David, I'm prepared to fight the world all by my self to back my word and have done so for 100+ pages or whatever.


I'm not embarrased by my opinions on homosexuals. That does not mean I don't understand the ramifications of being politically inncorrect.

So here I am standing by waht I said.

You're not "politically incorrect" - you're "politically irrational". Your definition of "immoral" is "unconventional" - an impossible position to defend considering what has been considered "conventional" in the past or even today. You keep using the term "politically incorrect" like it was a badge of honor, forgetting the fact that this term was invented by RightWingers so they could hold irrational views while avoiding criticism.

Anybody not in total agreement with you is politically irrational.

I have done an admirable job of defending my moral definitions in a world where I recognize the rules are that you define or be defined.

Bill Mahar is Pollitical Incorrectness writ large.

If that is right-wing....sign me up!

You might just as well call me an American for my views on how to deter crime.

John Lott just had a beautiful letter to the Editor in the Vancounver Papers.

I not a big believer in state rehabilitation. It doesn't work. If people want to they will re-habilitate themselves.

I'm a big believer in the state's duty to punish.

And that goes hand in hand with my libertarian views that the government exist to protect people from force and fraud. That's it that's all.

No economic criminals and no moral criminals in the libertarian world.

There would be so much prosperity in a Captialist world that theft would be unknown except for the shiftless who prefer plunder to work.

I'm all for the punishment fitting the crime under such circumstances. Why not some kind of punishment like 10 lashes in the public square for stealing?

It seems harsh at first, but is subjecting the individual to the inhumanity of jail any more compassionate?

Considering what can happen and is encouraged to happen in prisons on behalf of Mr. Bennett's state, 10 lashes for stealing seems very humane indeed. At least no one will homosexually rape them.

What od you prefer Mr. Compasionate? Sending theives on their way? Of having the govenrment give them an easy life of unproductive welfare so they can absolve themselves of the responsibility to earn a living?


Every man a soldier......

Anybody not in total agreement with you is politically irrational.

No ... any argument that anyone can't back up with reason is irrational. You still haven't explained how your definition of "immoral = unconventional" is reasonable, in that many, many things that are unconventional today are reasonable (pot being legal, for example) and many, many things from yesterday that were "conventional" were immoral and unreasonable (slavery, women denied the vote, alcohol prohibition etc etc etc etc etc). You just dropped that discussion - so your views remain irrational.




"I have done an admirable job of defending my moral definitions in a world where I recognize the rules are that you define or be defined."

Your solution to being argued into a corner is to change the subject - that's cowardly, not admirable.




Bill Mahar is Pollitical Incorrectness writ large.

"If that is right-wing....sign me up!"

He attacks homophobes like yourself:

Bill Maher's "New Rules" on Same Sex Marriage

Transcript from show "Real Time: with Bill Maher." First aired Friday, March 5th. The views in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of this website, and may not be suitable for all readers. But we thought some of you might find them very entertaining

New Rule: Politics is about compromises. Really stupid compromises.

That's how we got such laws as... Blacks are 3/5 of a person. Slaves are property, unless they make it to Ohio. Interning the Japanese, but not the Germans. Slaughtering the Indians, but letting the ones who survive run the Keno parlors. Porn, but not hardcore porn. Booze, and then no booze, and then booze again. But no pot. Except medical marijuana. Which is legal to possess, but illegal to obtain. And my favorite; you can't have stem cells, except the ones we already have.

Now in this spirit, I would like to offer a few compromise suggestions for the knotty issue we face today: same sex marriage.

Why not this? It's okay to be gay, if you're already gay, but no new gays. We'll grandfather you in if you're already an organ grinder, but that's it. Or, how about, let gays marry, but come out against gay mortgages?

Or, maybe the answer to this is as plain as the nose in my lap. With both sides so set, one being all for gay marriage, and the other completely against it, how about we just let the lesbians marry?

I mean, come on, marriage is a chick thing, anyway. It is. Monogamy and marriage were invented by women and the church as a way to address female insecurity, and to stamp out oral sex as we know it. And don't give me some line about how two women can't reproduce. As long as David Crosby is alive and can swallow a Viagra, that's not a problem.

Plus, let's face it. When people talk about homosexuality being unnatural, and abomination, they're not talking about the women.

No, no, they're talking about the men. Nobody seems to find anything so abominable about Britney Spears tonguing Madonna. Or Gina Gershon in bed with Jennifer Tilly. Or anything else on the third shelf of my "library."


No, in America, when a man puts something in another man, it had better be a bullet.

So isn't it time both sides compromised a little on this issue? The statistics tell us that anywhere from 2-10% of people in America are gay. Although it seems higher at my bath house.

