Oman Newspaper Shut Down After Publishing A Sympathetic Article On Homosexuals In Country

TheWeekOmanAnother one of our close Arab allies are back in the news to remind us that basic freedoms are not part of our common alliance. Oman has shut down The Week newspaper after it published an article viewed as too sympathetic to homosexuality in the Gulf state. The country has a gay population but it insists that these citizens live like criminals under Islamic prohibitions of homosexuality. The Week is the largest circulation English-langauge weekly in the country.

In response to the government crackdown, the newspaper was forced to publish a full, front page apology for the story. In one repressive act, Oman was able to deny free speech, freedom of the speech, religious freedom, freedom of association, and privacy.

The action came after a member of the Shura Council, Tawfiq al-Lawati, tweeted a complaint that the article was advocating homosexuality and could be read to suggest that the country is a safe haven for gays. al-Lawati wanted to be sure that gays got the opposite message: that they are neither safe nor welcomed in Oman.

Under the laws of the Islamic government, you can be put in jail for three years for simply being gay. That is considered progressive by the standards of some of our other allies.

79 thoughts on “Oman Newspaper Shut Down After Publishing A Sympathetic Article On Homosexuals In Country

  1. I guess this is the McDonalds approach to life….. You can have it your way… So long as it fits our way…..

  2. An old conflict between the value of freedom of speech laws and the value of blasphemy laws. Seems to me that the government should have drafted their own article and ask the paper to publish it to balance what was communicated in the first article.

  3. Shutting down a newspaper in 2013, how quaint. Next they will unplug mimeograph machine, that’ll teach those gay people not to be so gay about it.

  4. Freedom of Religion under fire? Please read the follow story(ies):

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/?cmpid=NL_fntop

    CHRISTIAN BAKERY CLOSES AFTER LGBT THREATS, PROTESTS

    by Todd Starnes

    “A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

    Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.

    “Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.

    “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
    – Aaron Klein, owner, Sweet Cakes By Melissa

    “It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”

    Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

    Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals — but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

    “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

    The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

    Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

    The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

    “That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”

    To make matters worse, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced last month they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Christian family.

    Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbians.

    “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

    In other words, Christians who live and work in Oregon must follow man’s law instead of God’s law. But in a show of benevolence, the state is willing to rehabilitate and reeducate Christian business owners like the Kleins.

    Klein said the closing of their retail store was a small price to pay for standing up for their religious beliefs.

    “As a man of faith, I am in good spirits,” he said. “I’m happy to be serving the Lord and standing up for what’s right.”

    Klein said what’s happened to Sweet Cakes By Melissa should be a warning to other Christians across the nation.

    “This is a fight that’s been coming for a while,” he said. “Be prepared to take a stand. Hopefully, the church will wake up and understand that we are under attack right now.”

    Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

    Denver baker Jack Phillips is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. A hearing before the state’s civil rights commission is set for later this month.

    In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.

    A T-shirt company in Lexington, Ky. found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.

    Klein said it’s becoming clear that Christians do not have the “right to believe what we believe.”

    In other words, gay rights trump religious rights.

    Aaron and Melissa Klein tell me they will continue to bake wedding cakes from their home. He’s already taken a full-time job to pay the bills and feed their five children.

    Mrs. Klein told television station KPTV her philosophy remains unchanged by recent events.

    “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” she said. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”

    The plight of the Klein family exposes the true nature of the left. Those who preach tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant and the least diverse of all.

  5. “You and we do not get to choose perfect allies in our world.”

    Perfection isn’t a requisite, but not being in the 12th Century should be.

  6. Nick,

    Glad you caught that…. The melding continues…. But then again… If I’d said…. You deserve a break today…. These folks didn’t get it….

  7. RWL –
    Regarding “CHRISTIAN BAKERY CLOSES AFTER LGBT THREATS, PROTESTS”

    I thought gay marriage is not suppose to affect heterosexuals. Soon nobody will be able to buy or sell unless they accept and approve of State sanctioned sexual immorality.

