This discourse goes back to my post 49. Please refer to it to see how far out of whack you have attempted to take this discussion.
1. In post 49, item 1 I stated: I dont think violence is called for if someone lies, unless the lie causes severe consequences
What part of that are we in disagreement?
I guess that we disagree on what constitutes severe consequences. Since I think that it is okay to be gay, I dont see that violence is called for if one were to say such things. If I say that it is okay to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes each day, should I get my but kicked? If I do get beaten up for stating my opinion, am I partially to blame?
In post 49, item 1 I also stated One could argue that the consequences of telling someone the lie that homosexuality is not a sin can set up far more severe consequences, like an eternity in hell.
All that you can conclude is that
an old book says that homosexuality is a sin and that hell exists. That does not mean that, in reality, homosexuality is a sin and that hell exists. I think that hell is a fictional place or condition. It has yet to be proven that hell exists. In fact, some people might believe that hell exists, that homosexuals go to hell, and choose to go there. People have the right to state their views and give their warnings (as correct or incorrect as they may be) and let people decide for themselves. It is up to each individual to take what he hears and to decide for himself.
I might tell someone that it is okay to be gay. That person will take my comments and listen to you say that it is not okay to be gay. That person will take your comments and then he will make up his own mind. Am I partially to blame if I get beaten up for expressing my opinion based on what information I give? Are you partially to blame if you get beaten up for expressing your opinion based on what information you give?
In such case, best to let Satan do the ass kickin. That clearly indicates my position on your subject: we have an obligation to warn people about sin, but let Satan deal with these sinners. As a conservative, I do not believe that morality can be legislated.
The notion that Satan even exists is based on imagination, theory, and myth. Anyway, Yes. You have an obligation to warn people about dangers that you think are real and the consequences that you think will result. I have an obligation to inform people on my views on subjects and to warn people of what I think is wrong and dangerous. By the way morality (what people think should be moral and immoral behavior) is legislated all of the time. Legislation is practically the same as codified morality accompanied by legal consequences. When a law says that it is illegal to murder and that a murder may serve many years in jail, a moral statement is established. Legislatures decided that it is wrong to murder.
Of course: this is exactly why, since the discussion is political in nature, it requires an evaluation of the statistics on how the population perceives the facts.
No. The issue is not perception. Perception is perception and reality (facts) is reality. You do a disservice when you give people myths and present them as reality. Positions should be backed up with facts, statistics, and logic. This has nothing to do with statistics on how the population perceives the information (facts) to reach their conclusion. The issue is on establishing theories and (through logic, science, and statistics) seeing them evolve into facts from which individuals within a population can then apply to their own lives (correctly or incorrectly) as they see fit.
