China cracks down on house churches

[Agathon]

I really don't want to interrupt Mr. Fun's nookie. I like to keep my food down rather than tasting it again.

Are you prejudiced against vomit-perverts, Ben?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Read again. I said 'practiced' not displayed. The quote is even in your own post.

Hairsplitting. Your complaint against China is that they're preventing the practice of religion, even people's own homes. So would you think it equally wrong that the government go after people practicing sex?

Plus you mentioned the pride parades. Having been to several, I've not once seen a sex "practice" at one, just people overtly affirming their sexual orientation. Now, I grant that a few miscreants may engage in inappropriate behavior, but they are neither sanctioned nor remotely typical of the parades.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you really wanted to you can dig up a thread where I make that precise argument.

I can dig up threads where you make a lot of arguments, often contradictory. So?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your complaint against China is that they're preventing the practice of religion, even people's own homes. So would you think it equally wrong that the government go after people practicing sex?

In their own homes? Sure, even in the case of sodomy.

Plus you mentioned the pride parades. Having been to several, I've not once seen a sex "practice" at one, just people overtly affirming their sexual orientation. Now, I grant that a few miscreants may engage in inappropriate behavior, but they are neither sanctioned nor remotely typical of the parades.

'remotely typical'?

I've only been to one, and that was enough for me. The very fact that they do happen, and are not prosecuted, sends a message that sex in public is okay. Which is why these are more sexual freedom parades than gay pride parades, especially when Paris Hilton leads one.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Equal rights is a nebulous concept. Unless you refine it, it is hard for me to figure out what you mean by 'equal rights'. Given the context of the thread I assumed you were equating religious freedom to what you believe to be sexual freedom.

Since when does "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" need explicit clarification? What part of that statement do you not understand?

My point is that even one could prove that sexual orientation is a choice, this would still not be justifiable grounds to deny gays their innate right to be happy. Every person is entitled to their pursuit of happiness when it does not deny other people's rights and is within the confines of justifiable, fair laws.

Thus, I was attacking the irrational notion that religious right-wing homophobes have, that if they can prove sexual orientation is a choice, they can legitimately deny gays their right to their pursuit of happiness.


If you don't get the point with this post, I will have to get my bottle of Tylenol out.

[Boris Godunov]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90484&perpage=30&pagenumber=3

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Good for you, Scalia.

That's you agreeing with Scalia's dissent against repeal of the sodomy laws. You then go on for several pages arguing that the court was wrong to strike down the laws (displaying incredible ignorance about the American legal system in the process, too!). Nothing there about your "enforcement" claim.

Hey, religious meetings in China are against the law. Since that's the law, don't you think it ought to be enforced?

So should I just chalk this up to your usual "forgetfulness?"

I love how later in the same thread you say that women shouldn't be allowed to have birth control unless their husband consents. How very medieval of you!

BTW, suppose laws against Sodomy were enforceable. What would you say, then?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
'remotely typical'?

I've only been to one, and that was enough for me. The very fact that they do happen, and are not prosecuted, sends a message that sex in public is okay. Which is why these are more sexual freedom parades than gay pride parades, especially when Paris Hilton leads one.

I've been to a half dozen, and in places like NYC, no less. Never saw a single sexual act being performed in public during that time. So your unfounded stereotype based on your sole experience just doesn't hold water next to my expertise.

The vast majority of participants in gay pride parades could be marching in any parade. Marching bands, people in shorts and t-shirts, politicians, groups like firemen, police, etc. OH BUT TEH FOX NEWS SHOWED THE ONE DOOD IN NOTHING BUT A FEATHER BOA AND SPEEDOS, THAT MUST BE WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! Please.

[MrFun]

Yeah -- I doubt the straight parents and friends of PFLAG who participate in the parade, would engage in public sex during such a parade.

[Straybow]

The full quote is

But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

Good for you, Scalia.

Now defenders of democracies are swine Boris?

and later

Defending democracy equates to defending the Christian caste that does govern the US government?

elected Christian caste.

Let the legislature change the laws.
Let the judiciary uphold the laws.

[Boris Godunov]

Thanks, but that doesn't in any way change my point that BK was disapproving of the SCOTUS ruling.

Furthermore, his equivocation that he only doesn't want the law because it's "unenforceable" indicated that, were it enforceable, he'd not have a problem with it.

[MrFun]

Exactly -- such frivulous, petty things like right to privacy pales in comparison to the importance of keeping gays from destroying families.

[Straybow]

The Constitutional "right to privacy" involves the legality of evidence collected by intrusive means: hearsay, electronic eavesdropping, certain forms of interrogation, etc. It has nothing to do with abortion or sexual practices, and the SCOTUS extrapolating from the sphere of legal protections to such public policies is weak. Even Ruthy baby says so but declines to say that the SCOTUS should reverse itself.

[Boris Godunov]

Thanks for your opinion, but that's, um, utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand and what's being discussed here. But good effort!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Straybow
The Constitutional "right to privacy" involves the legality of evidence collected by intrusive means: hearsay, electronic eavesdropping, certain forms of interrogation, etc. It has nothing to do with abortion or sexual practices, and the SCOTUS extrapolating from the sphere of legal protections to such public policies is weak. Even Ruthy baby says so but declines to say that the SCOTUS should reverse itself.

Right -- the purpose of sodomy laws were enacted as a means to gather intelligence rather than legislating religious morality.

come on, Straybow

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
There is NOTHING prudent about persecuting a religious group.

People's Temple
Heaven's Gate
Branch Davidian
Solar Temple
Aum Shinrikyo

You want me to list more?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


People's Temple
Heaven's Gate
Branch Davidian
Solar Temple
Aum Shinrikyo

You want me to list more?

I'm referring to religions whose pratices are within the confines of justifiable, fair laws that allow for legitimate expression of religion.