  8. David, you have that backwards. The state is trying to do the moral and ethical thing in this case. It is bigots that are immoral.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

    To know a person’s religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance.
    – Eric Hoffer

  9. OS wrote: “David, you have that backwards. The state is trying to do the moral and ethical thing in this case. It is bigots that are immoral.”

    Yes, the State is starting to sanction bigotry, which is immoral. There are clear logical and scientific reasons why the State should not encourage sexual immorality. Yet because of bigots against theism, the State has begun persecution of those who would encourage right behavior over wrong behavior.

  10. The First Amendment is working just fine in the bakery case. The LGBT community is exercising their rights and are boycotting the bakery.
    david,
    don’t LGBT individuals have the right to protest and boycott any business? I thought the constitution protected everyone? So the bakery has first amendment rights, but no one else does??

  11. “In other words, Christians who live and work in Oregon must follow man’s law instead of God’s law.”

    Yep. Sure do.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    This isn’t a theocracy. The Separation of Church and State is real and, no, you really can’t use the mechanisms of state to force your religion upon others be it in the form of bigotry, telling them what they can wear or what kind of music they can listen to, or what/who they have to worship. You are free to have your belief of choice. You are free to follow the dictates of your religion of choice within reason. You are not free to practice it however you see fit if that practice interferes with the rights of others.

    Our laws and legal system are not based on or from the Bible, God or the lil’ Baby Jesus. Or Mohamed and the Quaran. Or Yahweh and the Old Testament. Or Buddha and the Sutras. Or Vishnu and Bhagvad Gita.

    We have a secular government.

  12. rafflaw wrote: “don’t LGBT individuals have the right to protest and boycott any business?”

    Sure they do. My original point was that I am told time and time again by people on this blog that changing the laws to recognize gay marriage does not affect heterosexuals one bit. Now we keep seeing cases of prosecution for discrimination, and an emboldened activist group because the State now sanctions their bigotry for them. The gay activists feel the power of the law behind them and treat the poor baker as a lawbreaker simply because he does not want to encourage sexually immoral behavior in others.

    Until somebody presents a clear convincing case for why their sexual behavior is moral, there will continue to be the same societal discord over gay marriage as there is with abortion.

  13. What AY said.

    White heterosexual male bigots are having their rights trampled all over the place. Oh, the humanity!

  14. David,
    Whose morality? The reason we have constitutions and laws is to protect us all from other people’s ideas of what is and what is not moral. Fortunately, the law determines who is in the right and your Christian baker is in the wrong. Customers have the right to not shop at the bakery and to tell all of their friends to stay away from the bigoted bakers. The owners of lunch counters in the South also claimed the Bible was on their side when they refused to admit blacks.

  15. DavidM:

    I have a small business and I refuse to do business with people all the time. But I tell them I am really busy, or the work is beyond my ability or I give them a really hefty fee, especially if they want it yesterday. Most of them are white heterosexual males [contractors], I dont tell them I cant do business with them because they are married to women and are Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

    The simple thing to do is just to say “I am really busy but if you want to pay an extra $5,000, I can work you in.” Or just refer them to a buddy who doesnt have a problem with gay people.

    I understand why you object but you are talking about a free society, which we really dont have anymore. People should have a right to refuse service for any reason in a private business. And I should have the right to refuse to patronize that establishment if I disagree with their reason for refusing service.

    You dont have to be Christian to have ethics. Read Normative Ethics by Tara Smith.

    Here is a link to a review of the book:

    http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/30/rp_30_5.pdf

  16. rafflaw wrote: “The reason we have constitutions and laws is to protect us all from other people’s ideas of what is and what is not moral.”

    No, we do not have laws in order to protect us from other people’s ideas. Think about how crazy that sounds. Where would free speech be?

    Laws define for everyone what is moral and what is immoral. We need the same law for everybody, not one law for the gays, another law for the evil heterosexual white man, and yet another law for the blacks.

