[CD]

Wow!

I go away on business (fun that I'll post in another forum) and this thread nearly goes nuclear then cools down to minor firecrackers. Now, if that ain't what is cool about our membership, what is?

I have a couple of 2¢ worth on the subject.

BB, It has been argued many, many times that the Constitutional rights do not apply to each and every case. If that were true, we would have a very difficult time putting pedophiles behind bars because it could be argued that they are "just that way" and should have a right to their preferences. While that is an extreme argument, the point is valid. It's a crime? Sure, but until recently, Sodomy was illegal in most states. What if you had a Pedophile Movement? Would they have the same rights?

Throwing "One Nation with liberty and justice for all"? into the pot? Why did you leave out the "under god" part? After all, the pledge was amended to add that in 1954 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance Sort of throws the argument out of line when it is edited it does it not?
The pledge of allegiance is not a law, not part of the bill of rights, not part of the constitution, not an amendment. It is a pledge no different than the Boy Scout pledge.

I cannot agree with the premise that the majority should not prevail. While it is unfortunate in some cases such as abortion rights, it is also why we have the Supreme Court.

Using your premise as an analogy, take ten people and have them vote on a common color for a room. If six out of ten vote for blue, do the four that voted green prevail? Or, do we paint 40% of the room green to appease them?

Marc, sorry I have to disagree with you on sexual preferences being a choice. Many studies have proven otherwise. To argue that being gay is a choice would also apply to pedophiles and other behaviours accepted as being outside of the norm.

To act on the preference is what may be illegal or immoral depending on your point of view.

To me when arguing / debating issues like this the sad part of is that one person will argue to another person with an opposite view thinking that their view is the only correct one and, that is the real problem.

I would suggest we all leave room for other view points and stating our opinions, keep them less personal and more on a factual basis.

Again, I am amazed at how well all of our members are acting on these hot topics.

Than again, we are all "Bike Talkers"

Thank you!

[Big Ben]

CD,

If that were true, we would have a very difficult time putting pedophiles behind bars because it could be argued that they are "just that way" and should have a right to their preferences. While that is an extreme argument, the point is valid. It's a crime? Sure, but until recently, Sodomy was illegal in most states. What if you had a Pedophile Movement? Would they have the same rights?

I think the difference is pretty clear. Gays consent to each other. Pedophiles have victims. When preferences infringe on the rights of others is where the line is drawn. The difference isn't legal vs. illegal, it's regulating the behavior of consenting adults vs. protecting children. There's really no comparison.

Throwing "One Nation with liberty and justice for all"? into the pot? Why did you leave out the "under god" part? After all, the pledge was amended to add that in 1954 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance Sort of throws the argument out of line when it is edited it does it not?

I'm not the one who edited it. As you pointed out, the pledge was edited in 1954 as part of the McCarthyist Red Scare, and it was done specifically as an attempt to establish religion (to separate us from the godless commies), violating the First Amendment. I don't think there's much point in fixing it now, but I prefer the traditional version. After all, adding "under God" contradicts "indivisible" and "for all", unless you believe atheists, Buddhists, etc. aren't citizens. I think "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is the important part anyway.

Using your premise as an analogy, take ten people and have them vote on a common color for a room. If six out of ten vote for blue, do the four that voted green prevail? Or, do we paint 40% of the room green to appease them?

On something like the color of a room, of course the majority prevails. If the majority votes to paint the minority blue, they've got a right to protest. It's only issues where rights are at stake that the minority needs to be protected.

CD, you really have created a great board here, and it's to your credit that such a great group of people hang out here. Sorry I allowed myself to get dragged into the personal stuff, and I'll keep doing my best to keep it polite. I've really been enjoying the discussion so far.

[Big Ben]

Bike Talkers,
This discussion has gotten heated at times, and I've argued pretty agressively, but I haven't resorted to personal insults and I haven't called anyone out as a bigot, as easy as that would have been. I've made sure to only attack people's arguments. Marc G has repeatedly insulted me and the people I ride with, and I haven't replied in kind out of respect for CD and this board.

And now he brings out the nuclear option of comparing me to JourneySun. (For those of you who are newer to Bike Talk, JourneySun was a particularly obnoxious troll from the days before the board moved to the current format. He was obnoxious enough to make Marc's behavior on this thread look downright gentlemanly.)

I think Marc owes me an apology for insulting me and my friends without cause, and I think he owes CD and the rest of the Bike Talkers an apology for violating the rules of the board. Opinions? Did I step over the line somewhere too?


That said...
Marc,
I don't know whether you're having trouble understanding the math, or understanding the English, so I'll explain it simply:
1+1=2. Gay people are people. A same sex couple who want to get married is "two people loving each other." This isn't that hard to understand.

