View Full Version : Discussion: Gay Rights II
mclay18
02-04-2010, 03:30 PM
A little out of the loop bu eharmony had a gay site? Was it CHemistry or is that another company altogether?
No, it wasn't Chemistry.com. It was CompatiblePartners.com, I think.
Ion Kenshin
02-04-2010, 03:31 PM
No, it wasn't Chemistry.com. It was CompatiblePartners.com, I think.
Oh thanks. Never heard of that site.
Kelly
02-04-2010, 04:47 PM
Guys, lets discuss in a respectful manner please...
Carcharodon
02-04-2010, 11:20 PM
Ah, I does't protest too much. Right, noone can have a firm stance on an issue without having that problem themselves. Very very weak of you. I suppose according to your "logic" you are a flaming far right social conservative. And all this time I thought you hated conservatives when in fact you really want to marry Ann Coulter or maybe Sean Hannity...considering what thread im inAre you going to try to kiss me now?
LT. CHOI, DADT REPEAL ACTIVIST, RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/dadt-repeal-activist-lt-d_n_455366.html
:wow:
Hobgoblin
02-09-2010, 05:31 PM
Good to hear.
BlackLantern
02-09-2010, 05:35 PM
if he's out in the field, he's not talking to the press and raising a fuss...probably the thinking there
don't be surprised if he gets sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and something happens to him
wiegeabo
02-09-2010, 05:36 PM
LT. CHOI, DADT REPEAL ACTIVIST, RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/dadt-repeal-activist-lt-d_n_455366.html
:wow:
That was completely unexpected.
And quite strange because the military is breaking their own rules with this. I thought discharge for being gay was in the Military Code of Justice. So, in effect, isn't recalling him is breaking the law?
BlackLantern
02-09-2010, 05:39 PM
It's grounds for discharge, but that is at the discretion of the chain of command
wiegeabo
02-09-2010, 05:39 PM
if he's out in the field, he's not talking to the press and raising a fuss...probably the thinking there
don't be surprised if he gets sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and something happens to him
If that happens, he becomes a martyr. Activists are annoying, but can be ignored. Martyr's have real power, and there'd be a huge public outcry if it seemed suspicious.
wiegeabo
02-09-2010, 05:40 PM
It's grounds for discharge, but that is at the discretion of the chain of command
Ah. That explains it.
BlackLantern
02-09-2010, 05:41 PM
No, he becomes a casualty of war and the Army spins it that he was a true patriot and will mourn for him in the press
wiegeabo
02-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Which no one will believe because, if he really was a valued soldier, he wouldn't have been discharged in the first place. Any army spin would be seen as just spin and playing off of his celebrity since they don't mourn in the press for all the other fallen soldiers
MAJORITY SUPPORT 'DADT' REPEAL
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/10/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-supported-by-solid-majority/
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS REPEAL OF 'DADT'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/14/dick-cheney-supports-dont_n_461853.html
Wylie Times
02-14-2010, 01:12 PM
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS REPEAL OF 'DADT'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/14/dick-cheney-supports-dont_n_461853.html
Now I'm confused as to what to support.....Darth Cheney being behind this can't be good, he must have some ulterior motive ala Darth Sidious in Attack of the clones..
Cheney has a gay daughter...and I think that has influenced his views. He's been fairly supportive of gay rights and equality.
cerealkiller182
02-14-2010, 01:49 PM
yea, it is definitely exclusivly because of his daughter
KYL OPPOSES REPEAL OF 'DADT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/14/kyl-dont-repeal-dadt/?fbid=JT4z2CAZYJy
I tend to take my lead on things like this from my colleague John McCain.
:dry:
I wonder if he realizes (or even cares) that John McCain is a huge hypocrit on this issue?
Schlosser85
02-15-2010, 09:05 AM
I tend to take my lead on things like this from my colleague John McCain.
Apparently he can't think for himself on issues.....kind of like John McCain?
THE MULLEN EFFECT
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/how-mullen-changed-the-future-of-gays-in-the-military.php?ref=fpa
Im not going to argue the merits of the Bible with you. You choose not to believe it.....that is your right. Bible is only one reason gay is wrong. I dont need the Bible to validate my position on homosexuals. Simple logic and biology will suffice.
I'd rather be amused at your attempts to use logic and biology to rationalize your prejudice. Using 2000 year old myths is so...yesterday.
