Alabama public television didn't air gay wedding in 'Arthur'

[Andsed]

1. Okay let me rephrase this. There is no logical basis for homosexuality being wrong. The idea of that is just some old relic people have sadly not given up.

2. And no AIDS and STDs do not prove jack shit about the morality of homosexuality. They affect homosexuals because of biology not god punishing them. Beside if your god does punish homosexuality he is an asshole.

1. "Sex should be connected to the reproductive function and not be intrinsically sterile" is technically a logical basis for opposing homosexuality.
2. Have you ever considered that biology reflects morality to at least some extent or the other?

1. No it's not and let''s not lie and pretend that it is. The idea that the only valid reason for sex is reproduction is utter nonsense. It is not wrong to have consenting sex for please because you know it harms no one.

2. No because that is utter horse shit. Morality did not shape how we evolved you know?

[Highever]

You're out of luck; the US is a secular nation.

Obviously I am not out of luck if Alabama here is rightfully censoring this, I know America is secular but anything that leans closer to my values will obviously win my support, its basic logic.

Its basic logic to not try and legislate ot enforce religious law in a secular nation and yet here we are.

[Nakena]

1. "Sex should be connected to the reproductive function and not be intrinsically sterile" is technically a logical basis for opposing homosexuality.

Specifically anal-sex begs to differ.

2. Have you ever considered that biology reflects morality to at least some extent or the other?

Depends by which morality you go. ^^

[Diopolis]

1. "Sex should be connected to the reproductive function and not be intrinsically sterile" is technically a logical basis for opposing homosexuality.
2. Have you ever considered that biology reflects morality to at least some extent or the other?

1. No it's not and let''s not lie and pretend that it is. The idea that the only valid reason for sex is reproduction is utter nonsense. It is not wrong to have consenting sex for please because you know it harms no one.

2. No because that is utter horse shit. Morality did not shape how we evolved you know?

Natural law is a logical basis for opposition to homosexuality. Granted, it makes it very difficult to be only opposed to homosexuality, but it is a logical basis, if often applied inconsistently.

[Dazchan]

So this is just basically clinging on to old outdated borderline idiotic beliefs that homosexuality is wrong? Got it.

Its not idiotic nor outdated what was wrong yesterday is wrong today, with your logic in 100 years from now is it okay to justify murder, rape or anything else? I mean look at AIDS and other STDs and how they affect homosexuals and drug addicts its clear God is punishing these acts.

Is your god also punishing people who get HIV from heterosexual sex and blood transfusions? What about babies who are infected in utero?

[Conserative Morality]

You're out of luck; the US is a secular nation.

Obviously I am not out of luck if Alabama here is rightfully censoring this, I know America is secular but anything that leans closer to my values will obviously win my support, its basic logic.

The South tried to censor interracial kisses two generations ago; guess how that went?

[Conserative Morality]

You're out of luck; the US is a secular nation.

Obviously I am not out of luck if Alabama here is rightfully censoring this, I know America is secular but anything that leans closer to my values will obviously win my support, its basic logic.

The South tried to censor interracial kisses two generations ago; guess how that went?

[Conserative Morality]

Its not idiotic nor outdated what was wrong yesterday is wrong today, with your logic in 100 years from now is it okay to justify murder, rape or anything else? I mean look at AIDS and other STDs and how they affect homosexuals and drug addicts its clear God is punishing these acts.

Is your god also punishing people who get HIV from heterosexual sex and blood transfusions? What about babies who are infected in utero?

>> when traditionalist countries have higher HIV and STD rates than the decadent, immoral homoWest

Must be a statistical error.

[Andsed]

1. No it's not and let''s not lie and pretend that it is. The idea that the only valid reason for sex is reproduction is utter nonsense. It is not wrong to have consenting sex for please because you know it harms no one.

2. No because that is utter horse shit. Morality did not shape how we evolved you know?

Natural law is a logical basis for opposition to homosexuality. Granted, it makes it very difficult to be only opposed to homosexuality, but it is a logical basis, if often applied inconsistently.

No it is really not. Homosexuality is not unnatural. And even if it is that proves nothings as natural does not equal good.

[Diopolis]

Natural law is a logical basis for opposition to homosexuality. Granted, it makes it very difficult to be only opposed to homosexuality, but it is a logical basis, if often applied inconsistently.

No it is really not. Homosexuality is not unnatural. And even if it is that proves nothings as natural does not equal good.

You don't know what natural law is, do you? Don't get in an ethics debate without understanding the basics of moral philosophy.

[Nakena]

1. No it's not and let''s not lie and pretend that it is. The idea that the only valid reason for sex is reproduction is utter nonsense. It is not wrong to have consenting sex for please because you know it harms no one.

