Your use of the word "immoral" is part of the problem. It's one thing to say you feel it is vulgar or disgusting because that limits it to only your personal opinion.
Use of the word "immoral" implies that there is a "morality" in the first place. By that I mean, a standard or definition that is agreed upon by many people or society at large. To say gays are immoral means that they don't live according to a standard definition of morality.

But you contradict yourself here, don't you? Because on the one hand you claim that you support liberalism and the freedom of consenting adults, if no harm is done to anyone else. But then to say that there is such a thing as morality, by which people can be judged... that's the problem in your argument.

It might help to explain what you mean by "immoral". What is your morality then, and if there is such a thing as morality, who decided it and where did it come from?

Religions are a source of morality, and by now we should know that their definition of morality can be very different. If you want to raise the ugly spectre of morality, you risk making the same mistakes as they did. If gays are to be judged as immoral by your or anyone elses standards, the next step would be to take morality very seriously... morality becomes a concern in the forefront of the state, if a devout moralistic leader takes charge ie. like George Bush. In fact George Bush's attitude and yours are very similar on this, not different as you earlier implied.

So what is morality then, and why choose to use that word to describe what gays are?

Post deleted by StrngrInParadise

i voted substantially fair and accurate.

it also stacked up when compared to other public figures, in so far as fair treatment.

chris should a bio of you as a public figure leave out your beliefs concerning homosexuality?

hey i voted twice.....but it only counted once.

damn those chads.

I had to pull the poll just after you voted (sorry), because I forgot to point at a locked version of the article. You figured it out, good! I was going to send you a note.

You are wrong Tbud.

Libertarianism teaches us to be discriminate.

Freedom of assocaition is pure libertarianism.

And I am entitlted to personal opinions.

There is no contridiction between saying there ought to be no laws that discriminate and that I do stand for.

Morality is decided by the individual. "To each their own."


Anal sex might just just what the morality doctor ordered for you. If your comfortable with it....I won't be advocating any laws to stop you. Have fun.

Me, I believe I'll pass because I think anal sex between men is immoral. And then I won't want to be associating with you because of what I consider to be a lack of morality on your part. The same would hold true if I found out you were a wife beater. I don't approve of striking women. It's against my morality. You do it I don't want to know you.

Is there something wrong with that? Other than there is no medical sounding word to call me in the case of discriminating against wife beaters. See and I'll even mind my own business too. I ain't calling the cops. It's none of my business, perhaps the woman likes to get beat.

But I am personally uncomfortable around wife beaters so I don't care if she like it or not. I don't want to be around it.

Every action can be judged as moral amoral or immoral. And we all do use personal judgement.

Clearly engaging in S and M is a moral choice.

Clearly engaging in scat is a moral choice.

Clearly engaging in beastiality is a moral choice.

Clearly engaging in hetrosexual sex is a moral choice.

And here it comes.

Clearly engaging in homosexual acts is a moral choice.

No one was born to be a homosexual. All behaviors are choices.

You can strap a micro-cam to your shoe and go around taking "up shots" of women's panties and post them to the net.

There is nothing illegal about that. Immoral and unethical but not illegal.

So morality is a personal thing. Would you kick a person in the private parts in a fight? "Clean fighter and dirty fighter.....everything can be judge morally by individuals.

Morality becomes an issue in "theologic" states.

We have separation of church and state. Morality cannot be legislated.

What are the drug laws? They are an attempt to legislate morality and they fail miserable as all such "good intentioned" law does.

A libertarian society does not allow for the law to be abused for inflicting personal morals on others.

Look at lots of the posters here.


Cannabis is a soft drug so it's OK. But the law ought to go after the crystal meth or the coke junkies.

That is all pure moral judement.

So everything we do is the choice of the person as moral actors.

State all my belief or none.


Why pick out just one of them?

And this is an "encyclopiedia" not the National Inquirer.

Should the entry on Marc Emery state that he has been accused of "anti-semitism" because he has.

If you feel that is appropriate you could add that.

To me that would be inappropriate.

First I know that Marc is not an anti-semite.

But the question to you is.


If the last paragraph of Marc's Wiki bio stated that Marc was accused of anti-semitism and like to his Sask jail blog quotes.....what impression is left.

And that is what I'm getting at.


The police lay charges.....in the eye of the public you are guilty even if the courts find you innocent.


So just by brining up the fact that Marc was accused would leave the impression that he was accused therefore he must be guilty or Wiki would have not published it.

Marc would not be given a chance to clear up his views if Wiki was someone's only source of information.

And look at the big picture.

The powers at Wiki are very short sighted. If they allow this kind of horseshit to be entered they will only suceed in shutting people up.

Look at the lesson they are teaching any potential person who wants to run for politcal office. Don't ever participate in any Forums....some minor little debate with a sock puppet somewhere could become what every person who ever looks at your bio at Wikipiedia reads. Even this Strgrinparadise....claiming to be involved at Wiki is using a sock puppet name because he understands that people could do the same thing to him, paint him with whatever brush they want.....so he hides under a pseudo-non....

I been accused of anti-semitism too. Hell Im pretty open about my views on evcerything. You can go to newwinnipeg and follow along the debate there too.

Problem is....over and over everywhere they looked, those with the paint brushes...you know what they found?

Constant referals of how much I admired Szasz, Mises and Rothbard. Szasz and Mises were born Jewish but adopt athiesim as a religion. Rothbard is not open about his religion.

So pretty tough to be accused of anti-semitism when the three guys I admire most are Jews eh!

So there now you can have a new even more exiciting entry for wikipiedia.....Chris Buors has been accused of been an anti-semite.

I have also been accused of being a homosexual too.

See, there has not been too much that I have not been "accused of."

Wikipiedia ought to cover every accusation or none.

And like I said.....doesn't that sound more like what the national Inquirer would print?

And just o prove the point.


This is the last post that will ever appear under the Chris Buors name.


I see that none of Wikipiedia links go to newwinnipeg.com because there I have a pseudonon.

So that is that.

Chris Buors no longer exists on the internet.

I'll just pcik a pseudo-nom and that will be that.