LouFerignoDemon
02-16-2010, 09:34 PM
Some people might say a biological imperative is to reproduce and pass on your genes. Being gay would naturally be against that, as you might want to have children, but do not engage in the natural act of it (it is provided unnaturally, which would be outside of a biological method). However, I don't see how logic would fit into it, as that's something completely separate from biology. On the other hand, some people might say being gay is a human imperative to reduce population growth naturally, like dying cells.
It's a big gray area with evolutionary behaviour though. There's an argument to be made, but it's a very hard one to make in either direction. It's not advised to try and push the argument of biology as the leading point without more research into the area.
However, I really don't know how logic would apply here. It's outside of biology, and logic is definitely subject to the time period of the assessment. Logic in the time of biblical days compared to today is significantly different. At any rate, I do not know if simple logic is enough to make the case. I am definitely interested how this would be presented, though. I would ask you please present the assessment, Reaper.
Some people might say a biological imperative is to reproduce and pass on your genes. Being gay would naturally be against that, as you might want to have children, but do not engage in the natural act of it (it is provided unnaturally, which would be outside of a biological method). However, I don't see how logic would fit into it, as that's something completely separate from biology. On the other hand, some people might say being gay is a human imperative to reduce population growth naturally, like dying cells.
It's a big gray area with evolutionary behaviour though. There's an argument to be made, but it's a very hard one to make in either direction. It's not advised to try and push the argument of biology as the leading point without more research into the area.
However, I really don't know how logic would apply here. It's outside of biology, and logic is definitely subject to the time period of the assessment. Logic in the time of biblical days compared to today is significantly different. At any rate, I do not know if simple logic is enough to make the case. I am definitely interested how this would be presented, though. I would ask you please present the assessment, Reaper.
Yes, but if you use the argument that a relationship must be consummated with that imperative in mind, then you should follow it to a logical conclusion, which is that no one who is unable to consummate it in such a fashion would be able to get married (since marriage in this case is that the biologically imperative either must be carried out or that is the overall purpose of the practice). This would include infertile or sterile heterosexual couples and heterosexual couples who have no wish to have children. On those grounds, your standards for marriage encompasses a much larger group of people than homosexuals, and marriage has a much more pragmatic purpose.
LouFerignoDemon
02-17-2010, 09:25 AM
Much like I implied, I do not believe any form of simple stated logic would be capable of making the case. The very subject itself is highly complex.
Sloth7d
02-17-2010, 11:59 PM
ITKWxZmnyR4
All right wingers, and whoever else, supporting blue laws, bans on gay marriage, etc. should see this vid. This is the type of precedent you create when you allow religion to ever play a key role in government affairs. Essentially, here's a guy who suffers restrictions from someone he loves and even prison time because his beliefs are different from someone elses.
ITKWxZmnyR4
All right wingers, and whoever else, supporting blue laws, bans on gay marriage, etc. should see this vid. This is the type of precedent you create when you allow religion to ever play a key role in government affairs. Essentially, here's a guy who suffers restrictions from someone he loves and even prison time because his beliefs are different from someone elses.
It seems to me that it should be okay to take the daughter to church/synagogue (or **** it, why not a mosque?) but not to officially make her part of any of the religions (for instance through baptizm) without the consent of both parents. I mean, as far as I know you can't be both Christian and a religious jew (practicing Judaism), so by baptizing his daughter he is basically removing the option of being part of Judaism.
It also seems like they had a verbal contract that the daughter be raised into Judaism, which makes the case a lot clearer.
Sloth7d
02-18-2010, 01:18 PM
It seems to me that it should be okay to take the daughter to church/synagogue (or **** it, why not a mosque?) but not to officially make her part of any of the religions (for instance through baptizm) without the consent of both parents. I mean, as far as I know you can't be both Christian and a religious jew (practicing Judaism), so by baptizing his daughter he is basically removing the option of being part of Judaism.
Conversely, not baptizing her removes the option of catholicism doesn't it? Why is he not allowed to practice his religion with his own daughter when she's with him?
It also seems like they had a verbal contract that the daughter be raised into Judaism, which makes the case a lot clearer.
The father could always change his mind, after all it was just a verbal contract, and before hand the father probably hadn't strongly considered the fate his beliefs impose on his daughter should she take to Judaism instead of catholicism.
On the other hand a legal contract would be over stepping things in my opinion anyway. I don't feel either parent has any right to put restrictions on what the other parent teaches the child so long as it isn't against the child's best interest. If you would argue that teaching two conflicting beliefs to the child at the same time is against that good interest then perhaps they should wait until the child is older and let her choose then rather than confuse her with two paths at such an early stage in her life.
