|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 09/28/2007 : 09:56:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
| For once, Bill and I are in agreement. |
That's not true. I remember a while back you agreeing with me that homosexuality did not appear to be natural. If you recall this got MARF all is a tissy and she went on and on about your age and rural location being the main factor behind your observance. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 09:58:46 [Permalink]
|
Or they could just deceive the voters and run as something they are not. I am sure you would love it if the man you voted for turned out to be a fraud.
|
Isn't that the purpose of elections? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 10:15:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
|
| For once, Bill and I are in agreement. |
That's not true. I remember a while back you agreeing with me that homosexuality did not appear to be natural. |
Filthy said that homosexuality isn't natural? Really? You got a link for that?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 10:32:22 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by furshur |
| A wolf in sheeps clothing? Sounds like your answer is in your question. |
Right, the voters are being deceived.
| They are hiding something that is nobodys business. |
They should know by now that running for public office will cause their business to be exposed, whatever their "business" happens to be. And getting arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom sort of outs yourself, wouldn't you say?
| These guys might think they have something to offer but if their sexual orientation were revealed they would not have the opportunity. |
So, if a heterosexual man from San Francisco believes he has some good ideas it would be no problem for him to run for office as a active homosexual, while hiding his real identity and sexual orientation, because he felt he had a better chance at getting the seat by deceiving the people into believing that he was something he was not? How would this be any different from Craig?
| Now that said, a person who persecutes homosexuals and has homosexual encounters is a hypocrite. |
First, a person who has homosexual encounters is a homosexual. So your statement should read, "A person who persecutes homosexuals, yet is a homosexual himself, is a hypocrite." In which I would agree. However, this discussion has never had anything to do with homosexuals persecuting each other. My point was on the obvious deception of this homosexual to his voting base for the simple fact of holding on to his power, in spite of the fact that most in this state would not had voted for Craig if they knew then who he was. And that is a deceiver first and a homosexual second. Again, the voters have the legal right to vote for who they want in their district. His attempt to thwart the democratic process through fraud and deception is what has made his voters the maddest, I do believe.
| Just out of curiosity Bill is a 'swinging homosexual' different from a regular homosexual? |
I would place soliciting sex from a stranger in a public restroom under the swinger category and his (the swinger)chances at catching STD's, including AIDS, is much higher. So yes, there is a differance.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 10:35:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
|
| For once, Bill and I are in agreement. |
That's not true. I remember a while back you agreeing with me that homosexuality did not appear to be natural. |
Filthy said that homosexuality isn't natural? Really? You got a link for that?
|
He said that it did not appear natural. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 10:41:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
First, a person who has homosexual encounters is a homosexual. So your statement should read, "A person who persecutes homosexuals, yet is a homosexual himself, is a hypocrite." In which I would agree. However, this discussion has never had anything to do with homosexuals persecuting each other. My point was on the obvious deception of this homosexual to his voting base for the simple fact of holding on to his power, in spite of the fact that most in this state would not had voted for Craig if they knew then who he was. And that is a deceiver first and a homosexual second. Again, the voters have the legal right to vote for who they want in their district. His attempt to thwart the democratic process through fraud and deception is what has made his voters the maddest, I do believe. |
Having said that, yes, I would be just as upset and would not vote again for a politican who ran under the "family values" banner and was caught with a hooker and a bag of coke in some hotel room. No differance. My vote for this guy would have been based now on fraud and deception in my humble opinion. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 11:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Bill is of course correct in that we should expect honesty from our politicians, no matter who they are or what their platform.
The question then becomes: should the public expect to know what goes on in a candidate's bedroom?
I would say that if a person is qualified and competent to govern, then it shouldn't matter what legal activities they engage in at home.
I think most of the U.S. population might agree in principle, but not in practice. Bill, after all, suggests that even if Craig were honest, he couldn't get elected in his state because of his alleged homosexuality.
On the other hand, I see few people making their voting decisions based on the candidates' hobbies, which have just as much relevance to their jobs as their sexual preferences.