[FLHTbiker]

Absolutely never would I ever apologize to you when you continually try and push your view point as it being the only and correct view point and that everyone else simply does not understand. Why should I or anyone else accept your way of thinking about this? We all do have minds of our own you know.
You simply don't like someone disagreeing with your view point which is your right, however you come on so strong with it, it is as though you are trying to push your opinion upon everyone here and won't accept that maybe someone does not agree with you and you can't understand or accept that.
CD, does not agree with me about it being a choice and that is his right. I believe it is and quit frankly with you, I don't care if you like that or not as it is my opinion.
At our Rally this weekend we were all sitting around talking one evening and I told them of this issue going on here and was curious to here their opinion.
No, I did not say there is this weird guy that is spouting this or that.
They all except for one lady came out more strongly against it then I have. The one who did not said her son is gay but she felt that he made that choice.
I really don't care to argue this with you back and forth as I have my opinion and have expressed it with you, yet you simply just won't accept that. I have told you I will not change my point of view about it yet you constantly try to push your point of view upon me expecting me to accept it as the way it is.
You have your opinion and your reasons and I have mine and my reasons.
You do remind me of Journeysun as he would not accept any other point of view. You have yours and I accept that but yours is not the only one.

[Big Ben]

Marc,
You're the one saying other people's lifestyle is abnormal and immoral, and you accuse me of not accepting other points of view?

You really do have trouble understanding what other people write, don't you?

I have said more than once that I have no problem with people having other opinions. What I have a problem with is restricting other people's rights. You have the right to believe what you want about gay people, as I've said over and over.

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. If you believe what you believe because you have the facts wrong, or are using flawed logic, then it's not "pushing my opinion" on you to point that out. I'm not saying you have to accept gay people or agree with me about everything. I'm just challenging you to come up with some justification for your opinion, and so far all you've been able to come up with is, "that's what I think."

But even if I were being closed-minded and forcing my opinion on you, you have no cause to insult me. Even if you think I'm not worth your time, at least respect CD and the other posters here by not bringing down the level of this forum to playground insults. Seriously, can't you discuss this like an adult? Everyone else here seems to be able to.

[FLHTbiker]

You are the one who does not accept any other opinion. You believe one way which is your way and I believe my way. My opinion is gays are abnormal and that is my opinion and as I said I don't care if you like it or not. There are enough people out there that feel the same way I do. You need to accept that other people don't agree with you. I already accept that other people don't agree with my view point.

[Big Ben]

What part of "I have no problem with people having other opinions" did you not understand?

[Sleepy]

Before the lid blows off could you please sit back and take a break from this. I'm in the middle of something right now so I can't take the time to express myself properly. Marc's a good friend of mine and I'd hate to see him or Ben get barred for scrapping. From an outside point of view I think that Ben is asking Marc to accept Ben's point of view. I think Marc feels he is being asked to agree with it and isn't prepared to do so so now we have the stalemate. This is a great thread fellas, let's not wreck it.

[Big Ben]

Sleepy,

From an outside point of view I think that Ben is asking Marc to accept Ben's point of view.

I know you're always reasonable about these things, so if it reads that way to you I must not be expressing myself well. Of course I'm trying to persuade and convince people (that's what debate's for), but I'm not trying to force my opinion on them, and I certainly never meant to imply that people have to agree with me.

Marc, I'm not trying to say that you have to agree with me. But if you respect this forum at all, you shouldn't insult me, and you should have the decency to apologize for doing so.

[CD]

Marc, Ben, please take a chill pill. We will not go down the flame throwing path...

Step back, reorganize your thoughts and, if you want to post, please review your text before hitting the button.

Marc and Ben, we all have a common bond and we owe one another the same respect here that you would give in real life.

[Big Ben]

CD,
Why is it "Marc and Ben"?
Did I step over the line somewhere?
I really do want to respect your wishes and keep the place friendly. Please let me know where I should have toned it down and I'll make sure not to do it again.

I thought I was keeping it polite and respectful, even when I've been repeatedly insulted.

[scooter]

You both are very passionate about your beliefs, and both express it as such.

I think maybe one or both of you may possibly be taking things a little personal, which is not such a bad thing, but it might cloud your judgement slightly in formulating a reply without being as tactful as you might otherwise be.

I enjoy both of y'all greatly...please don't stop posting here on this forum, or in response to each other. 'cept maybe give this particular thread a rest...

scoot

[CD]

Ben, it takes two to tango right? I am asking that you both step back and take a deep breath. You remember the J-Sun wars as well as I do and Marc had the displeasure of actually meeting him...ouch.

Marc posted:
You are the one who does not accept any other opinion. You believe one way which is your way and I believe my way. My opinion is gays are abnormal and that is my opinion and as I said I don't care if you like it or not. There are enough people out there that feel the same way I do. You need to accept that other people don't agree with you. I already accept that other people don't agree with my view point.

BB posted:
What part of "I have no problem with people having other opinions" did you not understand?

Pretty self explanatory to me.

So, I will say it again. Both of you please take the high ground. I know you are both good people.

[Big Ben]

Ben, it takes two to tango right?

Fair point.