Conversely, not baptizing her removes the option of catholicism doesn't it?
No? :huh:
I'm talking about making the daughter an official part of the religion. This naturally precludes being an official part of the other religion, as far as I know this is a point that most religions are pretty strict on. You can be inaugurated (or whatever) as a Jew unless you denounce your Catholic faith, and vice versa (correct me if I'm wrong here).
I have, however, never heard of it being impossible to visit a Catholic church and take part in catholic activities just because you haven't been baptized as a Catholic.
What I'm suggesting is that the child should not be officially part of either Judaism or Catholicism, but can still (as far as I understand it) join her father in Catholic services or her mother to the synagogue.
Why is he not allowed to practice his religion with his own daughter when she's with him?
As far as I'm concerned he can practice his religion with her as long as he doesn't have her baptized.
The father could always change his mind, after all it was just a verbal contract, and before hand the father probably hadn't strongly considered the fate his beliefs impose on his daughter should she take to Judaism instead of catholicism.
First of all, I used the wrong term. The term I meant to use was oral contract. Sorry.
Either way, as far as I know oral contracts are as valid as written ones. You have as much room to change your mind as with a written one.
On the other hand a legal contract would be over stepping things in my opinion anyway. I don't feel either parent has any right to put restrictions on what the other parent teaches the child so long as it isn't against the child's best interest.
Well I'd agree. But clearly he didn't just teach his child about Catholicism, he had her baptized.
If you would argue that teaching two conflicting beliefs to the child at the same time is against that good interest then perhaps they should wait until the child is older and let her choose then rather than confuse her with two paths at such an early stage in her life.
Personally this is what I feel should be done with all children regardless of the status of the parents relationship. I see no reason why a 3-yearold, or a 10-yearold should be officially taken into a religion before they're old enough to understand what it means.
That, however, is another discussion. ;)
LIZ CHENEY ON 'DADT': 'IT'S TIME FOR IT TO END'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/liz-cheney-tells-tpmdc-time-to-end-dont-ask-dont-tell.php?ref=fpa
GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP CO-SPONSORS 'CPAC' AND OPENS BOOTH AT EVENT
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/cpac-goes-gay
:eek:
'GOPROUD' TO 'NOM': 'WHO'S THE PANSY?'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/gay-gop-group-to-republic_n_469410.html
Well said, GOProud. :up:
Paradoxium
02-19-2010, 04:23 PM
Some people might say a biological imperative is to reproduce and pass on your genes. Being gay would naturally be against that, as you might want to have children, but do not engage in the natural act of it (it is provided unnaturally, which would be outside of a biological method). However, I don't see how logic would fit into it, as that's something completely separate from biology. On the other hand, some people might say being gay is a human imperative to reduce population growth naturally, like dying cells.
It's a big gray area with evolutionary behaviour though. There's an argument to be made, but it's a very hard one to make in either direction. It's not advised to try and push the argument of biology as the leading point without more research into the area.
However, I really don't know how logic would apply here. It's outside of biology, and logic is definitely subject to the time period of the assessment. Logic in the time of biblical days compared to today is significantly different. At any rate, I do not know if simple logic is enough to make the case. I am definitely interested how this would be presented, though. I would ask you please present the assessment, Reaper.
Those who argue this way (this is not my position - I do not support licensing of marriage to straight or gays) basically cite, marriage is utility to breed (adds one to the population) and raise children. It is the most optimal and stable environment (there are empirical studies on this) compared to other alternatives. Thus it keeps the definition particular, simple and purposeful. It mixes one biological imperative with a social one.
So under this logical conclusion, a straight couple who are both be sterile could not plausibly be married. If they adopt, they are still not a marriage, because they add nothing to the population. The criteria does not allow for gays to be "married" in a sense as well.
Biologically speaking, one would argue it is not in the male's interest to marry a woman, he should (to put it bluntly) "pump and dump" :awesome: to spread his seed.
The worst environment from what I understand to raise a children, is not that of a gay couple though, not by a long shot. It is single mother families (which is on the rise). They have the highest delinquency rate. Thus an orphan is better off with a gay couple than a single mother.
To reduce population, the surest way based on empirical observation... is to make the society utilitarian between sexes (it become a negative growth). Birth rates are the highest among far more patriarchal societies/civilizations and/or religious ones.