Bill, given a choice between two unmarried male candidates for your state senate who share your political ideals on the big issues and are otherwise identically qualified for office, would you vote for the one who answered a question about his sexuality by announcing that he is looking for a nice lady to marry (candidate "A"), or would you vote for the one who politely told the questioner that it's none of his business (candidate "B")? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 11:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Bill is of course correct in that we should expect honesty from our politicians, no matter who they are or what their platform.
|
Yes, but if these politicians are married with children, then this dishonesty goes far beyond the "this guy lied to get my vote" spin that Bill is trying to put on it. These guys' whole lives are exercises in denial. We're talking deep, deep psychological repression here. A repression caused by being raised and indoctrinated in a culture that views homosexuality as shameful, a sin, and something to be overcome by force of will. Bill argues that homosexual rights are separate from the issue of these disgraced politicians' honesty. I disagree. It's the bigotry and oppression homosexuals face which leads to this sort of repression, denial, and subterfuge. One is a direct result of the other.
Bill wants to argue, paradoxically, that since in today's enlightened age homosexuals do not face discrimination, they should out themselves so that he may more easily discriminate against them. It is a self-defeating argument.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/28/2007 11:43:36 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 11:41:59 [Permalink]
|
| One is a direct result of the other. |
But we need to blame the sinner. Otherwise, the idea of sin falls apart.
Otherwise, it's those that believe in gods and sin that are in denial, lying to themselves. What kind of world would that be? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:12:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Talk about evil, evil hypocrisy. Senator "Potty-Sex" Craig has returned to the Senate. His first act was to vote against the Matthew Shepard Act, "which expands federal hate crimes laws to include violence based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability, and other factors." The Huffington Post has more.
|
Is it hypocracy though?
Can't he be gay and/or love descreet secret bathroom man on man sex and still not support the expanded hate crimes legislation? Seems to me the only way to legitimately claim hypocracy is if he's voted against legislation to make secret man on man bathroom sex legal. To my knowledge that's not covered in this act. Likewise he's not hypocritical by voting against same sex marriage unless he would like to marry another man (But I think he'd prefer to play the field, if you know what I mean  ).
Of course if he ever speaks out against infidelity or homosexuality in general, or secret man on man bathroom sex specifically, then he will be a hypocrite. But voting against this act doesn't appear to be hypocracy. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:13:08 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Bill is of course correct in that we should expect honesty from our politicians, no matter who they are or what their platform. |
I hope we all can agree on this.
| The question then becomes: should the public expect to know what goes on in a candidate's bedroom? |
Had Craig kept this in his bedroom then this discussion would not even be taking place. The problem is that Craig, by his own freewill, took this out of the bedroom and into the restroom. Now it just so happened that this was a public restroom. Low and behold a scandal.
| I would say that if a person is qualified and competent to govern, then it shouldn't matter what legal activities they engage in at home. |
For the most I think I agree. But of the three politicians that come to mind for being recently outed as a closet homosexual all were outed for "activities" that took place outside of their home, legal or illegal. Craig was hooking up in public restrooms. The guy from NJ was hooking up in motel rooms and apparently pi$$ed his lover off who then outed him. And the clown who was flirting with male interns was doing so at work. All of these guys outed themselves through stupidity. It wasn't like they had to pass a litmus test before running for office. They outed themselves.
| I think most of the U.S. population might agree in principle, but not in practice. Bill, after all, suggests that even if Craig were honest, he couldn't get elected in his state because of his alleged homosexuality. |
It really doesn't matter what I suggest, the people of Craig's state are the ones who get to decide who will represent them in office. And as we all agreed (I think) they should be able to go through this elective process without the politicians deceiving them and giving them a false impression of who they really are just to appease the voting block.
| On the other hand, I see few people making their voting decisions based on the candidates' hobbies, which have just as much relevance to their jobs as their sexual preferences. |
Again, if they would have kept their hobbies and their sexual preferences in their bedroom then this would not be a conversation. One was arrested in a public restroom, one was outed by a spurned lover, and one was flirting with teenagers at work. This is not keeping it in the bedroom. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube it ain't going back in.
| Bill, given a choice between two unmarried male candidates for your state senate who share your political ideals on the big issues and are otherwise identically qualified for office, would you vote for the one who answered a question about his sexuality by announcing that he is looking for a nice lady to marry (candidate "A"), or would you vote for the one who politely told the questioner that it's none of his business (candidate "B")? |
Under your scenario it would be a flip of the coin. But now, what if candidate (A) 9 months after the election is arrested in a men's public restroom engaging in sex acts? If I voted for (A) I am now pi$$ed as all get out. Should I not be?
