China cracks down on house churches

[Ben Kenobi]

You're a ****ing twit, you know that? I already explained that my point is not about praticing sex in public.

Then what are you referring to, Mr. Fun?

All you talk about are 'equal rights' and the 'pursuit of happiness', but you never get any more specific.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, not much work needed to look in the archive under "Supreme." 5 minutes. OOOOOOH.

Another five minutes of your life lost

And second, it's precisely what the issue was. I said you seemed to dissaprove of the SCOTUS ruling.

No, I agreed with the ruling to quash sodomy laws.

In that thread, starting with that post, you agree with Scalia's dissent from said ruling. You can dissemble all you want, but it's all right there in writing.

Where do I explicitly say I agree with Scalia's dissent? All I say is 'Scalia ' I like Scalia, I think he rules, but I went on later to say why I disagreed with Scalia's dissent.

Ah. So why do you agree with the "upholding of the law" in one case, and not the other? Smells of hypocrisy to me...

Consistant with positions, that if one ought not to interfere with private sexual practice, why should one ought to interfere with private religious practice?

Why? How about because the guy has a right to do what he wants with his body? If his wife doesn't like it, she can divorce his ass. But give her veto power? What kind of fascist are you?

And no, it's not relevant to this thread...but neither is anything else we're discussing, really. So what?

Actually, a husband and wife are supposed to share each others' body. Anything he chooses to do to his body affects his wife, especially in the case of a vasectomy. If the wife wants to have kids, and the husband goes and has a vasectomy, that is not fair to the wife, particularly if she has pledged herself to him, and he does not tell her about the vasectomy. This is why these things need to be agreed upon through mutual consent.

A medieval point of view says that the woman has no say whatsoever, and any unilateral decision smacks of this ancient perspective.

Yup, that's an equivocation. It's not really true, either. Take the famous sodomy case in Texas, where the gay couple was successfully prosecuted under the law. Seems to have been enforced then, now doesn't it?

Why not just answer the question? It's simple: were sodomy laws to be enforceable, would you support them? I can't fathom why you wouldn't answer that, unless it's just to hide your true opinion on the matter.

Sodomy laws cannot be consistently enforced, without constant monitoring. Up until that show trial, which was set up in order to remove the sodomy restrictions, there had been very few convictions. I sincerely doubt you claim that the sodomy restrictions were enforced while they were in place, so why should they be a law?

Any law that is not enforced, casts doubts on all the rest.

Then why the hell bring up pride parades as an example of where sex acts occur and then cite your attendance at one as some sort of evidence? Holy hell, you make no sense.

For the same reason you brought up your attendence at numerous pride parades, where you saw no such acts.

I don't "dismiss" anything, I said that overwhelmingly, that's not what the parades are about and any such occurences at them are rare exceptions that are not sanctioned by the organizers. How is this so hard to get?

If the police see two guys ****ing in the street and it's against the law, by all means, they should take action. And they do--people get cited/arrested for illegal public displays at parades:

http://tntmen.abuzar.net/tnt/news/f31.html

But overwhelmingly, these things do not happen at Pride Parades. The fact is that not only to the parades have extremely low incidences of arrests, they have extremely low incidences of complaints.

Then it shouldn't matter the frequency. If we flip your argument around, would the shooting of one abortion doctor at a prolife protest be defenseable by saying the shootings are 'extremely rare?' Hardly. The one would tar all the others. So why isn't that the case here?

How are they not respecting the laws when they're walking down the street in t-shirts and shorts as part of a PFLAG group? Huh?

The bottom line here is that you were making the claim that the parades were "sexual freedom parades." They aren't, though, so your claim is utter BS.

Agreed, they are respecting the laws when they march with signs and shorts. However, given the nature of what you are proud of, you are proud of your sexual freedom. So I think you are splitting hairs here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Another five minutes of your life lost

Par for the course when engaged in any argument with you.

No, I agreed with the ruling to quash sodomy laws.

Really?

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

If the sodomy laws are so bad, get the legislature to change them. Otherwise, we get the ruling caste argument of Scalia politicising the SCOTUS.

And there's NOTHING in any of your subsequent posts saying you agreed as such. I'm beginning to think your "forgetfulness" is now more something like "lying."

Where do I explicitly say I agree with Scalia's dissent? All I say is 'Scalia ' I like Scalia, I think he rules, but I went on later to say why I disagreed with Scalia's dissent.

Where? Cite. I don't see anything in your posts in that thread expressing disagreement with his dissent. I don't see it there at all.

Consistant with positions, that if one ought not to interfere with private sexual practice, why should one ought to interfere with private religious practice?

The point was that you seem to think people should "respect the law" in some circumstances, but not others. Seems to me that this is inconsistent.

Actually, a husband and wife are supposed to share each others' body.

Oh. Now where is that on the marriage license? Or in any legal statute about marriage?