LouFerignoDemon
02-19-2010, 04:55 PM
There would be no simple logical answer to say if biology supports gay marriage or supports straight marriage without a large essay written on it, from what I understand. There are many variables, and many positions on males being monogamous as more beneficial or not. So again, it really wouldn't be something simple to explain.
Paradoxium
02-19-2010, 05:05 PM
I dunno I think what I cited is pretty focused and simple divorced of religion. You might not agree but it is not a religious argument.
Hate to use generalized terms but marriage only benefits beta males biologically speaking. Just think how many people are descendants of Gengis Khan :funny:
LouFerignoDemon
02-19-2010, 05:07 PM
I only really say it, as there are several schools, entire studies, and doctorates issued to the subject of evolutionary behaviour. I would imagine if it were so cut and dry on all fronts, the answer would've already been issued to us unanimously by the experts of the field.
Paradoxium
02-19-2010, 07:27 PM
I only really say it, as there are several schools, entire studies, and doctorates issued to the subject of evolutionary behaviour. I would imagine if it were so cut and dry on all fronts, the answer would've already been issued to us unanimously by the experts of the field.Ah yes, so what do they or the literature think of "old Europe"'s change to the current demographic?
LouFerignoDemon
02-19-2010, 07:30 PM
I wouldn't really know. I'm not an expert in that field. I do know roles of sexuality, coupling, relationships, and reasons to have them have evolved through the centuries based on environment, ability to attain, resources, and population. It is really quite interesting, and I really do try to read more about it, but I'm generally more preoccupied with my work.
Paradoxium
02-19-2010, 07:32 PM
I have a tougher question.
Does ETM/The Immortal have any hope? :funny:
LouFerignoDemon
02-19-2010, 07:32 PM
lol That would indeed be a question worthy of deep research, and massive review.
Did anyone hear about the speaker today at 'CPAC' that railed against the decision to include a group of gay republicans in the conference? He actually got booed for his remarks.
Alex The Great
02-19-2010, 08:13 PM
You know, I hope i'm not the only who thinks that religion shouldn't ****ing matter when it comes to Gay Rights. If gays/lesbians want to get married, **** it, let em marry. What's gonna happen if we let them? They're not evil, sinister terrorists who plan to turn everyone gay. I mean, anyone who thinks that they will needs to be hit across the head with a comedy sized fish. I mean, why the hell does this thing still go on? Sign the mother ****ing bill that allows homosexuals to marry and poof! Everything should be fine. Let the Right Wing crazies ***** about it, **** them, there's a little thing called HUMAN RIGHTS that we need to take care of people
Note: No insult to the right wingers. Just ventin' some rage!
You know, I hope i'm not the only who thinks that religion shouldn't ****ing matter when it comes to Gay Rights. If gays/lesbians want to get married, **** it, let em marry. What's gonna happen if we let them? They're not evil, sinister terrorists who plan to turn everyone gay. I mean, anyone who thinks that they will needs to be hit across the head with a comedy sized fish. I mean, why the hell does this thing still go on? Sign the mother ****ing bill that allows homosexuals to marry and poof! Everything should be fine. Let the Right Wing crazies ***** about it, **** them, there's a little thing called HUMAN RIGHTS that we need to take care of people.
Note: No insult to the right wingers. Just ventin' some rage!
Exactly.
Kelly
02-19-2010, 08:25 PM
Did anyone hear about the speaker today at 'CPAC' that railed against the decision to include a group of gay republicans in the conference? He actually got booed for his remarks.
I guess I see this like I see alot of ignorant comments on this site, ignorant comments in my classroom, etc.
Let the ignorant comments be heard, they have a right to give those opinions as much as we have the right to boo....I think that is actually a very healthy thing to happen at CPAC. Let the ignorant comments be heard, and let the boooos drown them out.
IMO, survival of the knowledgeable is what I see....
LouFerignoDemon
02-19-2010, 08:25 PM
Religion shouldn't hold a place in human rights at all. Which homosexuals fall under believe it or not. I know I was astonished when scientists recently discovered homosexuals share an identical DNA match to homo sapiens, proving they're part of the regular human race. A most amazing discovery.
Really, there's no good excuse despite personal bias to why people would refuse them basic human rights everybody else enjoys.
I guess I see this like I see alot of ignorant comments on this site, ignorant comments in my classroom, etc.