    Sometimes the law gets it wrong. Like when the law forbade blacks from marrying whites, or like when blacks were made to sit in separate sections of the bus, or when blacks were refused service in restaurants. In this case, the law is getting it wrong by expecting people to approve of sexual immorality without even so much as a legitimate argument for its morality.

    The root of the problem are anti-discrimination laws across the board. There is an ever increasing number of categories that we keep adding to the list of specially protected classes of people. We started with religion, then added race, then gender, and the list just keeps growing. The list is based upon political fads that are popular at the time. We do not need the law to give special protection to classes of people. All this does is create favoritism, like we see here. Now gays can sue people whose religion teaches sexual morality because nobody will see that the issue is not about sexual orientation but about sexual behavior. The law is all messed up, and this will lead to civil unrest. It is hard not to think about Sodom and the need for it to be destroyed when we read stories like this baker and other bakers, florists, photographers, etc. Our civilization is approaching its end if it continues on this path.

  17. Bron wrote: “The simple thing to do is just to say “I am really busy but if you want to pay an extra $5,000, I can work you in.” Or just refer them to a buddy who doesnt have a problem with gay people.”

    Bron, I personally have no problem serving gay people. Their money is as good as the next person’s. I address this subject based upon principle.

    When people are instructed to lie in order to stay clear of legal problems, then something is wrong with that law. Do you agree?

  18. im having a problem with all lgbts being blamed for the actions of a few. and in reality being blamed for the actions of government minions who are paid to aggravate situations that the corporation uses for its own nefarious reasons. the corporation is growing more and more desperate as every day passes because many of the plans for the one world government are falling apart big time. and they’ve gotten very very sloppy with it. just as with ows there were agents sent out who instigated fights, provoked the cops etc all for the purpose of distractions. if we’re all so busy discussing the lgbt and their doings we’re not paying attention to what the ceo and his cohorts themselves are doing behind our backs

  19. “No, we do not have laws in order to protect us from other people’s ideas.”

    Actually, we do have laws to protect us from other people’s beliefs and their attempts to force compliance with their beliefs via governmental action.

    That is the core principle of the Establishment Clause.

  20. “Laws define for everyone what is moral and what is immoral.”

    No. We have laws to define what is legal and illegal. You cannot legislate morality and do so successfully. Prohibition. ‘Nuff said.

    “We need the same law for everybody, not one law for the gays, another law for the evil heterosexual white man, and yet another law for the blacks.”

    Said the guy who wants homosexuals to have to abide by different laws than heterosexuals.

    “I personally have no problem serving gay people. Their money is as good as the next person’s. I address this subject based upon principle.”

    Your belief which rests, despite your continued protestations to the contrary, on a religious definition of marriage.

    As explained many times in great detail.

  21. David sez, “…When people are instructed to lie in order to stay clear of legal problems, then something is wrong with that law….”

    ***************************************

    There is an alternative way. Be less intolerant. Practice the Golden Rule:

    Matthew 7:12
    “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

  22. Gene H:

    “Actually, we do have laws to protect us from other people’s beliefs and their attempts to force compliance with their beliefs via governmental action.”

    So you are saying that the gay couple doesnt have a right to use government to make the baker comply?

  23. Bron,

    Sexual orientation is not a religious belief any more than skin color is. The two relevant amendments here are the 14th and the 1st.

  24. Gene H wrote: “Sexual orientation is not a religious belief any more than skin color is.”

    This is where the deception lurks. NOBODY cares about the sexual orientation of this gay couple. What they don’t want to do is be forced to encourage them to make decisions that further hedonism through sexual relations that have no reproductive purpose. Or, in this particular case, they don’t want to encourage behavior that is contrary to their religious beliefs. The problem is that they pass a law using the phrase “sexual orientation” to which nobody really has much objection about, but then extend that to sexual behavior when it suits their purpose.

  25. gENE h:

    I dont think he is, he objects to a particular behavior. Cuccinelli objects to oral sex, is he a bigot? He would be if he objected to the person.

    David has repeatedly said he has nothing against homosexuals as human beings. He just doesnt like the way they have sex which is behavior.