Anything he chooses to do to his body affects his wife, especially in the case of a vasectomy. If the wife wants to have kids, and the husband goes and has a vasectomy, that is not fair to the wife, particularly if she has pledged herself to him, and he does not tell her about the vasectomy. This is why these things need to be agreed upon through mutual consent.

I agree it's not fair. Just as unfair as a wife who secretly doesn't use her birth control and conceives a child without his consent. Should she be locked up?

The point was that the remedy is already there--the wife can divorce her husband. You seem to be suggesting he should be prosecuted. That's the notion I find fascistic.

Sodomy laws cannot be consistently enforced, without constant monitoring. Up until that show trial, which was set up in order to remove the sodomy restrictions, there had been very few convictions. I sincerely doubt you claim that the sodomy restrictions were enforced while they were in place, so why should they be a law?

Enforced? Yes, they were. The Texas couple was not remotely the only ones brought up on sodomy charges, you know. Consistently enforced? No. But you dodge the issue--I don't care whether or not they are enforced in this debate. The sole question I have is whether or not you'd approve of them were enforcement possible. I eagerly await your response.

Any law that is not enforced, casts doubts on all the rest.

Not the issue. I agree, but not the issue.

One more time: Were it possible, hypothetically speaking, to enforce sodomy laws, would you support them? Yes or no? It's a very simple question. I can't fathom why you would keep refusing to answer it. Well, actually, I can...

For the same reason you brought up your attendence at numerous pride parades, where you saw no such acts.

You did it first. I countered your sole experience. Or did we "forget" again?

Then it shouldn't matter the frequency. If we flip your argument around, would the shooting of one abortion doctor at a prolife protest be defenseable by saying the shootings are 'extremely rare?' Hardly. The one would tar all the others. So why isn't that the case here?

What a disingenuous argument. Who is saying that public sex acts are "acceptable?" The point of me showing they are rare was to counter your claim that the parades were about sexual freedom, as sexual displays are rare at them. I said nothing about any act being "acceptable." In fact, I distinctly said those engaging in them should see consequences. Straw-man much?

Agreed, they are respecting the laws when they march with signs and shorts. However, given the nature of what you are proud of, you are proud of your sexual freedom. So I think you are splitting hairs here.

No, I'm not splitting hairs, you're once again weaseling:

You already have the ability to practice your sexuality in the manner of your choosing, with the sole restriction that you do not do so in public. And even that restriction has loopholes, like during your pride parades.

You should adopt 'truth in advertising' and call them sexual freedom parades, which is really all they are anyways.

You clearly mean "sexual freedom" here to mean public sex acts. Now you're backpeddaling and trying to claim you meant "freedom to be gay." Keep up the squirming!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then what are you referring to, Mr. Fun?

All you talk about are 'equal rights' and the 'pursuit of happiness', but you never get any more specific.

I'm going to watch Into the West right now, on TNT. If I feel like getting another headache, I will respond to you in full later tonight.

[MrFun]

Ben -- pursuit of happiness in that all individuals seek some form of relationship with another individual -- whether that be with family, platonic friends, or romantic relationship.

Just as straight people often find themselves happy in a romantic relationship, so do gay people. This is part of that pursuit of happiness that I am referring to.

And then there comes to the idea of equal rights. As long as our government or the governments of some of our states have one set of laws different for straight people that excludes gay people there will be inequality in that gay people are not entitled to their pursuit of happiness.

Gay people will always seek a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender regardless of discriminatory laws. But as long as our government denies recognition that gay people are deserving of the same full life that straight people take for granted, complete equality is not accomplished.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Doc, Aggie thinks folks only believe in G-d if they believe in the G-d concept of some medieval scholastic philosopher, who he learned about in history of philosophy or wherever. The kind who wrote in syllogisms, that he can play with. What Franz Rosenzweig called the "old thinking" IIUC (and wrt Franz Im NOT sure IIUC) Any genuinely modern form of faith is to him, not faith. Its certainly less central to the history of Western philosophy, I'll grant that.

I never said that. Obviously Anglicanism is different in the US than it is in other countries. There are doddery vicars everywhere else.

[Ben Kenobi]

And then there comes to the idea of equal rights. As long as our government or the governments of some of our states have one set of laws different for straight people that excludes gay people there will be inequality in that gay people are not entitled to their pursuit of happiness.

Gay people will always seek a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender regardless of discriminatory laws. But as long as our government denies recognition that gay people are deserving of the same full life that straight people take for granted, complete equality is not accomplished.

Finally! I was waiting for this the whole thread. First of all, you are making two arguments here. The first being that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the united states I have to agree with you.

However, by your own words, Gay people will always seek a relationship regardless of the policy of the government. I do not see the current policy as any restriction on the relationships in which gay people may form, rather it is a restriction on the recognition of these relationships by the government.