Let the ignorant comments be heard, they have a right to give those opinions as much as we have the right to boo....I think that is actually a very healthy thing to happen at CPAC. Let the ignorant comments be heard, and let the boooos drown them out.
IMO, survival of the knowledgeable is what I see....
They absolutely have a right to speak their opinion...I was just shocked that the remarks were actually booed. At CPAC.
Alex The Great
02-19-2010, 08:30 PM
Wait a minute. Gay Republican?
There is hope after all :heart:
Schlosser85
02-19-2010, 09:42 PM
You know, I hope i'm not the only who thinks that religion shouldn't ****ing matter when it comes to Gay Rights. If gays/lesbians want to get married, **** it, let em marry. What's gonna happen if we let them? They're not evil, sinister terrorists who plan to turn everyone gay. I mean, anyone who thinks that they will needs to be hit across the head with a comedy sized fish. I mean, why the hell does this thing still go on? Sign the mother ****ing bill that allows homosexuals to marry and poof! Everything should be fine. Let the Right Wing crazies ***** about it, **** them, there's a little thing called HUMAN RIGHTS that we need to take care of people.
:highfive:
SANTORUM: MILITARY WAS 'INDOCTRINATED' INTO SUPPORTING 'DADT' REPEAL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/santorum-says-military-wa_n_470066.html
:facepalm:
Mr. Santorum...your ignorance is showing.
LouFerignoDemon
02-20-2010, 12:00 PM
Reading this makes me...sad. -_-
"Sap the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces"? Seriously? Where the heck would he even come UP with that? More bodies, more soldiers, more effect.
Indoctrinated by PC to where they can't think straight? I'm glad I can effectively mark this guy off the list of, "People who should at least be heard and considered."
Kelly
02-20-2010, 01:34 PM
They absolutely have a right to speak their opinion...I was just shocked that the remarks were actually booed. At CPAC.
I'm not....most of the people I am around on a daily basis are one of the following...conservative, conservative Republican, or Independent, I have one Libertarian friend....I'm the most liberal of my pub buddies. NONE of them are against gay marriage per say, only one (the Libertarian, actually) is against using the term marriage...but as far as the gay lifestyle, ALL are fine with the push for gay marriage, save the one which is only seeing a problem in ther terminology, as far as the legalities of it, insurance etc...he has no problem, all but one are pro-life.
There are many in the conservative realm, but the mainstream media does nothing as far as putting that out there on tv or otherwise. This is simply the first time it has been brought up in the mainstream media. You have always had that faction in the Conservative movement. I've been closely related to Conservatives since college, and there have always been those that tend to be towards the liberal view on social issues, and that was 20 years ago.
Schlosser85
02-20-2010, 04:56 PM
Rick Santorum is quite possibly one of the most ignorant individuals in public political life.
LIEBERMAN TO SPONSOR 'DADT' REPEAL?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/lieberman-to-take-lead-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/?fbid=8caB5xZrBPR
Kelly
02-22-2010, 06:35 PM
As good a person as any to sponsor the bill, not surprised at all...
BlackLantern
02-22-2010, 06:38 PM
Liebermann will probably do anything to save his seat at this point, with Dodd out, Joe is primed for the boot
According to the AP, HUD (U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department) is planning to create an anti-gay discrimination study.
BlackLantern
02-24-2010, 07:49 PM
the conclusion they reach after millions of taxpayer money spent
some people think 'teh geyz' are 'icky', hence the discrimination
MARYLAND TO RECOGNIZE 'OUT OF STATE' SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022403630.html?hpid=topnews
:up:
wiegeabo
02-24-2010, 09:14 PM
And another one falls to the grip of sanity. :awesome:
Sloth7d
02-24-2010, 09:15 PM
Score 1 for my home state. With Maryland being such a far left state, I think any rulings to come should be in favor of same-sex marriage, though I don't want to jynx it so I won't hold my breath.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 05:17 PM
Military chiefs voice concern over ending 'don't ask, don't tell' (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/24/nation/la-na-military-gays24-2010feb24)
Wylie Times
02-25-2010, 05:31 PM
DADT definitely should be repealed, but I do wonder how many people are prepared for when it is repealed.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 05:34 PM
I think your point is one that the Joint Chief of Staffs is having to deal with at the moment. I don't think they necessarily have a problem with the repeal, as much as they believe that during a time when we are at war in two different parts of the world, this may not be the time to do this. Problem is.....how long will we be at war in these areas of the world?