    I still think the best way to handle it is to just politely say you are too busy. And most people would do so even without the threat of government just to be polite and not cause any undue emotional harm to an individual.

    Maybe DavidM could expound on why it is so important for Christians to make this statement? It seems very militant to me, especially if the gay couple has done nothing to offend you except engage in behavior you disagree with.

  26. “David has repeatedly said he has nothing against homosexuals as human beings.”

    And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.

    That’s called a contradiction at best and hypocrisy at worst and being both is perfectly possible as the terms are not mutually exclusive.

    Since he’s admitted that what homosexuals do doesn’t affect him and he can’t name a specific harm created by recognizing their equal rights as equally protected under the law, his approval of their behavior is irrelevant. I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition. Homosexuals having equal rights does not steal David’s property, break his leg or make him literally insane. It’s none of his damn business.

  27. Let me put it to you this way, Bron.

    “Miscegenation is a disgustin’ behavior. I don’t have anything against the nee-gros personally, but I wouldn’t want one a marryin’ mah daughter.”

    “Homosexuality is a disgusting behavior. I don’t have anything against homosexuals as people, but I wouldn’t want one marrying my daughter.”

  28. Gene H:

    it really isnt anyone’s business.

    I know a good many races who wouldnt want their daughter marrying a caucasian. In fact I have heard it with my own ears.

    You cant force people to think a certain way.

  29. Also, I think you meant “I know people of a good many races”. People can be racists. Races can’t be racist. It’s an individual learned behavior. Unlike homosexuality.

  30. Bron wrote: “Maybe DavidM could expound on why it is so important for Christians to make this statement? It seems very militant to me, especially if the gay couple has done nothing to offend you except engage in behavior you disagree with.”

    I can’t speak for Christians because I am not one. However, I think there are very logical and rational reasons for defining sexual morality in a way that is less hedonistic than the way homosexuals define it. Homosexuals die younger, suffer from murder and disease more often, have more psychological problems resulting in depression and suicide, etc. The list of harms go on and on. Children raised in such homes are demonstrated to have more involvement with crime and to suffer more arrest by police, to be more involved with alcohol and drugs. It is just good public policy to discourage sexual hedonism.

    I am not for bringing back laws that make homosexuality illegal. I think the privacy issues trump that way of thinking and would not be good for the way our society has been set up. However, I think creating a protected class of people through anti-discrimination laws is insane. They are not an economically depressed group of people, and their classification is based upon a criteria that nobody discriminates against. There has never been a law against sexual orientation, ever. They deceive everyone by creating that class, and then protecting sexually deviant behavior by extending the idea that at the root is discrimination against sexual orientation when the truth is that nobody is discriminating against sexual orientation. They discriminate against sexual behavior because they see it as harmful to the people committing it and harmful to society. The fact is that they also discriminate against heterosexuals who engage in exactly the same kind of sexual immorality. It is not restricted to homosexuality, so how can it possibly be discrimination based upon sexual orientation? It can’t be, but stupid lawyers never argue the cases properly and so a lot of people are going to suffer as a result.

    If a religious person doesn’t understand all the science and logic involved, I don’t have a problem with him just saying that his religion teaches him it is bad, and so in his heart he also thinks of it as bad. They might call that bigotry, but it is just the facts that some people learn at that level. They just don’t have the intellectual capacity to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanics involved. They trust that others have worked it out, or that their God is wise in revealing this truth. Lots of people operate this way who are not religious at all, many in this forum as well. They rely upon authority rather than being able to engage at an intellectual level.

  31. Gene H wrote: “And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.”

    I have never called for this. You continually repeat this dishonest characterization of my position because it is your lie that you use to keep others from giving any credence to my informed opinion.

    Gene H wrote: ” I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition.”

    And I have never called to bring back anti-homosexual laws. Your analogy and characterization of me is always off base. You are unable to have honest dialogue. You have to keep mischaracterizing me from a distance, never once asking me how I reconcile concepts you consider to be contradictory.