Therefore since recognition does not restrict the relationships I do not see how barring gay marriage in any way infringes upon the right to the pursuit of happiness, since by your own words, gay people remain unhindered from forming these relationships even given the restriction.

Secondly, you are making another argument to supplement the first. You say that since the government does not recognise gay marriage, that complete equality is not established. I agree with you here, but I do not see what 'complete equality' has to do with the pursuit of happiness. I see many problems with a definition of equality, that insists that everyone conforms to the same standards, especially given the provisions to disabled folks. To demand complete equality in treatment, denies the special provisions to disabled people on the ground that this is not equal treatment in excluding able-bodied people from the same treatement.

[DaShi]

If you wanted a gay marriage thread, then start one. This thread is about religious persecution in a communist utopia.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's my thread.

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot talk about?

[chequita guevara]

Church is evil. Hooray for China for taking a stand against the slavery tht is religion!

[DaShi]

It's the site's thread. It's already been established that we do not have free reign over the threads we start. Although, I believe you're free to continue your crusade here; however, you must keep in mind whether or not you are being disrespectful to the people who would like to discuss its original point.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

If the sodomy laws are so bad, get the legislature to change them. Otherwise, we get the ruling caste argument of Scalia politicising the SCOTUS.

Yes, it is possible to agree with scalia and also agree that the sodomy restrictions should be quashed. Disagreement with the method is not the same as disagreement with the motive.

The point was that you seem to think people should "respect the law" in some circumstances, but not others. Seems to me that this is inconsistent.

Sure, some laws are unjust, but that does not mean one can evade just laws in an effort to breaking unjust ones. You ask me whether I would respect laws barring private religious practice, and I could no more respect them than I could stop breathing.

Oh. Now where is that on the marriage license? Or in any legal statute about marriage?

The point was that the remedy is already there--the wife can divorce her husband. You seem to be suggesting he should be prosecuted. That's the notion I find fascistic.

I seem to say many things, that you don't have direct evidence of me saying. Yes I believe it to be wrong, but where have I said the husband ought to be prosecuted? Wrong! = prosecution. Not everything that is harmful can also be unlawful as the law cannot, and should not become the equivalent of morality.

Enforced? Yes, they were. The Texas couple was not remotely the only ones brought up on sodomy charges, you know. Consistently enforced? No. But you dodge the issue--I don't care whether or not they are enforced in this debate. The sole question I have is whether or not you'd approve of them were enforcement possible. I eagerly await your response.

That is the issue. It's like asking if pigs could fly, should they be required to buy pilot licenses? Sodomy restrictions cannot be consistently enforced, ergo, the two questions have the same merit.

No, I would not approve of them, because the enforcement would infringe upon other liberties, such as freedom of association. Even though I believe sodomy to be morally wrong, it doesn't make it right for the state to regulate the association of persons.

You did it first. I countered your sole experience. Or did we "forget" again?

My sole experience has just as much merit as your experience. So my point is that citing personal experience is irrelevant to my point. Countering an irrelevant point is like knocking off a foul ball on a full count. Sure, the pitcher didn't get a strike, but you still ain't ahead.

What a disingenuous argument. Who is saying that public sex acts are "acceptable?" The point of me showing they are rare was to counter your claim that the parades were about sexual freedom, as sexual displays are rare at them. I said nothing about any act being "acceptable." In fact, I distinctly said those engaging in them should see consequences. Straw-man much?

You chose to engage the comparision. If the one death of an abortion doctor at one prolife demonstration would tar all the other demonstrations, then why should the case be different for the pride parades? You have admitted that the incidence of public sex at pride parades do occur, even as you excuse them since they are 'rare'.

If that excuse does not fly for the prolifers, why should it fly for the gay rights folks? Answer the question please.

You clearly mean "sexual freedom" here to mean public sex acts. Now you're backpeddaling and trying to claim you meant "freedom to be gay." Keep up the squirming!

Part of sexual freedom is engaging in public sex acts, but the two are not equivalent. Surely, you agree with me here, that saying sexual freedom is broader.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Church is evil. Hooray for China for taking a stand against the slavery tht is religion!

Agreed. People with different beliefs and opinions from our own should be arrested and beaten. Killed if it can be gotten away with. And since it's China, the bastion of all that is good and democratic in the word, all the better. China should be the new left-wing cause. Sure it's communist in name only, but right-wingers don't seem to like it, so it must be good.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's the site's thread. It's already been established that we do not have free reign over the threads we start. Although, I believe you're free to continue your crusade here; however, you must keep in mind whether or not you are being disrespectful to the people who would like to discuss its original point.

I'm allowed to jack my own threads, should the discussion turn that way, provided I am not breaking the site rules.

If you want to continue the original discussion, then go right ahead. But threadstarters are perfectly able to threadjack their own threads.

[DaShi]

Yes, and what does that have to do with my post?