Question for those who believe homosexuality is immoral.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by Tyr

beat them near death and disown

Dear Tyr's Government

Please send social services to Tyr's domicile and ensure he has no children if he does please place them in protective custody immediately.

Thankyou.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

And this is another sad example of how we as a society have let our morals stoop below what it was before

How humourless you really are.

Do you really think I am mailing off spare women to Sunstone?

*Just get in the box woman, Fedex will be here in a minute, here's some sandwiches and some bottled water, be nice to Mr Sunstone*

[Tau]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Wrong, one can have a behavior without being genetically predisposed to it due to enviroment.

Of course at the same time just because someone is genetically predisposed does not mean they lose Volition.

Behavioral choice is different than genetic predisposition.

Are you gay madhatter?
Do you catch yourself thinking 'Now he has a nice butt'?
Because if not, then you can't possibly know what you are talking about.

I actually suspect you are bisexual or gay, the most ardent anti homosexuals I have ever met have turned out to be gay.

Its ok madhatter God will still love you...

I still love you...you silly goose.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

And this is another sad example of how we as a society have let our morals stoop below what it was before.

Do you actually think that the people on this Forum are so utterly stupid they will believe your miserable attempt to turn my joke into a serious statement? I think your apparent belief you can hoodwink people with such a transparent ploy speaks volumes about your contempt for the people who participate on this Forum. Maybe it's time you moved on, Madhatter. You might never appreciate it, but the people here are better than you think.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Tau

Are you gay madhatter?
Do you catch yourself thinking 'Now he has a nice butt'?
Because if not, then you can't possibly know what you are talking about.

I actually suspect you are bisexual or gay, the most ardent anti homosexuals I have ever met have turned out to be gay.

Its ok madhatter God will still love you...

I still love you...you silly goose.

you're silly. in no way do i have any homosexual desires, thanks, I have enough heterosexual desires i have to keep in check since i'm married =)

everyone tries to use this statement and it boggles my mind. branding people who believe that homosexuality is not normal as either homohpobes or "in the closet", It's a pathetic attempt really.

All i have asserted on this forum and thread are my own views, and i constantly get attacked for it as if having my own personal views are "wrong" somehow. I have not called anyone names, i have not made any personal attacks and it's rediculus to see you all stoop to that level to try to push me out of this thread.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

you're silly. in no way do i have any homosexual desires, thanks, I have enough heterosexual desires i have to keep in check since i'm married =)

everyone tries to use this statement and it boggles my mind. branding people who believe that homosexuality is not normal as either homohpobes or "in the closet", It's a pathetic attempt really.

All i have asserted on this forum and thread are my own views, and i constantly get attacked for it as if having my own personal views are "wrong" somehow. I have not called anyone names, i have not made any personal attacks and it's rediculus to see you all stoop to that level to try to push me out of this thread.

But you are wrong dearest....and your anti homosexuality is exceptionally pathetic.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

you're silly. in no way do i have any homosexual desires, thanks, I have enough heterosexual desires i have to keep in check since i'm married =)

everyone tries to use this statement and it boggles my mind. branding people who believe that homosexuality is not normal as either homohpobes or "in the closet", It's a pathetic attempt really.

All i have asserted on this forum and thread are my own views, and i constantly get attacked for it as if having my own personal views are "wrong" somehow. I have not called anyone names, i have not made any personal attacks and it's rediculus to see you all stoop to that level to try to push me out of this thread.

Your beliefs are infringing on anothers freedom for equality which in my country is unjust as all men and women were created equally and should be granted the same rights as anyone else.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press, was ratified in 1791. It was in full legal effect in 1844.

Nauvoo Expositor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apart from its ethical implications, there has been some debate about whether the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was legal. At the time, the United States Constitution did not prohibit states and local governments from infringing the freedom of the press. This First Amendment protection only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868, and U.S. courts did not consistently enforce the First Amendment against states and localities until about 1931.
Thus, whether or not the destruction of the press was legal depends primarily on the laws of the state of Illinois and the Nauvoo Charter. Among the rights enacted in the 1818 Constitution of Illinois were a prohibition against ex post facto laws[6] and a provision for the freedom of the press.[7] It is clear that the city of Nauvoo's actions against the Expositor violated the Illinois constitution's freedom-of-press provision. This provision read as follows:
"22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. "23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23). The destruction may also have violated Illinois' prohibition against ex post facto laws. Even without a specific ordinance, the city of Nauvoo could have tried to rely upon the existing common law doctrines of nuisance and libel, but it is doubtful whether they were applicable. The city might also have acted under the common law doctrine of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for public use. Such a taking, however, would have required, under the Illinois "Takings Clause", that the taking be approved by the Illinois general assembly, and that just compensation be given.[8]

[edit] Oaks' analysis

A detailed legal analysis of the Nauvoo City Council's actions was undertaken by Dallin H. Oaks, then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.[9] Oaks opined that while the destruction of the Expositor's printing press was legally questionable, under the law of the time the newspaper certainly could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council. As a result, Oaks concludes that while under contemporaneous law it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy, or "abate," the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press itself was probably outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.[10]