...if that's the line people are going to take - that we are in two wars - I would hope those people realize that these wars are not on an established nation, but a network that has no home base. Furthermore, that these 'wars' will never be truly over.
That line of thinking seems like a bit of a cop out to me.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 05:40 PM
the "people" you are talking about are the Joint Chief of Staff talking to their commanders in the field. So I'm not going to take their recommendations as trivial cop outs when they know far more than I do about the situation, even though my opinion is, it should be repealed.
the "people" you are talking about are the Joint Chief of Staff talking to their commanders in the field. So I'm not going to take their recommendations as trivial cop outs when they know far more than I do about the situation, even though my opinion is, it should be repealed.
And what I'm saying is that line of thinking will be used as an excuse by the anti-gay crowd in the country (and within the military) to delay this for as long as they possibly can. They know these wars are on-going. When it ends in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will inevitably move somewhere else.
Are there some who are genuinely concerned over the effect? Sure, but there are also those who would use 'we're at war' as a shield to hide their own bigotry and intolerance.
As has been said by others (as well as myself) in this thread - if a soldier is more concerned about 'one of teh gayz jumping them from behind because they're allowed to serve openly' than they are about the mission at hand, I seriously question that soldier's ability to serve this nation.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 05:50 PM
And what I'm saying is that line of thinking will be used as an excuse by the anti-gay crowd in the country (and within the military) to delay this for as long as they possibly can. They know these wars are on-going. When it ends in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will inevitably move somewhere else.
Are there some who are genuinely concerned over the effect? Sure, but there are also those who would use 'we're at war' as a shield to hide their own bigotry and intolerance.
As has been said by others (as well as myself) in this thread - if a soldier is more concerned about 'one of teh gayz jumping them from behind because they're allowed to serve openly' than they are about the mission at hand, I seriously question that soldier's ability to serve this nation.
I don't know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff give a rats ass what the "anti gay crowd" thinks....I think they simply do not want to rush in at this point, without a look at "what some of the possible reactions will be..." so that if (even though right now, I don't think there are votes in Congress for it....I guess the President could sign an Executive Order, which would be fine with me...) but I think they simply want to gauge reaction, in order to prepare for what could possibly happen. A decrease in recruitment, possibly a major outcry within the ranks, or possibly "hey, its all good, let's go for it...attitude".
wiegeabo
02-25-2010, 05:50 PM
This is similar to when Truman desegregated the troops. There were a ton of military personnel of all ranks for and against. And it took years, if not decades, to gain some semblance of acceptance. Even then Trumen didn't sign the order until 1948.
I do agree that, as much as I want it gone, it would probably be best to wait until we're not at war to repeal DADT. But this isn't a normal war by any means, with no clear end in sight, so that's not much of a reason to delay. Especially with the massive manpower shortages, and necessity to use stop-loss, that the military is facing.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 05:52 PM
This is similar to when Truman desegregated the troops. There were a ton of military personnel of all ranks for and against. And it took years, if not decades, to gain some semblance of acceptance. Even then Trumen didn't sign the order until 1948.
I do agree that, as much as I want it gone, it would probably be best to wait until we're not at war to repeal DADT. But this isn't a normal war by any means, with no clear end in sight, so that's not much of a reason to delay. Especially with the massive manpower shortages, and necessity to use stop-loss, that the military is facing.
Possibly, when we are no longer sending (re-sending) major #'s of troops? Could that be a possibility for you?
Wylie Times
02-25-2010, 06:04 PM
The thing is even if we weren't at war it's going to be a difficult thing to deal with. Being able to be openly gay and serve is one thing, dealing with everything that comes with it is another. Just like when the army was desegregated, it meant that black could serve along side whites but that didn't exactly solve the base problems right away and a lot of people went through hell because of the bigotry of others.
wiegeabo
02-25-2010, 06:05 PM
I don't see a reduction of troops happening anytime soon, despite what anyone is saying. So they may as well repeal DADT now. Especially if that will help reduce the number we're having to resend.
I'm not....most of the people I am around on a daily basis are one of the following...conservative, conservative Republican, or Independent, I have one Libertarian friend....I'm the most liberal of my pub buddies. NONE of them are against gay marriage per say, only one (the Libertarian, actually) is against using the term marriage...but as far as the gay lifestyle, ALL are fine with the push for gay marriage, save the one which is only seeing a problem in ther terminology, as far as the legalities of it, insurance etc...he has no problem, all but one are pro-life.
