do it because you watched too much QAF? Or how about because its the cool thing that all those raver-types are doing these days? Or perhaps you're innately attracted towards men? Have you had sex with a man? Have you been in a LTR with one? If so, what made you do it?
As you've said you're engaged, it'd seem you're the 'bi now straight later' type, but I find it amusing that you can dish out truckloads of criticism without giving up any support from your own (reported) bisexual personal life.