So look, conservatives, I know you're sincere. I know you think you're doing God's work. But in a hundred years, people traveling by jet pack to Mars are not going to be tripping on gay marriage. The whole issue is just going to be a joke. On you.

So my advice is simple: They're here, they're queer, get bored with it.

http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/000731.html



Valentine's Day, That Great State Holiday

by Bill Maher, Feb 14, 2004

NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there's one area I don't want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it's love.

On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?

And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, birthdays are important, too -- why not include them in the great document? Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake -- you know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people, and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to encourage and promote marriage -- including seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up people at random and say "So why aren't you married, Mr. Big Shot?"

But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing "I Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be." They oppose gay marriage because it threatens or mocks -- or does something -- to the "sanctity of marriage," as if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked-up, rich or desperate, but in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing -- kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue -- they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an "abomination" and a "dysfunction" that's "curable": they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible, it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear: `There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination' -- although that Boy George musical Rosie O'Donnell put on comes close. The only thing abominable about being gay is the amount of time you have to put in at the gym.

But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don't need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.

Happy Valentine's Day everybody!

http://www.christiangays.com/humour/valentine.shtml

You are wrong David.

I explained the healthy/unhealthy thought alotments of spychiatry and the moral, amoral, immoral definitions I use a number of times now.

At least half, and I suspect more of the Canadian population use the same judgemental catagories.

We do know what Canadians think of homosexual marriage, a pseudo-issue that we can gleen insight from. Is one-half the population of Canada irrational? I don't think so.


Changing the subject. Most people wish I would. How many ways can the case be made for gray existing in the narrow minded love/hate world of the Malmo-Levines?


Bill Mahar sound just like me. I have no objection to gay marriage or multiple marriage or anything else the church of your choice supports. Marriage is of no concern to the state.

Bill Mahar sounds just like Marc Emery and I as far as what the purpose of the law is.


But the question begs, Are most Americans homophobes?

All your doing is providing proof that my personal views are not extreme, they are mainstream. It is my politcal views, that dissidents be left alone that is extreme.

"I explained the healthy/unhealthy thought alotments of spychiatry and the moral, amoral, immoral definitions I use a number of times now."

Yes ... you've managed to dodge the "how is all that is conventional = moral and all that is unconventional = immoral given what conventions we have had in the past and given that cannabis prohibition is 'conventional' today" question AGAIN.



"At least half, and I suspect more of the Canadian population use the same judgemental catagories."

At one time, at least half of Canadians believed slavery was moral. How do you justify basing morality on what a "majority" believe, given the fact that majorities have been wrong in the past?




"We do know what Canadians think of homosexual marriage, a pseudo-issue that we can gleen insight from. Is one-half the population of Canada irrational? I don't think so."

1) You have yet to produce facts on the matter.

2) Morality isn't popularity - it's based upon principles like "do no harm".



"Changing the subject. Most people wish I would. How many ways can the case be made for gray existing in the narrow minded love/hate world of the Malmo-Levines?"

My world view is based upon an easy to understand principle - "harmful to others" = immoral, and "not harmful to others" = moral. Is that too "narrow" for you?


"Bill Mahar sound just like me."

How does he sound just like you?

"Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear: `There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination'"

"So look, conservatives, I know you're sincere. I know you think you're doing God's work. But in a hundred years, people traveling by jet pack to Mars are not going to be tripping on gay marriage. The whole issue is just going to be a joke. On you."

Sounds like the opposite of you. Perhaps you can draw attention to where you said similar things to Bill.







"I have no objection to gay marriage or multiple marriage or anything else the church of your choice supports. Marriage is of no concern to the state. Bill Mahar sounds just like Marc Emery and I as far as what the purpose of the law is."

Sure, Bill sounds like Marc. But unlike Marc and Bill, you consider homosexuality a "sin" ... something "immoral".





"But the question begs, Are most Americans homophobes?"

The other question - should we all base our opinions on what "most Americans" are?




"All your doing is providing proof that my personal views are not extreme, they are mainstream. It is my politcal views, that dissidents be left alone that is extreme."

Show me proof that "most Americans" think homosexuality is "immoral" - I've challenged you repeately and you've ignored the challenge repeately.

Exactly, it is the Buorish use of terms like "immoral" and "sin", in reference to gay love, ideals that were literally whipped into him by his mother, that are offensive and extreme "homophobia".

The more recent Buorish sugestion we should shoot petty people for petty theft and cut off their hands is equally extreme and equally disturbing.

Quote:

---

One certainly can define anything one wants into hate.


I don't like the cut of their jib down there is a whole lot different than we ought to do this or do that or they ought to go away or a whole lot of other worse things one could think off.