    I believe homosexuals have equal rights. I have always said this. But they are not a privileged class of citizens who gets to force their idea of sexual morality upon everyone else under the color of law. They have cleverly framed their cause in a way that has deceived you, Jonathan Turley, and numerous other people. On one side we have people against sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, and on the other side we have homosexuals who claim their sexual freedom is being discriminated against unfairly and unjustly, and that all their personal problems are caused by those in society who force their sexual morality upon everyone else. You believe them. I don’t.

  32. In one ear and out the other, eh, David? Authoritarian with no insight. For someone who finds the private bedroom activities of LGBT people he doesn’t even know unappealing, you sure spend a lot of time obsessing about their sex lives.

    Freud would have had a field day with your neuroses.

  33. Plus . . .

    “Gene H wrote: ‘And yet he calls for them to be treated as second class citizens without the equal rights and equal protections of the law, Bron.’

    I have never called for this. You continually repeat this dishonest characterization of my position because it is your lie that you use to keep others from giving any credence to my informed opinion.”

    I call denying that homosexuals deserve equal protection and equal treatment under the law wanting to treat them as second class citizens.

    Also, your opinions are indeed informed . . . ill-informed. Your understanding of the people you seek to oppress and the science behind homosexuality is not just pitiful, it’s contrary to science.

    “Gene H wrote: ‘I don’t like drunks, but I’m not out saying we should bring back Prohibition.’

    And I have never called to bring back anti-homosexual laws.”

    Whoa there, pard. Don’t get too high up on that straw man’s shoulders. I wasn’t talking about you, dingus. I was talking about me.

    “Your analogy and characterization of me is always off base.”

    Since no analogy was made, that point is moot. However, my characterization of your position is accurate and based on your own words.

    “You are unable to have honest dialogue.”

    Let me translate that from David-speak: “You don’t agree with me therefor you must be a liar.” Eh, bite me.

    “You have to keep mischaracterizing me from a distance, never once asking me how I reconcile concepts you consider to be contradictory.”

    I’m not interested in the your mental contortionist routine of self-rationalization and circular logic. I’ve seen it before. I’d rather be watching a new episode of “Luther”. So I did.

    “I believe homosexuals have equal rights.”

    And you are wrong. They face legal discrimination every day in most jurisdictions.

    “I have always said this.”

    “But they are not a privileged class of citizens who gets to force their idea of sexual morality upon everyone else under the color of law.”

    The term is “protected class” and if they get their equal rights and equal protection guaranteed by law, no one – I repeat no one – will force you to be a homosexual. They’ll let you crawl out of the closet yourself.

    “They have cleverly framed their cause in a way that has deceived you, Jonathan Turley, and numerous other people.”

    Really. So the vast homosexual conspiracy has fooled me about the nature of the law, a world renowned Constitutional law scholar, every other lawyer posting on this blog and the judges of the Federal Courts? That’s some trick.

    “On one side we have people against sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual,”

    Morality is a matter for church, not government.

    “and on the other side we have homosexuals who claim their sexual freedom is being discriminated against unfairly and unjustly,”

    Because it’s true. In many states, they cannot wed, leave property to by intestate succession, or get insurance for/visit in hospital/speak for ill loved ones simply because they are homosexuals.

    “and that all their personal problems are caused by those in society who force their sexual morality upon everyone else.”

    I’ve yet to hear any homosexual make that claim. Most of them attribute their problems to others being stupid moralizing busy bodies trying to run their lives by forcing a morality on them they don’t share, but the main problem is they don’t have equal rights and equal protection under the law.

    “You believe them.”

    As I framed it, yes, I do. I’ve seen it. I’m seeing it right now.

    “I don’t.”

    Like I said.

  34. Gene,
    you beat me to the response about the establishment clause. David only wants straight people to have full freedom of speech rights. As OS was suggesting, me thinks he doth protest too much.

  35. Not to mention freedom of association, raff.

    Even if the scales were to fall from his eyes, you see nothing with them shut.

