Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
Again, you miss my point -- I am not comparing a black coach to applying for membership of the Ku Klux Klan. You are denying the premise of my argument.

Sorry Mr. Fun, but your argument is stupid. You are implying that Ron Brown, a man you know nothing about, would act in the same manner as a hate filled organization like the Ku Klux Klan if put into power. You have no evidence for any of this other than your mistaken belief that Brown hates homosexuals. Why should I give any credence to an argument as worthless as this? I've waded through enough of your contrived hypothetical situations for one night.

[Asher]

Re: The Plot Thickens...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't really know what to make of this response. They certainly don't make Brown sound like a homophobic whacko, however.

Homophobes are whackos by default, that's redundant.

And of course they don't make him sound like a homophobic whacko.

They'd be sued so fast they wouldn't know what hit 'em if they said that.

It doesn't change the fact that he admits to making public comments on his radio show about how homosexuals are not "morally correct" (homophobic).

Retreat, Drake, before it's too late.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Sorry Mr. Fun, but your argument is stupid. You are implying that Ron Brown, a man you know nothing about, would act in the same manner as a hate filled organization like the Ku Klux Klan if put into power. You have no evidence for any of this other than your mistaken belief that Brown hates homosexuals. Why should I give any credence to an argument as worthless as this? I've waded through enough of your contrived hypothetical situations for one night.

Hmmm . . . . . ad-hominem attacks.

Damn -- I thought you and I could continue a civil discussion on establishing common ground on the connection between thought and action.

But I guess you withdraw from that argument.

I am not saying that the coach would absolutely do that -- note before, that I have considered in a previous post that he might not necessarily act in that manner.

I wanted to find some agreement on thought and action, but you just do not want to continue that argument.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What did I tell you.

I never discounted the possibility. Now the question is "Who is telling the truth?" Is Ron Brown trying to gain sympathy for an as yet unmentioned lawsuit? Or is Stanford just trying to cover its ass? Find out on the next exciting episode of "Palo Alto"....

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
I wanted to find some agreement on thought and action, but you just do not want to continue that argument.

We've talked about this before (on one of the hate crimes threads) and I therefore know that we aren't going to come to any sort of agreement. I prefer to ignore people's thoughts entirely and focus on their actions, while you seem to think that both must be considered equally. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it.

edit: I don't know how my disdain for your argument is an ad hominem attack. I thought an ad hominem attack was directed at the person, not their argument. I said that your argument is stupid, not that you were stupid. If we can't attack arguments, how are we supposed to debate?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Now that the bogus "intolerance of Christianity" issue has been disposed of, it seems that the remaining issue is whether or not the intolerance of intolerance is hypocritical.

How is this so?

Tolerance is an ideal. In an ideal world, either the tolerance or the intolerance of bigotry would not be an issue, because there would be no bigotry to be tolerant or intolerant OF. However, we live in a world where the concept of tolerance conflicts with the concept of bigotry. In this situation, support for one cause naturally leads to intolerance of the other, simply because they are mutually exclusive.

Tolerating bigotry in the name of tolerance WOULD be clearly hypocritical. It would be directly equivalent to tolerating slavery in the name of freedom (in this case, the freedom of the slavers).

In a less-than-ideal world, "tolerance" REQUIRES the intolerance of intolerance, just as supporting "freedom" requires opposition to those who oppose freedom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point of this whole thread was to expose Stanford's hypocrisy. They claims to be respectful and inclusive of all cultures and ideals, but then discriminate against a man whose beliefs they don't find palatable. Hypocrisy gets on my nerves.

Very very true. A liberal inclusive university rejects someone because they don't agree with them.

He says he finds homosexuals to be morally wrong... so what? So do plenty of people, but they aren't going to actively discriminate against them. They just find the sexual act horrid. What about hate the sin, love the sinner? It isn't just a catch phrase, it occurs often.

Homophobes are whackos by default, that's redundant.

If believing that homosexual sex is repugnant is 'wacko', then a substantial portion of the population is such... including those that are tolerant of homosexuals in every other aspect.

In a less-than-ideal world, "tolerance" REQUIRES the intolerance of intolerance, just as supporting "freedom" requires opposition to those who oppose freedom.

This makes little sense. To complete the analogy correctly, it would say... freedom requires taking away freedom from those that oppose it. Because in your first statement you say that.. tolerance requires intolerance to those that aren't.

I totally disagree. If you are REALLY tolerant then you tolerate intolerance as well. If you don't then you are not really tolerant.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Which is why I used the phrase "in a less-than-ideal world". Many people feel that a bending of the ideal of "tolerance of everything" is necessary and justifiable against bigotry, because otherwise tolerance will not prevail. Just like imprisoning those who oppose freedom: this is necessary and justifiable if there is a genuine danger that those "opponents of freedom" would otherwise prevail.

[Gibsie]

I totally disagree. If you are REALLY tolerant then you tolerate intolerance as well. If you don't then you are not really tolerant.

