The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Maccer_42]

Personally I think sending someone to jail for an offensive comment is a bit ridiculous (depending on the situation), regardless of how offensive the comments were. I just posted that artical to show Daniel that people can be sent to jail for offensive comments. (In the UK at least)

Depending on what his facebook account displayed as some people chose to display "I work for so-and-so company or attent so-and-so college" he should have lost his job or position at college / university at worst, if he had either.

Also depending on his privacy settings either only his friends list could see the offensive joke, in which case they could chose to de-friend/block him. And if it was a public or open account it means you would have had to specifically search for his name to see the offensive comment in order to be offended (which I bet millions lots of people did, for some odd reason some people chose to seek out and find things they find offensive in order to be offended)

But if he was specifically sending this offensive joke to multipull individuals after they had blocked him then he deserved to be arrested and sentanced to jail.

If people seek out others to cause offensive to them for any reason they deserve to be punished. If people seek out things they find offensive in order to just be offened then they need to stop looking for things they find offensive.

 

[Tired Tyres]

We actually do that in the UK... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed

Did do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/cps-guidelines-social-media

Not so much now.

 

[Villain]

Here's post #2533:

I said something in the same street before as well, about Romney. (I actually was speaking without thinking lot and didnt really mean it). I HATE people that are homophobic, and I really think there should be done something about it.

But locking up won't help. Maybe more people should step up in favor of homosexual equality (and overall equality), so these narrowminded people don't get the wrong example by media and stuff?

Hate is a strong word, kiddo. Many people who are truly homophobic are more ignorant than bad.

 

[Gonales]

Personally I think sending someone to jail for an offensive comment is a bit ridiculous (depending on the situation), regardless of how offensive the comments were. I just posted that artical to show Daniel that people can be sent to jail for offensive comments. (In the UK at least)

I don't. I thought the punishment was quite deserved.

Hate is a strong word, kiddo. Many people who are truly homophobic are more ignorant than bad.

Please don't call me kiddo. (For the 'funny' people among you: Im Not offended, just don't like being called kiddo )

To be honest, if people suppress others on purpose they are bad. (Yes, I know you guys see limiting Freedom of Speech as the same thing, I don't.) And there should be done something about it. But I think the best thing people actually could do is make education more strict or something.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't. I thought the punishment was quite deserved.



Please don't call me kiddo. (For the 'funny' people among you: Im Not offended, just don't like being called kiddo )

To be honest, if people suppress others on purpose they are bad. (Yes, I know you guys see limiting Freedom of Speech as the same thing, I don't.) And there should be done something about it. But I think the best thing people actually could do is make education more strict or something.

They arrested him for his own protection from the mobs outside his home. Jail time is just a waste of money and time. If anything the kid needs a harsh verbal reprimanding from the legal system and from his parents. Maybe even community service. But jail? Leave that to the robbers and murderers.

Education can only do so much. People would benefit from getting tougher skin and a pair of balls.

 

[Daniel]

Making education more "strict" won't help it. Telling people that "gay is good" and everything and forcing them to write lines about it or having detention for disagreeing with it is indoctrination. Which is the exact same thing homophobics do. Both sides have different opinions, and both have their own facts to back it up.

It won't work.

 

[Villain]

To be honest, if people suppress others on purpose they are bad. (Yes, I know you guys see limiting Freedom of Speech as the same thing, I don't.) And there should be done something about it. But I think the best thing people actually could do is make education more strict or something.

Perhaps this education will include the why's and how's of hate and discrimination. You say that you HATE people who are homophobic.

So you HATE Christians, Jews, and Muslims? That is a large swath of people.

 

[Danny]

Perhaps this education will include the why's and how's of hate and discrimination. You say that you HATE people who are homophobic.

So you HATE Christians, Jews, and Muslims? That is a large swath of people.

You can't inherently include every Christian, every Jew and every Muslim in that statement.

You're making sweeping statements based on an assumption that everyone is the same.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

To be honest, if people suppress others on purpose they are bad. (Yes, I know you guys see limiting Freedom of Speech as the same thing, I don't.) And there should be done something about it. But I think the best thing people actually could do is make education more strict or something.

So you're against the idea of purposely suppressing people... Except your proposed idea of purposely suppressing people?
Just because you don't see your ridiculous suggestion as suppression doesn't make it anything other than just that. Don't expect people to accept such a hypocritical stance without (rightly) questioning the lack of logic.

Still waiting for any sort of response for my last post...

 

[Gonales]

So you're against the idea of purposely suppressing people... Except your proposed idea of purposely suppressing people?
Just because you don't see your ridiculous suggestion as suppression doesn't make it anything other than just that. Don't expect people to accept such a hypocritical stance without (rightly) questioning the lack of logic.

