[Rusha]

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

Dangit, Red. This is where you getting really, really frustrating. You are not thinking, you're just having an emotional reaction. Presenting the homosexual act as a crime and granting it the same penalty as murder or rape doesn't equate these three things morally. It merely equates them criminally.

Which makes as much sense as equating chewing bubble game as a criminal act on the same level as murder.

It is not ... neither is homosexuality. We *get* that based on your religion you believe it should be, but that just will NEVER be the case.

You continue to insist that to have the same penalty they must be morally identical and, since they're not, that penalty cannot apply. And yet I would wager you'd be one of the first to argue that morality doesn't enter into law. Why do you consistently refuse to understand this?

There is nothing to understand, MC. You are comparing apples to oranges. We get why you do it ... it is an attempt to villify homosexuals on the basis of your religion ....

Just like many claim that homosexuality is a *choice* and think that that is reason enough to demand change, well your religion is also a choice. Since you are the person insisting and advocating for change, feel free to apply that change to yourself.

I may have presented a contradictory opinion based on contradictory experiences, Red. I may even say their opinion is wrong and presented my own opinion as right. Is that the same as dismissing someone's experiences?
The point I have issue with is one side of the camp presenting their personal opinion, based on their personal experiences, to lend credibility to their position. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'm more likely to consider a position that has that kind of support. Not necessarily accept it but I'm certainly more willing to consider it. Someone who's actually experienced something I can't help but feel will have a more serious opinion on the matter than someone who's considered it without experiencing it. If they've actually some experience on the matter and still attempt an objective assessment, that really gets my attention.
Yet when the other side of the camp presents an opposing personal opinion based on a different personal experience to lend credibility to their position it's dismissed as irrelevant. Say wha? If an opinion based on personal experience is presented then an opposing opinion of the same nature can and should be presented to oppose it. Doesn't that make perfect sense?

So based on your experience as a an *ex* lesbian, you think you have more input? On the same token, it would make sense that if someone stated they had been straight but turned gay that everything they said should be giving more consideration because of their experience? You can't have it both ways, MC. Either all the homos gone straight and gone back are voices of experience who should get special consideration or they are not. However, if they are not, then that would mean the same for someone such as yourself that claims they *magically* stopped being gay.

But this is all largely a waste of time. I think I've erred in assuming the folks that do this don't see that they're being dishonest in doing this. I think now that they not only recognize it's a dishonest tactic, they also don't care. So I'm wasting my time pointing it out.

I take your opinion about who is honest about as much as I do your on homosexuals being able to flip that light switch on their love and emotions and going straight just cuz Mary wants them to.

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by Jinkx

So based on your experience as a an *ex* lesbian, you think you have more input?

Sure. I have personal experience. That's "more" than...well...no personal experience.

Originally Posted by Jinkx

On the same token, it would make sense that if someone stated they had been straight but turned gay that everything they said should be giving more consideration because of their experience?

I'd certainly give their opinion more consideration than, say, yours.

Originally Posted by Jinkx

You can't have it both ways, MC.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Jinkx

Either all the homos gone straight and gone back are voices of experience who should get special consideration or they are not.

Of course they're voices of experience. And, as I said, I'd consider what they say on that point more readily than someone who hadn't any experience with that.

Originally Posted by Jinkx

However, if they are not, then that would mean the same for someone such as yourself that claims they *magically* stopped being gay.

Originally Posted by Jinkx

I take your opinion about who is honest about as much as I do your on homosexuals being able to flip that light switch on their love and emotions and going straight just cuz Mary wants them to.

And I take this as a perfect example of intentionally confusing the homosexual act with the attraction. I've never claimed anyone can "flip that light switch". I do think the change in attraction can be made and that we have some control even over what we desire. I also think that has nothing to do with what you're referring to (whether or not the act should be outlawed, right?). Which itself has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
You're a little today, huh?

[red77]

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

Dangit, Red. This is where you getting really, really frustrating. You are not thinking, you're just having an emotional reaction. Presenting the homosexual act as a crime and granting it the same penalty as murder or rape doesn't equate these three things morally. It merely equates them criminally. You continue to insist that to have the same penalty they must be morally identical and, since they're not, that penalty cannot apply. And yet I would wager you'd be one of the first to argue that morality doesn't enter into law. Why do you consistently refuse to understand this?