  36. The Family Research Council isn’t a source for any kind of valid unbiased objective information but they sure make some fine propaganda, David. As is the radical Catholic traditionnaction.org.

    No wonder your arguments are so weak if those are the kinds of organizations you consider good sources.

  37. DavidM:

    thanks for the links.

    I hate to say it but I agree with Gene in regard to the Family Research Council. They arent my kind of Christians, they are very authoritarian. And those types of Christians are smarmy to boot, I always say grab your wallet when they are about.

    I say live and let live, if a person wants to be gay it isnt my business. I would council my children [and have] against being gay. But I know some decent gay people who have been in long term relationships and I know heterosexual males who hump everything in a skirt.

    They are just people like all of us, we each have our failings and promiscuity is a common human failing. I would guess that promiscuous straight people, both male and female, have the same health problems and the same mental health problems. It is a human reaction to being promiscuous, not to being gay.

    Find me a group of heterosexuals who have 100 plus partners a year and I will show you the same statistics.

  38. Bron wrote: “I hate to say it but I agree with Gene in regard to the Family Research Council. They arent my kind of Christians, they are very authoritarian.”

    I have no idea what kind of Christians they are. It doesn’t really matter. I don’t care about their religion. You should always go to the source material. The reason I gave you the links was because they summarize a lot of information and give references to the sources of data.

    Take for example just the first statistic from the first link that I offered you from Dr. Frank Joseph:
    “One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).”

    The source identified in footnote 3 is: “Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.”

    I have this book in my library. It is a very good study involving face to face interviews with over 1500 people. It is not religious, but an official publication of the Institute for Sex Research. Findings from this organization have been used as a basis for judicial decisions and for new position papers by the American Psychological Association.

    What you and Gene are doing here is basing your belief system on authorities that you have decided to trust. It is very difficult to have engaging intellectual discussions when you do this because your belief system is more like a religion rather than being logically based upon your own understanding of facts. To say, “oh, I don’t believe that because the person who said it is a bad Christian” is just plain avoidance of using the brain. Instead, look at it and say, “I don’t believe that because the study only sampled 6 people, or the study made a mistake when they assumed…”

    Bron wrote: “I would guess that promiscuous straight people, both male and female, have the same health problems and the same mental health problems. It is a human reaction to being promiscuous, not to being gay.”

    I agree that sexual promiscuity is the primary problem, which is why the gay agenda is dangerous because it is making a deceptive argument that circumvents the more general sexual immorality issue. One thing you might be overlooking, however, is that most of homosexuality is based not upon some inborn orientation problem of their psychology (although that does play a role in some individuals), but rather upon the fact that it is about sexuality for pleasure. This is supported by the observation that 28% of homosexual men have had over 1,000 sexual partners, 70% of them one night stands with strangers (see Bell & Weinberg). Homosexual men are much less likely to use condoms or to engage in safe sex than heterosexuals. They lead rather reckless lives in regards to sexual safety.
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

    I think the principle of privacy is important and is a reason why I do not advocate for laws to make homosexuality illegal. However, I do object to redefining marriage to incorporate those who want to use it solely for their sexual hedonism. I also object to making homosexuality a protected class of people, giving them a basis for filing lawsuits against those who might warn others of the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore, our public education system should not be used to encourage young people to engage in the homosexual lifestyle to explore how fun it is.

  39. No, what I’m basing my opinions on in unbiased science. Not some cherry picked data presenting by an organization with a known discriminatory theocratic agenda and lapped up by people who have already demonstrated a willingness to use old data instead of current data.

    Not to mention that promiscuity? In homosexuals and heterosexuals? Is still none of your business, David, and an attempt to force your morality upon others who may not share it.

    You’re a moralizing busybody, David.

    Society and laws aren’t run by morals which are subjective and individual, David.

    They are run by ethics which are objective and external.

    The external measures here are the 14th and 1st Amendments.

    Ethically and legally, your position to discriminate against homosexuals based on promiscuity hasn’t got a leg to stand on unless you are willing to make heterosexual sluttery a crime or a basis of legal discrimination too.