Still waiting for any sort of response for my last post...

Have fun waiting I deliberately wrote you guys wouldn't agree with me on limiting FoS... Which means I knew there would be reactions like yours. What is the point of even replying to you if I already know what you're gonna say anyway?

 

[Joel]

Have fun waiting I deliberately wrote you guys wouldn't agree with me on limiting FoS... Which means I knew there would be reactions like yours. What is the point of even replying to you if I already know what you're gonna say anyway?

The point is justifying your opinions with a logical argument rather than sticking your fingers in your ears because it hurts your feelings. People disagree with your propsed limitations on speech because they are wholly illogical, hypocritical ("I'm an atheist, I hate religion"), and impossible to enforce. It's fine to hold an opinion that people should be more polite, but when you start proposing to put that into legislation, that's where the problem lies.

 

[Gonales]

The point is justifying your opinions with a logical argument rather than sticking your fingers in your ears because it hurts your feelings. People disagree with your propsed limitations on speech because they are wholly illogical, hypocritical ("I'm an atheist, I hate religion"), and impossible to enforce. It's fine to hold an opinion that people should be more polite, but when you start proposing to put that into legislation, that's where the problem lies.

Not really. Because you know what? Because of people that disagree with me there will never be such a law. So what is the problem? :/

 

[Tired Tyres]

Have fun waiting I deliberately wrote you guys wouldn't agree with me on limiting FoS... Which means I knew there would be reactions like yours. What is the point of even replying to you if I already know what you're gonna say anyway?

Because placing a limit on Freedom of Speech is an oxymoron?

 

[McLaren]

You can't inherently include every Christian, every Jew and every Muslim in that statement.

You're making sweeping statements based on an assumption that everyone is the same.

Though I don't know Villain's style of debate, I would assume from what I do know that he meant that more in a sarcastic tone as those religions do seem to be the most opinionated about gay people.

 

[Tornado]

What is the point of even replying to you if I already know what you're gonna say anyway?

Good question.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So Gonales, you honestly don't see how your argument is hypocritical?

 

[homeforsummer]

(Yes, I know you guys see limiting Freedom of Speech as the same thing, I don't.)

It's fairly black and white this one: It means we're right, and you're wrong.

Any limit to freedom of speech means it isn't freedom.

Whether your thoughts are vindicated by us disagreeing with you or not is irrelevant. We're disagreeing because you apparently don't understand the concept of freedom of speech, and don't understand that limiting it curtails that freedom. You're welcome to hold an opinion on it, but it doesn't make you right.

 

[Gonales]

It's fairly black and white this one: It means we're right, and you're wrong.

Any limit to freedom of speech means it isn't freedom.

Yeah right, dream on. Just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right. (Didn't say I think the same. Already said a lot of times, I agree to disagree, but perhaps you can't yet? :/)

Whether your thoughts are vindicated by us disagreeing with you or not is irrelevant. We're disagreeing because you apparently don't understand the concept of freedom of speech, and don't understand that limiting it curtails that freedom. You're welcome to hold an opinion on it, but it doesn't make you right.

You guys are disagreeing because you have a different opinion. Fine. Guess what? I KNEW that already! And I know what Freedom of Speech is, but I don't think there should be complete freedom.

So Gonales, you honestly don't see how your argument is hypocritical?

I see your reasoning behind them, but as stated before, I don't follow your line of reasoning.

Though I don't know Villain's style of debate, I would assume from what I do know that he meant that more in a sarcastic tone as those religions do seem to be the most opinionated about gay people.

We could do with less sarcasm in this thread, like I stated before. Sarcasm always has a negative impact on discussions.

Because placing a limit on Freedom of Speech is an oxymoron?

Yeah, you want me to rephrase? Restricted speech ftw!

 

[Zenith]

I find the phrase "I am homosexual" or equivalent to be offensive. Restrict it.

 

[homeforsummer]

You guys are disagreeing because you have a different opinion. Fine. Guess what? I KNEW that already! And I know what Freedom of Speech is, but I don't think there should be complete freedom.

No.

We're disagreeing because we know the correct definition of "freedom of speech". It's nothing to do with opinion. Only your opinion is being raised here - in your opinion, free speech can be restricted. Since this is patently bollocks, it isn't a valid opinion.

It's very, very simple. If you knew what FoS is, then you wouldn't be suggesting that we restrict it. That's a complete contradiction of the very meaning of the term.

If you think some speech should be restricted, then stop using the term "Freedom of speech". And we've already gone over what's wrong with you thinking that some speech should be restricted ad nauseum. As someone who values her freedom to be gay I find it astounding that you'd be so happy to restrict someone else's freedom to do something else.