1. I now think (A) is a deceiver and a liar
2. I now know (A) is a homosexual, which goes against many of my basic beliefs, and may have swayed my original vote. And as a legal voter in this country that is my right. Just as it would be the right of the homosexual to not vote for me for claiming to be a Christian. He would have every right to do so. So goes democracy.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:23:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
|
| For once, Bill and I are in agreement. |
That's not true. I remember a while back you agreeing with me that homosexuality did not appear to be natural. If you recall this got MARF all is a tissy and she went on and on about your age and rural location being the main factor behind your observance.
|
I do not recall stating this, Bill. I have stated that more and more the scientific evidence is showing that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than a "choice." I have also stated that it's not something I'd like to be involved in. Makes me feel a little queasy -- I have never been comfortable around homosexuals.
What's "natural," anyway? If homosexuality is indeed genetic as the science is showing, is that not a quirk of nature? Of course, there's no procreation involved in it, so it's sort of an evolutionary blank, and I suppose that one might call it unatural from that point of view, but as for the species as a whole it makes no difference at all due to homosexuals being way in the minority.
Anyhow, where and when did I state that "homosexuality did not appear to be natural?" I think that you might have misread some statement of mine.
Y'know, this is kinda funny. I sometimes wonder about those who rant about the "choice" of homosexuality. Does it really appear so attractive to them that they have had to make a choice?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:37:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I have stated that more and more the scientific evidence is showing that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than a "choice." |
Of course it's a choice. Homosexuals can, and are expected to by God, deny their evil urges. Like Job, God has given homosexuals a very special challenge in their lives. It's a gift really; an opportunity to prove the strength of their Faith that most of us never get. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:40:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Bill wants to argue, paradoxically, that since in today's enlightened age homosexuals do not face discrimination, they should out themselves so that he may more easily discriminate against them. It is a self-defeating argument.
|
Please spare me the poor persecuted homosexual rant, HH. Most TV shows today are pro-homosexual, most big cities are pro-homosexual, or at least have big homosexual communities within them. Most of the homosexuals I know are very well off and have nice paying jobs. Just because a certain amount of the population disapproves of their sexual preferences does not, by default, equal mass atrocities.
Heck, most of the homosexuals I know are more intolerant of me and my beliefs then I am of theirs. To them anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is persecuting them. Of course their intolerance of anything other then full acceptance of homosexuality is brushed off and they are blinded to the fact that they, many times, are more intolerant then the ones who they claim are "persecuting" them.
If by simply not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle makes me a bigot then they are just as much a bigot for not agreeing with my Christian life style. Shoot, I am tolerant of homosexuals even if I don't agree with them. Many of them can not say the same about their tolerance of me.
And that is your problem HH. Anybody who does not agree with you verbatim is an intolerant bigot. While you not agreeing with someone is just your "enlightenment thinking." Oh brother... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 12:40:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I hope we all can agree on this. |
No matter what you say, there's always someone who'll disagree or worse, take offense.| Had Craig kept this in his bedroom then this discussion would not even be taking place. The problem is that Craig, by his own freewill, took this out of the bedroom and into the restroom. Now it just so happened that this was a public restroom. Low and behold a scandal. |
Yes, and I'm pretty sure that most will agree that public dalliances are fair game for the public. That's why it wasn't the question.| Bill, given a choice between two unmarried male candidates for your state senate who share your political ideals on the big issues and are otherwise identically qualified for office, would you vote for the one who answered a question about his sexuality by announcing that he is looking for a nice lady to marry (candidate "A"), or would you vote for the one who politely told the questioner that it's none of his business (candidate "B")? |
Under your scenario it would be a flip of the coin. |
Well, that answer, Bill, is actually a pleasant surprise. But given that knowledge of a person's sexuality "may have swayed" your vote, I suspect that if "B" were instead openly gay it wouldn't have been a coin toss, would it?| Just as it would be the right of the homosexual to not vote for me for claiming to be a Christian. |
Why would one do so? What does your Christianity have to do with your competence to govern? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Craig returns, 1st votes against hate crime act
