Ron Brown issue/discussion wonderfully articulated...

[YellowDent#2]

Stryker really makes some sense here, especially with this line:

"They (Wojciechowski,Huffington Post, et al) criticize him for using his job as a platform to oppose the widening of anti-discrimination ordinances to include homosexuals even as they use their own jobs as platforms to promote the widening of anti-discrimination ordinances to include homosexuals."


http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/conten...m-of-Ron-Brown

[RedBlack&Blue]

Ron Brown does not speak for Christians or Christianity. He speaks for Ron Brown.

An opinion on an anti-discrimination ordinance has nothing to do with Faith.

Ron Brown may believe that homosexuality is a sin, but there are many Christians who don't agree with him. Of course, there are many who do.

Either way, discriminating against any group is wrong. Homosexuality will continue with or without Ron Brown's opinion. However, too many opinions such as his has allowed a group of people to be discriminated against.

And yes, they are a distinct group. We made them so by ostracizing them in a messed up interpretation of the Bible.


PS -- Mods, shouldn't this be in the Cafe?

[ChitownHusker]

Yeah, I am going to shuttle this one to the Cafe -- one thread related to RB's non-football advocacy efforts is more than enough for the Football forum.

[Huskers57]

Yeah, I am going to shuttle this one to the Cafe -- one thread related to RB's non-football advocacy efforts is more than enough for the Football forum.

really? can't handle the information overload?

[RedBlack&Blue]

really? can't handle the information overload?

A few of the regular posters over there jumped in on a RB thread. I knew RP was on vacation when he didn't jump in and skewer the newbies.

[hskrdavey]

.......Either way, discriminating against any group is wrong. Homosexuality will continue with or without Ron Brown's opinion. However, too many opinions such as his has allowed a group of people to be discriminated against.

And yes, they are a distinct group. We made them so by ostracizing them in a messed up interpretation of the Bible.


PS -- Mods, shouldn't this be in the Cafe?

So if child molesters (a group of people with a sexual preference) are found to be "born with" that preference.....which some say they "are" born with it and cant "help" it.......they should not be discriminated against?

[Showman]

So if child molesters (a group of people with a sexual preference) are found to be "born with" that preference.....which some say they "are" born with it and cant "help" it.......they should not be discriminated against?

That's what you call a false analogy.

[RedBlack&Blue]

That's what you call a false analogy.

What he said.

[RedBlack&Blue]

So if child molesters (a group of people with a sexual preference) are found to be "born with" that preference.....which some say they "are" born with it and cant "help" it.......they should not be discriminated against?

Ignorant post. Just plain ignorant.

If you can't distinguish between a crime against a child and sex between consenting adults, you got issues.

[ThotDoc]

Ignorant post. Just plain ignorant.

If you can't distinguish between a crime against a child and sex between consenting adults, you got issues.

Whether you think it should be or not, isn't sodomy still a crime in some states?

[Huskers57]

A few of the regular posters over there jumped in on a RB thread.

guilty.

[Huskers57]

Isn't sodomy still a crome in some states?

[RedBlack&Blue]

Whether you think it should be or not, isn't sodomy still a crime in some states?

Wouldn't know. Google it.

If there are, they're probably enforced about as much as laws pertaining to buggies and horses.

[cm husker]

Whether you think it should be or not, isn't sodomy still a crime in some states?

If those statutes remain on the books, I don't believe they are enforceable anymore.

[ThotDoc]

oops.

[cm husker]

So if child molesters (a group of people with a sexual preference) are found to be "born with" that preference.....which some say they "are" born with it and cant "help" it.......they should not be discriminated against?

Is this a serious comparison?

[ThotDoc]

Is this a serious comparison?

I'm not sure if it was or not, but perhaps the point is that societal mores have changed over time (eg. homosexuality) and perhaps one should be careful about certain generalizations about what is perceived as aberrant or not. Homosexulaity was perceived as aberrant by most and now perhaps not by most. Davey may have been making the point of what happens if our society continue to morph in such a way that sex with children is more mainstream.

[Huskers57]

oops.

all is good in the neighborhood.

[Showman]

Is this a serious comparison?

There are people who still cling to these kinds of comparisons, "people will be marrying their dogs!," etc. The only one that sparks an interesting/legitimate discussion is the comparison to plural marriage, such as that practiced by some Mormons. Obviously the cases of coercion and abuse involved in some of the more sensational instances publicized make for more of davey's style of parallel, but I have read several pieces over the years that make a pretty good case for those consenting adults, much like gay consenting adults, to marry as they see fit. But yes, the rest is rubbish.

[Showman]

I'm not sure if it was or not, but perhaps the point is that societal mores have changed over time (eg. homosexuality) and perhaps one should be careful about certain generalizations about what is perceived as aberrant or not. Homosexulaity was perceived as aberrant by most and now perhaps not by most. Davey may have been making the point of what happens if our society continue to morph in such a way that sex with children is more mainstream.

I don't think that will ever happen, though.