    Good luck with that.

  40. DavidM:

    I dont think public schools should be engaged in any type of sex ed. I think gay people should find their own name for getting hitched. Although words do change meaning over time, so that is kind of an empty argument.

    Sex is for fun, come on. Do you deny human pleasure? Granted a person can have too much of something and that is usually called an adiction and there is typically an underlying cause.

    People are human and as such have certain ideas about things. We always like it when some study confirms our belief. Is the Family Research Council going to post all of the studies or just the ones which confirm their beliefs?

    I have seen authoritarian Christians with my own eyes, I went to church with them for 3 or 4 years, I did not like their views on the relationship of man to the church. They were all about using God for control of people. These people excommunicated [they arent Catholic] a young woman for getting a divorce from a man she didnt love, the pastor was the one who did marriage counseling. He was real effective wasnt he? Yet the young woman was expected to live her entire life married to a man she didnt love?

    Now that is evil and immoral.

  41. Bron, you won’t get much of an argument from me about your view of churches, synagogues and mosques. I don’t like them either. However, I will criticize your unwillingness to consider research from Christians. In the area of sexuality, they are the only ones seriously engaged in sharing the science of it. Everyone else argues from emotion because the science always fails to support their preconceived ideas.

    The point is to always go to the source material. Is that too hard?

    Bron wrote: “Sex is for fun, come on. Do you deny human pleasure?”

    As rational creatures, we should understand the purpose of the sex drive and recognize that from a biological and scientific viewpoint, it is about reproduction. I think the philosophy of hedonism leads to selfishness and all manner of atrocities where humans hurt their neighbors. The embracing of homosexuality perverts this basic concept of self control and rational thought in regards to sexuality. Those who embrace hedonism agree with them because it justifies their own lifestyle of living for pleasure. I do not.

    I consider self discipline to be a virtue. I favor sacrifice over pleasure and lust. I believe in honor and telling the truth. I believe in objectivism even when it is contrary to personal pleasure.

  42. DavidM:

    Are you a stoic, an Epicurian?

    There is nothing wrong with having a glass of wine, there is no self control in not having one if you can take it or leave it.

    Honor is good and so is telling the truth but not always. Are you going to fight an armed gunmen for your wallet so you dont live on your knees? Or tell the truth to gunmen about someone they are looking for?

    As rational creatures we are able to use sex to our benefit and not be stallions and brood mares for the farmer.

    I am not talking about Hedonism, that is wrong.

  43. “I am not talking about Hedonism, that is wrong.”

    Which I happen to agree with Bron, but still, that is a moral judgement – subjective and to the individual. There are many who embrace hedonism. See 60’s rock stars. Who are you to tell them they can’t? That is no more mine or yours business than it is David’s.

  44. Gene H:

    yes it is wrong. But would you take advice from a 60’s rock star about relationships or money? Excepting Mick Jagger for financial advice.

  45. None of that is relevant to hedonism being a personal choice. So long as that choice does not interfere with the rights of others, it is no one’s business but the hedonist. Or the stoic. Or the Objectivist. Your rights end where others begin. Your philosophy, like your religion, is a matter of choice.

    Homosexuality isn’t a choice.

    That’s the lie/delusion David is invested in.

  46. Bron,

    Zactly. However, since it isn’t a choice but a naturally occurring modality, recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class makes sense both as a scientific and an ethical/legal/Constitutional proposition.

  47. Personally, I’d say there are other things more important in my life than having to keep track and judge everybody’s bedroom preferences.

  48. Bron wrote: “I am not talking about Hedonism, that is wrong.”

    We are pretty much on the same track then.

    I appreciate pleasure and the arts like anyone else, but to make pleasure the goal of happiness is to invite misery.

    To think that we should not discuss the rights and wrongs of philosophical and religious thought is wrong as well. Thoughts lead to actions and end up defining us and who we are. The way a person thinks in his heart leads to the kind of person he will become. How foolish it is for some people to think that such is nobody else’s business.