2. No because that is utter horse shit. Morality did not shape how we evolved you know?

Natural law is a logical basis for opposition to homosexuality. Granted, it makes it very difficult to be only opposed to homosexuality, but it is a logical basis, if often applied inconsistently.

Wrong. Homosexuality has been a tradition at least since the times of the Ancient Greeks.

[Andsed]

No it is really not. Homosexuality is not unnatural. And even if it is that proves nothings as natural does not equal good.

You don't know what natural law is, do you? Don't get in an ethics debate without understanding the basics of moral philosophy.

Well according to google it is:

"a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."

Which basically proves nothing and is no logical basis to say homosexuality is wrong.

[Pope Joan]

With the decrease in governmental support, PBS is more dependent upon private donors.

Maybe they were afraid of losing that support.

It' is cowardly, but understandable

[The Lone Alliance]

I got a good compromise idea, Canada offers to lift their ban on that pro-life movie if in return Alabama and Arkansas allows the Arthur episode.

Seeing how Alabama is obsessed with Abortion it'd likely work too.

[Crockerland]

This amounts to nothing more than censorship. Its telling LGBT people and kids there is something wrong with same sex relationships. They should have aired it and if parents didnt like it too bad. join the modern world.

This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

APT is funded directly by federal agencies (IE: my taxes) so yes, they do.

[Highever]

Natural law is a logical basis for opposition to homosexuality. Granted, it makes it very difficult to be only opposed to homosexuality, but it is a logical basis, if often applied inconsistently.

Wrong. Homosexuality has been a tradition at least since the times of the Ancient Greeks.

Even further actually. There is evidence that points to same sex marriage practices as far back as ancient Mesopotamia.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

It's fine let them Alabamas a hardline conservative state

Let them what? Intentionally retard their children's development for the sake of their own feelings?

Yes can't be that bad

[San Lumen]

With the decrease in governmental support, PBS is more dependent upon private donors.

Maybe they were afraid of losing that support.

It' is cowardly, but understandable

Its still a stupid idea. Alabama can then be denied public television then by their own choice.

[Highever]

Let them what? Intentionally retard their children's development for the sake of their own feelings?

Yes can't be that bad

Or we could not just allow a federally funded broadcasting agency to violate the 1st Ammendment to preserve the feelings of those in one of the worst educated states.

[San Lumen]

Yes can't be that bad

Or we could not just allow a federally funded broadcasting agency to violate the 1st Ammendment to preserve the feelings of those in one of the worst educated states.

Agreed and if parents don't wont their kids exposed to something that is perfectly natural and normal that's their problem. There is a magical thing called a remote

[Pope Joan]

With the decrease in governmental support, PBS is more dependent upon private donors.

Maybe they were afraid of losing that support.

It' is cowardly, but understandable

Its still a stupid idea. Alabama can then be denied public television then by their own choice.

There may be a backlash among that membership; we shall have to wait and see

[San Lumen]

Its still a stupid idea. Alabama can then be denied public television then by their own choice.

There may be a backlash among that membership; we shall have to wait and see

Its Alabama therefore i have my doubts. Its one of the only two states were a majority dont support same sex marriage

[The Lone Alliance]

Yes can't be that bad

Or we could not just allow a federally funded broadcasting agency to violate the 1st Ammendment to preserve the feelings of those in one of the worst educated states.

I could see some racists using that argument to demand that Public Broadcasting allow them to host their own content.... oh well it might at least be amusing to see how bad they'd be at it.

I still think my compromise has merit.

[Highever]

Or we could not just allow a federally funded broadcasting agency to violate the 1st Ammendment to preserve the feelings of those in one of the worst educated states.

I could see some racists using that argument to demand that Public Broadcasting allow them to host their own content.... oh well it might at least be amusing to see how bad they'd be at it.

I still think my compromise has merit.

Personally if some backwoods yokel wants a public access show where he circle jerks about Lincoln Rockwell or something with his buddies I dont see why they shouldnt be able to.

[The Lone Alliance]

I could see some racists using that argument to demand that Public Broadcasting allow them to host their own content.... oh well it might at least be amusing to see how bad they'd be at it.

I still think my compromise has merit.

Personally if some backwoods yokel wants a public access show where he circle jerks about Lincoln Rockwell or something with his buddies I dont see why they shouldnt be able to.

Give them the 3 AM slot, most public television is off the air around that time anyway. It would at least defeat their argument that Public Television is propaganda and likely would lessen resistance to situations like this.

Or just get both sides pissed off, which shows it's a true compromise.