There are many in the conservative realm, but the mainstream media does nothing as far as putting that out there on tv or otherwise. This is simply the first time it has been brought up in the mainstream media. You have always had that faction in the Conservative movement. I've been closely related to Conservatives since college, and there have always been those that tend to be towards the liberal view on social issues, and that was 20 years ago.
On several ocasions I've heard on Fox news that according to polling data 9 out of 10 jounalists consider themselves liberal. They always made it out to be some commie plot to give us a biased media.
I've always felt that the reason for this was because these people are aware and passionate about current events, and since they are so update with what goes on in the world, it makes sense that they would come to liberal conclusions.
A lot of the conservative ideology to me appears to be fabricated and created by wealthy corporations. They use conservative committments to tradition and religion to get them to go along with their other points of view which benefit the wealthy.
Kelly
02-25-2010, 10:24 PM
On several ocasions I've heard on Fox news that according to polling data 9 out of 10 jounalists consider themselves liberal. They always made it out to be some commie plot to give us a biased media.
I've always felt that the reason for this was because these people are aware and passionate about current events, and since they are so update with what goes on in the world, it makes sense that they would come to liberal conclusions.
A lot of the conservative ideology to me appears to be fabricated and created by wealthy corporations. They use conservative committments to tradition and religion to get them to go along with their other points of view which benefit the wealthy.
Which is a description of the elders of the conservative ideology, it is not necessarily the views of young conservatives today.
I always laugh at the wealthy comments, because the per capita income of Democrats is greater than that of registered Republicans, so I guess Republicans who are fiscally conservative are helping Democrats. :yay:
bell110
02-26-2010, 01:33 PM
This is similar to when Truman desegregated the troops. There were a ton of military personnel of all ranks for and against. And it took years, if not decades, to gain some semblance of acceptance. Even then Trumen didn't sign the order until 1948.
I do agree that, as much as I want it gone, it would probably be best to wait until we're not at war to repeal DADT. But this isn't a normal war by any means, with no clear end in sight, so that's not much of a reason to delay. Especially with the massive manpower shortages, and necessity to use stop-loss, that the military is facing.
But that's the problem, this war isn't going to end just like every other pseudo-war we've been engaged in.
And reall, I find it a poor excuse to keep in place a policy that is so evil.
Kelly
02-26-2010, 01:45 PM
I don't see a reduction of troops happening anytime soon, despite what anyone is saying. So they may as well repeal DADT now. Especially if that will help reduce the number we're having to resend.
:huh: It's happening in Iraq daily...
But that's the problem, this war isn't going to end just like every other pseudo-war we've been engaged in.
And reall, I find it a poor excuse to keep in place a policy that is so evil.
Exactly, Bell.
Kelly
02-26-2010, 03:37 PM
I don't see a problem with taking the time to off set any problems that could possibly come from this. If they find, that there won't be any problems, then cool. If they see some possibilities of problems, then they can possibly counter the problems before they happen and make it a smoother transition.
None of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sounded like this "will never happen...".
DC SET TO ALLOW GAY MARRIAGES
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/washington-dc-on-track-to-allowing-gay-marriages-starting-march-2nd.php?ref=fpa
The review period was supposed to end today, but I haven't heard if it has officially gone into effect yet.
According to the AP, the Supreme Court refused to block a law allowing same-sex marriage. DC will be free to begin issuing its first same-sex marriage licenses tomorrow.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
CATHOLIC CHARITIES DROP BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN DC FOLLOWING COURT DECISION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/catholic-charities-drops_n_482388.html
Shameful. :down
GATES ON 'DADT'
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/02/gates.gays.military/index.html?hpt=C1
IT'S OFFICIAL: GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED IN DC
Reports suggest that upwards of 50 couples showed up for licenses. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Kelly
03-03-2010, 05:45 PM
They better hope there isn't a referendum put on the ballot in 2010...
And I still maintain that equal rights should not be put to a vote.
If there is some kind of vote, I'm sure the 'God Hates F***' group will be there with all of their hatred and intolerance. I'd post the pictures of them protesting today from the site I saw, for obvious reasons I can't.
Gilpesh
03-03-2010, 08:07 PM
Hey Marx. That's censor bypassing. Give yourself an infraction.
Kelly
03-03-2010, 08:15 PM
Gilpesh you have a crush on Marx don't you? Kind of like the little girl on the playground that hits the boy and runs so he'll chase her?