Mary, I started that paragraph off by telling you that I don't recognise it as a crime which current law reflects, it's only those of you who would have us living under a reinstated Mosaic law which promote homosexuality as being a capital crime, and in any event - even equating criminally the acts of rape and homosexuality is ludicrous, a punishment is supposed to fit the crime, the severity of an offence warrants the appropriate penalty, in no sane world does homosexuality warrant the same penalty as rape criminally/morally or otherwise...

and btw, in just what context could homosexuality possibly be worse than rape? i notice you sidestepped that one....

I may have presented a contradictory opinion based on contradictory experiences, Red. I may even say their opinion is wrong and presented my own opinion as right. Is that the same as dismissing someone's experiences?
The point I have issue with is one side of the camp presenting their personal opinion, based on their personal experiences, to lend credibility to their position. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'm more likely to consider a position that has that kind of support. Not necessarily accept it but I'm certainly more willing to consider it. Someone who's actually experienced something I can't help but feel will have a more serious opinion on the matter than someone who's considered it without experiencing it. If they've actually some experience on the matter and still attempt an objective assessment, that really gets my attention.
Yet when the other side of the camp presents an opposing personal opinion based on a different personal experience to lend credibility to their position it's dismissed as irrelevant. Say wha? If an opinion based on personal experience is presented then an opposing opinion of the same nature can and should be presented to oppose it. Doesn't that make perfect sense?

But this is all largely a waste of time. I think I've erred in assuming the folks that do this don't see that they're being dishonest in doing this. I think now that they not only recognize it's a dishonest tactic, they also don't care. So I'm wasting my time pointing it out.

Well, we both have personal experience which is contradictory to the other, I've no doubt that a number of homosexuals do live a promiscuous lifestyle, but so do plenty of heterosexuals, I've known blokes whose 'mission' in life is to sleep with as many women as possible, does that make them reflective of all heterosexual men? The point i've been trying to make is that a generalization either based on personal experience or anything else is hardly a watertight position to label an entire group on, especially where other peoples experiences lend weight to the opposite as well...

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

Sure. I have personal experience. That's "more" than...well...no personal experience.

Which I only have *your* word on? Big deal.

I'd certainly give their opinion more consideration than, say, yours.

Well, that's special and all, but the funny side of is it that you are on the losing side of this. So Little MaryContrary claims she is no longer gay and now wants to see it as a DP offense...funny.

What is even funnier is the frustration it causes you to know the in the RL such ideas that someone such as yourself advocated are not only considered wackos, but also hypocrites. When will you be turning yourself in for past DP worthy crime, Mary?

Of course they're voices of experience. And, as I said, I'd consider what they say on that point more readily than someone who hadn't any experience with that.

That's also funny considering that it isn't your place to consider someone else's experience. So you no longer have the desire to be gay ... big whoop, why not just relish in your supposedly happier and more fulfilling lifestyle?

Here's a hint: people that are content and happy with their lives don't obsess over LEGAL activities of strangers. How bored you must be with your *superior* new lifestyle.

And I take this as a perfect example of intentionally confusing the homosexual act with the attraction.

I responded to the perfect example of you comparing violent, criminal acts against innocent ppl to the act of two consenting adults having sexual relations. It was a moronic comparison and you know it.

I've never claimed anyone can "flip that light switch". I do think the change in attraction can be made and that we have some control even over what we desire. I also think that has nothing to do with what you're referring to (whether or not the act should be outlawed, right?). Which itself has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And I contend that individuals have the right to not be burdened with your religiously based biases ... apply them to yourself. I cannot understand for the life of me why a supposedly happily married woman would take time away from her own family and commitments to dwell on such a ridiculous personal matter that is not only LEGAL and accepted by the majority, but also has nothing to do with her own life.

You're a little today, huh?

Tell you what, Mary ... why don't you go peddle your venom and advocate your wish for making homosexuality a death penalty offense on the Larry King Show and other similar public broadcasts. IF you feel that strongly about this, what do you have to lose?

Of course at that point it would be obvious to the world which of us is actually *dizzy*.

[Granite]

These guys do not enjoy thinking about retroactive punishments when they are personally effected by such a hypothetical. Not too surprising.