  49. DavidM:

    A person has a right to lead a hollow, empty life if they so desire.

    Religion and philosophy are about leading a good life as defined by the religion or philosophy within bounds which protect both them and their neighbor. But if a person wishes to engage in self-destructive behavior why is it my responsibility to protect them from themselves if they arent close friends or relatives? My responsibility would begin if their actions hurt me or someone close to me.

    I am not talking unusual events like public shootings, I think we all need to take responsibility in those cases. It ends when the danger has passed.

    Why do you think I am in charge of how my neighbor acts?

    Gene H thinks I am financially responsible for my neighbor and you think I am in charge of making sure he turns out how a particular religion or philosophy says he should. In my opinion, you both come from the same school of thought. Why cant men just be free to live their lives as they think is best for them based on their philosophy?

  50. “Gene H thinks I am financially responsible for my neighbor”

    No. I think you’re responsible for your part in the mutual maintenance of what is required to keep an society healthy and robust enough to both care for its citizens and grow, Bron. Government at its best works for all the people and protects the weakest members of society. Those who take the most from society are ethically obligated to give the most in support of society. If that includes keeping your neighbor from starving or having to choose between bankruptcy and healthcare, so be it.

  51. Bron wrote: “But if a person wishes to engage in self-destructive behavior why is it my responsibility to protect them from themselves if they arent close friends or relatives? … Why do you think I am in charge of how my neighbor acts?”

    I would not say that you are in charge of your neighbor, as in, responsible for them in the same way as you are your children. However, when we love our neighbor, we will speak and do those things that are in their best interest.

    I remember once in college I lived in this apartment complex and this guy that I did not know was on the roof of the apartment complex that was 2 stories tall. He was horsing around and was getting into a sprint position in order to jump into the swimming pool from the roof, which was at least 15 feet away. The pool was only 3 feet deep. Several people around the pool were encouraging him to jump. I was pretty sure he was going to hit the edge of the pool if he jumped. I raised my voice and told him don’t do it, that it wasn’t worth it. We will never know if I saved his life because he decided not to jump. I spoke up because I didn’t want to see him get hurt.

    You seem to acknowledge the need to speak up when someone is your close friend or relative. That indicates that you instinctively know within you that this is the right action in regards to someone you care about. So the real question for you is whether or not you should love strangers. If you love your neighbor, then you will care enough to speak that which will benefit them. I agree with allowing them to make their own decisions, but I would not agree with refraining from the persuasive sharing of information if the result will benefit them.

  52. Weak Analogy
    False Analogy
    Faulty Analogy
    Questionable Analogy

    They are all essentially the same, with different names. Take your pick.
    Just sayin’.

  53. DavidM:

    I agree that if a stranger is in imminent peril then you should do as much as you can [short of injuring or getting killed in the process] to help him/her until the danger is past. I said as much above.

    All bets are off during war, natural disaster, etc. During those times we must do all we can until the danger is past even if it means personal injury or death.

    The real question to ask is do you love yourself so that you can love your neighbor. I would trust a person who loves their life with my life, a Jack Kavorkian, eh not so much.

  54. Bron,

    You might reconsider that statement about Kevorkian. He was all about compassion for others who were having severe quality of life issues and free will, not just helping people to whack themselves over transitory troubles. If someone is suffering, has no chance for recovery or mitigation, then it’s not only fair to allow them to end their life with dignity and by choice, it’s humane and empathetic to assist them in doing so painlessly. Some things are worse than death.

  55. Gene,

    Jack did what jack did because of his compassion for quality of life over quantity…. Remember the health organizations my money only when you suffer… Pharmacology as well….

  56. Gene H:

    Watch an interview he gave, it is in 2 parts, he has a terrible sense of life. I dont think he was compassionate, I think he loved death; at least that is what I took away from watching the interview.

    I really have mixed thoughts on physician assisted suicide.

    You can kill yourself easily and painlessly with a bottle of helium, a hose, a garbage bag and a 5th of Wild Turkey and a few sleeping pills.

Comments are closed.