Thank jebus that so many people across the world decided that the above quote is a piece of crap and decided to be intolerant of slavery.

[Jac de Molay]

I must be unenlightened. I still dont quite understand how actively engaging, or tolerating, slavery is synonymous with having an opinion about homosexuality. If im opposed to affirmative action or slave reparations, am I automatically a racist and/or a slave trader? This smacks of a false dichotomy.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Slavery isn't really a problem in the US anymore. Bigotry, however, is. If slavery was an ongoing problem, there would be a greater imperative to take sides. You could campaign for or against, but if you do nothing, you'd be endorsing the status quo (pro-slavery in the Confederacy).

"For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good men do nothing".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


We've talked about this before (on one of the hate crimes threads) and I therefore know that we aren't going to come to any sort of agreement. I prefer to ignore people's thoughts entirely and focus on their actions, while you seem to think that both must be considered equally. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it.

edit: I don't know how my disdain for your argument is an ad hominem attack. I thought an ad hominem attack was directed at the person, not their argument. I said that your argument is stupid, not that you were stupid. If we can't attack arguments, how are we supposed to debate?

I felt that the word stupid was directed towards me as well as my argument. Guess not.
But there are more polite ways to attack a person's argument.

I want to hear from other people on my two questions:

1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages??

2) What connection is there between thought and action??

[Jac de Molay]

what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment.

1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages??

No difference at all. The more relevant question should be why my employment, or potential employment, status should be contingent on whether I support or oppose either one.

2) What connection is there between thought and action??

Mutually exclusive concepts, and a slippery slope to imply one necessarily leads to another. If I oppose gay marriage in Thought, it doesnt mean I'm going to marginalize or discriminate against people in my workplace or other aspects of my life. Same goes for interracial marriage. Most of us carry unfounded opinions and prejudgements against someone or something ( no matter how petty or significant they may be), but we rarely act upon those prejudgements because legal and societal restraints dissuade us from doing so. The exceptions, of course, are the freaks like Aryan Nations and other terrorists who use terror and violence to enforce their beliefs. But that shouldn't force others into silencing their views, no matter how bizarre, because they're environment deems it the "right thing to do" .

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
I must be unenlightened. I still dont quite understand how actively engaging, or tolerating, slavery is synonymous with having an opinion about homosexuality. If im opposed to affirmative action or slave reparations, am I automatically a racist and/or a slave trader? This smacks of a false dichotomy.

Before you get all pissy, could you at least do me the courtesy of the reading what I've posted, and what I've responded to first? Imran said: "the truly tolerant will tolerate intolerance". I reply: "it's a good thing that people did not tolerate intolerance [in the form of thinking that blacks are lesser people who should be slaves]". At least you admitted that your post was a false dichotomy though, because it certainly couldn't have applied to mine.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrFun


I felt that the word stupid was directed towards me as well as my argument. Guess not.
But there are more polite ways to attack a person's argument.

I want to hear from other people on my two questions:

1) What is the difference between revulsion towards interracial marriages compared to revulsion towards homosexual marriages??

2) What connection is there between thought and action??

I have some revulsion for homosexual acts (mostly those that are Man on Man, they turn me off). And I think that homosexuality is a result of sin and that homosexual actions are sinful. (See numerous biblical references)

However, all people sin and we have to live our lives in a sinful world. This means that sin corrupts things which were meant to be good for us and often to take the good we must take sin as well.

Also, there is much to be gained from permanent monogamous relationships, I consider what is to be gained to be worth far more than the sin inherant in homosexual actions. Therefore I support, for most homosexuals, homosexual marriage so that they can gain all the good things that are possible from a loving monagomous relationship. I think that many of the problems with homosexuality today would be fixed by having and supporting homosexuals to enter into homosexual marriage.

Basically I am arguing that marriage is good and homosexuals should be allowed to and encouraged to experience it (just like heterosexuals). Oh, I think the same about sex (in case that was not clear).

If you call me a bigot that is OK. Just know that I do not think less of you or anybody else for being homosexual, it is just an additional burden of sin to carry (I am sure that I carry some heterosexual related that you do not) as we all carry burdens of sin on this earth. In fact, some of the greatest men on this earth have been homosexual (and men I idealise) .

Also in responce to your questions. There are no actions which are associated with a race, they do nothing different than anyone else (and the marriage wouldn't be any different (I admit if they were different cultures it could be)).

In the US we follow the idea that the state should not decide what is true, rather every individual for themselves. Now the state must sanction some generally agreed upon truth for society to function, so action gets a response in the US. But since we think that everyone should decide for themselves what is true (freedom of concience), we do not dictate what people can think (or if we do it is against our consitution). I think that this is a good way for society to function.

I admit I don't want race to go away, there are some extremely good looking people from Africa and East Asia and all over the world and it would be a shame to lose their distinctive looks (but I would jump at the chance to get into a interracial relationship).

I am sure that some people are going to read what I wrote wrongly. I usually don't show my religious thinking here (it changes too often).

Jon Miller