True, he did go beyond the starfleet crews comfort zone and present a constant reminder of the diversity of alien life they were likely to encounter.
These comments illustrate my point on morals being subjective. What one person considers moral and acceptable, another finds revolting. Perhaps it also depends on what one means by harmful. Physically harmful? Emotionally harmful? Harmful to one's relationship with another individual? If the definition of harmful is broad enough, then, yes, I'll concede to that point. But it has to be a broad definition. The reason behind that is an individual may determine that X television show, Y movie or Z song might be wrong or immoral to listen to. Electronic media in and of itself is not going to physically harm an individual, yet there is something about such entertainment our hypothetical individual finds offensive or immoral. Same goes for speech. Certain words are considered by some individuals to be vulgar or immoral. The words themselves are not going to cause anyone physical pain or injury but that doesn't change their perceived degree of morality or lack thereof.
Commitment works a little differently with polyamory than with monogamy. Well, mostly in that exclusivity isn't a part of it. (And yes, there is much more to commitment than fidelity.) She was honest about her intentions, and one can still value commitment and still pursue casual relationships and sex. My only criticism of the way she represented polyamory was that she continued to aggressively pursue Tucker after he had made it clear he wasn't interested.
And if all the bakeries in town refuse to serve you? That's why we have to make laws about these things, because if enough people decide to be assholes, they can easily stomp all over the rights of others.
as a sort of gay/trans/wierdly-gendered person with a bi/gender-confused boy/girlfriend and 2 mums, i declare myself winner of the whole 'friend of diversity' competition from a few pages back. and i'd much rather be a liberal lefty cultist than an unenlightened bigot.
As much as I wish people were more tolerant about same-sex couples and marriage as business owners they do have the right to refuse service to people or at the very least only take on certain clients. It's a disgusting act on their part, sure, but they're hardly acting outside the bounds of law.
"Perceived" is the key word. If it's arbitrary, it doesn't count. There has to be some real harm done for something to be immoral, not some make-believe, justifying-irrational-rules kind of harm.
I don't know if we believed it. I think people were probably freaked out a little bit, considering we were being told this by a supposed authority figure.
No, YOU "shut the fuck up." See, now we all understand each other. Now, back to more reasonable discussion points...
Umm, J. Allen, I've dealt withyou enough to in the past to know how strongly and how personally you feel about this topic - but could you please tell me WHERE I made any statement "denigrating gay people"?
First, I DO want to apologizefor the "depraved rantings" comment, as I realized that can be construed provocatively. However, I am sorry to inform you, RJDiogenes, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest it is not a settled issue. First, it is interesting to note that the Wikipedia article Kommander posted the link for itself suggests that homosexuality is currently considered to be a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. However, I suggest you look up the websites "Free Republic" and "The Redding Posts" and search for this topic (I don't kno how to post a link, btw). There are some EXTREMELY well written, and thoroughly vetted articles on why this is so NOT a settled issue, despite the claims of advocates. And before anyone play the sleight of hand that because at least one of these sites has a link to a "religious" organization, it cannot be trusted, I challenge anyone to dismiss the science on it's merits. Because, after all, good science is value-neutral, right? So, no, not a settled issue.
I've never really understood why the origins of someone's sexuality are important. Whether a person was born gay, raised gay, or chose to be gay, it shouldn't matter. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Being gay doesn't harm a single person. Humans and animals have been engaging in homosexual activities for thousands of years. The notion that it is "wrong" or "immoral" is strictly an idea that somebody came up with and that a bunch of other people agreed with, but it's just an opinion. Can we prove that homosexuality is the result of genetics? Maybe, maybe not. Can we prove that homosexuality is wrong? Never.