It must come off in writing like I'm a lot hotter under the collar than I actually feel here at the keyboard. I haven't even really started to heat up yet (well, maybe the pilot flame is on ), and none of y'all want to see what it looks like when I actually go into flame mode. I really have been enjoying this conversation, even most of the conversation with Marc. The only thing I'm taking personally is the actual personal insults, for which I still think I deserve an apology. But I'll drop it for the sake of the board. Let's see if Marc can do the same.

To everybody, sorry about not being as tactful as I should be.

Also, sorry for taking part in the derailing of a good thread. It was a good debate about the issues, and it would have been better to keep it that way. I apologize for my part in that.

[SK]

Whoa..I hate to see this get too heated. It's definately a heated subject to say the least. Some people have a bit of a problem with gays, it makes them uneasy and they get a little defensive about it. Others..not so. I think it's fine either way. I guess if you don't like the discussion..walk away from it.

Oh well..JSun? Always wondered what happened to that guy. I had some good emails with him.

[CD]

BB,

When I referred to Pedophilia I am attempting to draw a comparison between mental tendencies. Gays have for a large part, united and have become a vocal force. The point I was making is that not that long ago, homosexuality was considered a crime and deviant, unlawful behaviour and in some cases there were "victims" added into the sauce. Gays hid under cover, closeted and with false public images. A simple look at actors like Rock, Rosie etc bears that out. The public had no interest in opening the "door" to the gay population. Lord forbid if they were released upon the public!

Pedophilia, while is a horrendous crime has it's own roots in the mind. I seriously doubt that one is born normal and decides one day to go rape a 12 year old girl.

But, what if (far fetched) a group of Pedophiles got together in prison and started an organization?

On one hand, not long ago Gays were criminals in most states. Did they then have the same protection you are referring to? And if so, shouldn't Pedophiles have similar rights?

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Ammendments do not have the phrase "with liberty and justice for all". It is in the declaration of independence and the pledge of allegiance neither are a legal document.

Our society is based on freedoms and I agree with your tenets. However, this country was, is and always should be based on the majority not the minority. Allowing the minority to ignore or deny laws invoked by the majority is a slippery slope. We have the district, federal and Supreme Courts to make the decision to alter or throw out laws etc.

[Big Ben]

CD,
I see your point about pedophilia. It may very well be another sexual orientation like being straight or gay that people have no choice about. I haven't looked into the research on pedophiles, so I really don't know, but maybe pedophiles can't be blamed for their desire to do things to children. But they can't act on that desire without a victim, and that's what makes it morally wrong. A pedophiles' rights movement can't go anywhere because their rights will always conflict with the rights of their victims. Gays, on the other hand, don't harm anyone, so the law has no business stopping them. The laws against them were immoral laws because they punished victimless crimes.

If God killed an innocent kitten every time gays had sex, then laws against homosexuality would be not only moral but arguably necessary. But you need proof of harm to take away people's rights.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Ammendments do not have the phrase "with liberty and justice for all".

They don't have the phrase "under god" either. In fact, God was purposefully left out of those documents. The constitution does have the phrase

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

which I think is pretty close to "liberty and justice for all."

Allowing the minority to ignore or deny laws invoked by the majority is a slippery slope. We have the district, federal and Supreme Courts to make the decision to alter or throw out laws etc.

We agree on this. I didn't mean to imply that the minority should be able to change the law just by protesting about it. That is on reason why the Constitution set up the court system as a check and balance--to protect against the tyranny of the majority in the rare cases when the rights of the minority are infringed. I'm not saying the minority should have veto power, but that the Courts should and do. The founders knew what they were doing when they set it up this way.


This conversation is better with the volume turned down like this. You deserve an apology from me too. You shouldn't have to police your own BBS like an angry father("You d@mn kids, keep it down in there! ). We should be adult enough to handle that ourselves.

[FLHTbiker]

CD, my last post to Ben I figured was it for me, I'm simply tired of it. I also simply don't want someone trying to force there opinion upon me as I beieve he was trying to do. I'm sorry Ben I don't accept your point of view on it and as I said I never will. Ben certainly has the right to believe his way however I have the right to believe the way I do. So with that in mind I'm done with it and will let others take it from there. Besides there is so many better things to talk about then this.

[Big Ben]

Just for the record, these are all things I have said on this thread:

If you don't like homosexuality, that's your right as an American.

Nothing wrong with freedom of speech.

I'm not trying to convince you that homosexuality is morally right.

It's a free country, and you can draw your line wherever you want.

I have no problem with people having other opinions.

You have the right to believe what you want about gay people.

People can judge for themselves whether that's "forcing my opinion" on someone. It looks to me like the opposite.

[CD]

BB,

On Pedophiles, that was my point. Looking beyond the victimization, Pedophilia and other behaviours classified outside of accepted norms can be traced to mental issues. Now, if a Pedophile messed with my kids or my friends kids? Best not ever let him out if you catch him before I do.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That fits the bill..but, did you notice that it does not address federal law or the right for the feds to enact laws?

I guess this is why we have Constitutional scholars. Like Theologians, they can argue the finest points with in the documents.