I also find it odd that in your previous dismissal of one of my responses from a few pages ago, you didn't pick up on the bit I thought you'd agree with: That I personally don't use words like "gay" and "faggot" beyond their primary meanings, because I wouldn't want to cause offense. When I choose what words not to use, that isn't limiting my freedom of speech like you're so keen to advocate - instead, I'm exercising my freedom to use and not use certain words.

If you had any sense you'd be pushing for a similarly educated, progressive approach, rather than restricting speech.

 

[Gonales]

Frankly, Homeforsummer, my 'sense' got numbed as pages in the thread passed. I told you SO many times how, why and what that I'm tired of it. Every single paragraph you typed in your last post holds answers in previous posts of mine.

If you had read my last post, I had made it quite clear that if you guys are being 'funny' over the word freedom, Ill just use a different word. Read it.

3rd Paragraph: Yes it should be restricted. Not to facts, but to Opinions. To extremist opinions would be best. So yes, I know that my former statement to lock up people that are offensive wouldn't be allowed to be published, but so what? I'm happy to sacrifice that.

Don't judge me or my sense, you don't know me. Thanks.

I find the phrase "I am homosexual" or equivalent to be offensive. Restrict it.

Very nice try, but as stated before, such a thing is a fact. Not an opinion. Besides guys... Isn't it illegal to say the Holocaust didn't happen? First example of a limit to freedom of speech.

 

[Tesla]

Why should it be restricted? Who determines what "extremist" opinions are? Do you think that the people that hold extremist opinions from your point of view think that they themselves are holding extremist opinions? Quite frankly, you're holding an extremist opinion by stipulating that we should restrict freedom of speech in any way, shape or form because you can't handle people who are mean, unkind or merely hold opposing views to your own.

P.S Would you say the statement "God exists" to be an opinion or a fact? No matter what you say here, someone is going to be offended.

 

[Gonales]

Why should it be restricted? Who determines what "extremist" opinions are? Do you think that the people that hold extremist opinions from your point of view think that they themselves are holding extremist opinions? Quite frankly, you're holding an extremist opinion by stipulating that we should restrict freedom of speech in any way, shape or form because you can't handle people who are mean, unkind or merely hold opposing views to your own.

P.S Would you say the statement "God exists" to be an opinion or a fact? No matter what you say here, someone is going to be offended.

I would say it is an opinion. There is no viable proof of such an existence. Yes, I know my opinion is considered 'extremist' but I don't really care. And it's not for me only, that I want these kind of rules. That seems to be a popular misunderstanding in this thread as well.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I would say it is an opinion. There is no viable proof of such an existence. Yes, I know my opinion is considered 'extremist' but I don't really care. And it's not for me only, that I want these kind of rules. That seems to be a popular misunderstanding in this thread as well.

So basically you want to stop your own right to voice your opinion. Is that correct?

 

[Tornado]

There is no way that you aren't doing this on purpose now.

 

[ShobThaBob]

There is no way that you aren't doing this on purpose now.

It was humorous a while ago. Now it's bordering on the "hrm, do I want to block this person" levels of silly. Freedom of Speech minus the Freedom part is not Freedom of Speech. It's Restriction of Speech.

I am vehemently against of the right to state my opinions that others might find offensive. It's wrong that I'm allowed to say the things that I do and I would welcome a government that would make what I'm doing against the law.

I think that sums it up.

 

[Bigbazz]

Reading the first page of this thread shows how much the world has changed in the last 10 years, in regards to this subject.

 

[massradia1]

My view:

If you want to be gay, keep the touchy business at home.

 

[arora]

Reading the first page of this thread shows how much the world has changed in the last 10 years, in regards to this subject.

I think the attitude in the U.S. has changed a fair amount in that time. Personally I will always consider it wrong, then again I'm one of those crazy christians known to say things like "hate the sin not the sinner" I have more compassion than some.

-----------

I think harassment laws in the states are good enough tbh, it's one thing to say 'gay' in a gt5 lobby to describe a crash, it's entirely a different story to perhaps, 'burn crosses'. We also have hate crime penalties tacked onto many things like assault(agree with them or not), the additional reinforcement is nothing to laugh at.

As FK said, we tolerate things like the westburo church people, not because we agree with them, rather silencing them would eventually silence all of us. It's not a very hard concept to grasp.

There is zero difference in learning how to tolerate gay from christian from funny bell bottom guy who wares socks with sandals(It comes from example not force). To me I just say, do not trespass, so I have to ask where is the crime and who is the accuser. Rude is rude, most everyone is considered at one point or another.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

 

[DK]

My view:

If you want to be gay, keep the touchy business at home.

Would you apply the same to straight couples?