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?
Originally Posted by hskrdavey
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?
Take your blinders off people. davey is not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals. He's contending the statement that no group should be discriminated against. Agree or disagree with that but don't get on his case because you come to the table predisposed to voice your anti-homophobia.
...and at what point do we close our minds and finally say to ourselves....ok...that's probably crossing the line as a society???
You draw the line at consent. You don't criminalize behavior because it is considered by some to be sinful. You have to have a secular, non-religious basis for criminalizing behavior, and there is no such basis when it comes to homosexuality.
"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II
50 years ago African Americans were getting strung up in the south for wanting to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. We rightly look back in shame at the way things used to be. We'll probably do the same regarding gay marriage in 50 years. There's no logical argument to made against it, it's prejudice and fear. There are plenty of logical arguments to be made against sex with children. Again, it's a false analogy.
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.
Society acknowledging that two people of the same sex can have a consensual, fulfilling and beneficial relationship by outlawing discrimination based on homosexuality isn't a step on a logic progression line toward society accepting non-consensual relationships between adults and children.
They aren't even in the same sport, let alone league.
To clear the record. 1st off.. I'm not a homophobe. 2nd. I have a couple close friends that are homosexuals. I honestly do NOT care what they do in the privacy of their own home. One believes that he should not be discriminated against and should be equal to everyone.....the other actually thinks its "taking advantage of a situation" to use his sexual preference as a means to be put on equal ground via the law. To him, he believes he has made a choice and that he wasn't born with it. In fact...he would say that he leans more towards being "bi-sexual". Should that "GROUP" (Bi-Sexuals) not be discriminated against? Where does it stop?
My concern is what we as a society deem as acceptable BEHAVIOR via the court of law. It's going down the wrong road.