Three of those choices were religions and one was an activity.


According to you this next statement is hate.

I think all gamblers are immoral. What a waste of life and money. Hedonism I tell ya. Wouldn't surprise me to find out Marc Emery patronizes Casinos, that Hedonist. Setting a bad example for all the kids. It's a sin I tell you.

Divaints too those gamblers. Only a small percentage of people actually gamble. They ought to change their ways. I would hate for my kid to be gambler. I don't want to be hanging out with none of them losers either. They come into my home and start betting me this and start betting me that , i'm going to fire them out the door. And when My niece comes by to dicsuss the merits of the Casino, I'm goint to tell her exactly what I think og gambling and gamblers. I'm going to tell her to put her money in the bank and to never even give it try because it just leads to heartache and pain. And if she starts hanging out with gamblers, don't bring them to my door.

We could essentially run the vices by and I would hand out the same advice. Vice is where I catagorize behaviors I find immoral.

So why does it follow that I must hate all gamblers because I don't like to see people waste their loot on that harmless activity?

All vices are harmless or harmfull only ourselves....Think Lysander Spooner....Vice Are Not Crimes.

So why must I hate homosexuals when I would treat them no differnetly than anybody else I thought was engaged in vicious behavior?

Now I have a few vices of my own. Lots of people have pointed out my faults. I addmit them. I can be arrogant and obnoxious. I have character flaws.

Now I have been at this for for quite a while now.

If I hated homosexuals, well first of all I wouldn't have any problem stating it if it were true.

Next, rather than rely on all the behavioral arguments I gleened from Thomas Szasz to destroy addiction arguements, which is what I did, I certainly would have know at least once source where hatred is passed off as some sort of better argument than that.

My arguments are moral arguments. Vices and virtues and not criminal or evil or dirty or whatever else historic arguments of hatred are based on.

In psychiatry every behavior can be defined as sick or healthy. Vicious or virtueous goes the religious definitions.


There are an awful lot of social pressure being applied to define homosexuality as "other than vice."

Moral, amoral, immoral are the choices.

Masterbating is the only amoral sexual behavior as every other activity will require a moral decision.

Not every girl will give you a rim job. Why not? Because they make a moral decision? Not every woman will let you come in her mouth, why? They make a moral decision perhaps?

Some girls can hardly wait to get in there and give you a demonstration so that you will understand decadence if the subject is ever brought up.

It's all morality.


Some people seem to be in denial around here.


Now I have a moral standard. Men on Men sex as well as women on women sex slides right into the immoral side of my scale. I won't do it. For me it would be immoral.

For others, a throat job and two guys doing them up the rear end while the camera's are rolling and they are screaming out Hi Mom...well that's fine for them. No one is getting hurt. I don't give a shit what other do.

For me I got a line drawn in the sand of sexual morality and believe it or not, I don't think that is such a bad morality to have.

Now why would I hate all those hedionistic others out there?


I don't want anybody rounded up or evil of any sort visited on the unconventional.

But that I will give homosexuality the moral thumbs up. Not going to happen. I ain't giving gamblers or adulterers or poligimists the moral thumbs up either.


Now, the homosexuals can all fuck themselves to death, the gamblers can spend every nickle they ever earned and the adutlerers can fuck themselves to death too. None of that is going to bother me.

I'll get a good night sleep even though I know somebody somewhere might be calling all that stuff fun.

---

There it is in black and white David. How I personally conclude homosexuality is immoral.


Bill Mahar has his personal moral code and I have mine. Bill is being politically correct on that one. Why won't you committ homosexual acts David? Morality got anything to do with it?

How boorish your argument styles is Bennett.

How did your parents punish you?


Did they use the strap in school at the time? Was corprol punishment the rule of the day.


All context devoid in your argument style.

Would you like to come and whip anything into me? I guranetee you it can't be done.

What a wicked person you are to stoop to such a level as to insult other persons mothers personally when she merely represents her time and her age.

You are a low life Chris Bennett.

Marc Emery at least has a brain in his head that can see a little more than red, black and white.

Well, i guess it's not offensive to insult peoples mothers and state that you are glad they aren't parents and the like. None of that is offensive.

But somehow my mainstream views on the immorality of homosexualism are offensive.

Well if it is you they offend too bad. So sad. You need offending to open your narrow world of heterophobia and put some gray in that red, black and white world you live in.

Maybe a little more color in your world will soften you penchant to attack those who disagree with your version of morality.

I wouldn't want to be like you. I'm starting to feel pity that you don't have better argument skills than what I see here.

I used to be a little leery of your boorish style of bullying people into not challanging your opinions.

But now that I have seen the best you got Bennett, your a weak little man with no special qualities like all tyrants are.