DiscussMormonism.com

Have you heard the latest from Satanor Buttars

The SL Tribune reported on his comments calling Gays the "greatest threat to America" and "likened gay activists to Muslim radicals."

The Deseret News is now reporting the Senate will deal with Buttars "publicly" this afternoon. I'm waiting, with popcorn.

I hope the man sticks to his guns. He was elected to represent his constituency, and if they don't like it they can kiss his behind.

Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.

Gazelam wrote:Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.

Regardless, do they deserve equal rights?

Dr. Shades wrote:

Gazelam wrote:Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.

Regardless, do they deserve equal rights?

I vote for special treatment.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Gazelam wrote:Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.

Regardless, do they deserve equal rights?

Equal to what? A married couple? No, of coarse not.

Equal treatment that you would reserve for any other sexual deviant, by all means.

Who gets to define what a sexual "deviant" is?

You apparently believe that someone with homosexual proclivities is a sexual deviant.

What if someone is bisexual? Is that person, too, a sexual deviant?

What about a person who is merely bi-curious? Is that person also a sexual deviant?

What about a heterosexual who engages in bondage and/or sadomasochism? Sexual deviant or not?

How about someone who does it doggy-style? Sexual deviant?

How about someone who does it with the lights on? A sexual deviant?

Please let us know where the cut-off line is, and what objective determination you employed to identify it.

I agree with Buttars. by the way, homosexuals already have equal rights.

Gazelam wrote:Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.

Shades wrote:
Regardless, do they deserve equal rights?
--------------
Gazelam wrote:
Equal to what? A married couple? No, of coarse not.

Equal treatment that you would reserve for any other sexual deviant, by all means.
--------------
JAK responded:

Some issues should be raised with this.

Should homosexuals have the right to work?
If the answer is no, how could employers make that determination? What if the employer is homosexual?

What is meant by the expression: “Homosexuals are perverts, plain and simple, and deserve no special treatment or unusual rights whatsoever.”

What are “unusual rights” as opposed to general “rights” afforded by laws of a state or the nation?

Is having insurance an “unusual” right?

Is having any employment for which one’s training qualifies one an “unusual” right?

Are there heterosexuals whom you would classify as “perverts”? How would you identify them?

If there are heterosexual “perverts,” how should they be treated?

Many unanswered issues are encompassed in such a generalized attack and judgment regarding “rights.”

Shades,

The very thought that you have to ask is part of the problem. Some truths are self evident, homeosexuality is a lifestyle that you have to argue and justify and make excuses for. Its blatantly a perversion, and its immature and deviant to argue in favor of something so blatantly wrong.

Most of the questions you have asked are rhetorical. Any sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage are wrong. A homosexual marriage is an offence to God and a mockery of the ordinance.

As far as sexual relations within a marriage, any act that objectifies the man or the woman and debases them is wrong.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:Most of the questions you have asked are rhetorical.

That's right. It's an exercise to see if your logic holds any weight.

A homosexual marriage is an offence to God and a mockery of the ordinance.

What if God doesn't exist?

As far as sexual relations within a marriage, any act that objectifies the man or the woman and debases them is wrong.

Then let's ask:

What if a married person is bisexual? Is that person, too, a sexual deviant?

What about a married person who is merely bi-curious? Is that person also a sexual deviant?

What about a married couple that engages in bondage and/or sadomasochism? Sexual deviant or not?

How about a married couple who does it doggy-style? Sexual deviant?

How about a married couple who does it with the lights on? A sexual deviant?

Please let us know where the cut-off line is, and what objective determination you employed to identify it.