If not, it sure seems like ya do...:cwink:
Gilpesh
03-03-2010, 09:10 PM
No. I just remember when there was a huge deal about censor bypassing recently. Just reminding the mods of the rules. :oldrazz:
Kelly
03-03-2010, 10:06 PM
Yes...well, we usually let (a) letter thrown in go by...
Schlosser85
03-03-2010, 10:35 PM
And apparently Catholic Charities has ended spousal benefits for all employees, to ensure they're not giving benefits to gay couples.
Then no man shall!
And apparently Catholic Charities has ended spousal benefits for all employees, to ensure they're not giving benefits to gay couples.
Then no man shall!
It's pathetic and hypocritical.
It's like these people in pictures that I saw protesting in DC. They were draped in the american flag pushing their warped sense of religion.
Schlosser85
03-03-2010, 10:48 PM
I can only hope that they know a little more about what an American is than they know what a Christian is.
But maybe I shouldn't complain that the Catholic Church is on a crusade to shame itself.
SOURCE: ANTI-GAY GOP STATE SENATOR ARRESTED FOR DUI AFTER LEAVING GAY BAR
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html)
...and there was another man in the car with him at the time of his arrest! How's the blatant hypocrisy taste, Mr. Ashburn?
BILL TO REPEAL 'DADT' INTRODUCED IN SENATE
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/senate-democrats-introduce-bill-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell.php?ref=fpc
:up:
BlackLantern
03-04-2010, 02:33 PM
Joe is so trying to save his ass come election time
...I'd tend to agree, but at least the legislation has officially been introduced.
MCCAIN'S LETTER SUPPORTING 'DADT' CONTAINS SIGNATURES OF DECEASED PEOPLE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/mccains-dadt-support-lett_n_487226.html
Shameful. :down
BlackLantern
03-05-2010, 11:12 AM
stop helping, John
wiegeabo
03-05-2010, 11:17 AM
I say let him help. Things like this are great examples of how desperate these people are, and how little justification they actually have for continuing it.
Schlosser85
03-05-2010, 11:22 AM
MCCAIN'S LETTER SUPPORTING 'DADT' CONTAINS SIGNATURES OF DECEASED PEOPLE
Let him keep helping, he'll just make the pro DADT side look like desperate dishonest idiots, and that's A-OK with me and the agenda I support. :woot:
I say let him help. Things like this are great examples of how desperate these people are, and how little justification they actually have for continuing it.
Let him keep helping, he'll just make the pro DADT side look like desperate dishonest idiots, and that's A-OK with me and the agenda I support. :woot:
Exactly guys.
BlackLantern
03-05-2010, 11:29 AM
oh my mistake, I misread the article....I thought it was a letter of people supporting the repeal of DADT.
long week
That-Guy
03-05-2010, 12:17 PM
Any of you guys subscript to the Borowitz report? It's hilarious. Here's today's article, lol...
GOP Lawmaker Demands Recall of Car That Drove Him to Gay Club
Calls Gay Car ‘Menace’
SACRAMENTO (The Borowitz Report) - Anti-gay California State Sen. Roy Ashburn today demanded a sweeping recall of the vehicle that drove him to a gay nightclub this week.
Sen. Ashburn, a Republican who has consistently voted for anti-gay legislation, said that the car drove him to the club “against my will.”
“If we are recalling cars for problems with their brakes and power steering, then surely we should be recalling vehicles that force their drivers to go to gay nightclubs,” Sen. Ashburn said.
The state senator said not only did the car drive him to the gay nightclub, but it forced him to enter the club and party there for hours, resulting in his later arrest for DUI.
“I can’t tell you what a menace this car is,” he said. “It really is the gayest car I’ve ever seen.”
In addition to calling for a recall of the gay car, Sen. Ashburn said he would sponsor legislation mandating that all California vehicles be fitted not only with GPS but gaydar.
In other news, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin offered this appraisal of her standup comedy performance on The Tonight Show: “I was like, I’m not going to quit my day job, but then I remembered I already did.”
Kelly
03-05-2010, 02:47 PM
Dead people on a petition......OMG, I've never heard of that happening before. The horror...
DADT is going to be repealed, maybe not as soon as some would like, but it will be repealed. The Gay Right's Folks need to learn some patience from the Suffrage and Civil Rights Folks....
Dead people on a petition......OMG, I've never heard of that happening before. The horror...
DADT is going to be repealed, maybe not as soon as some would like, but it will be repealed. The Gay Right's Folks need to learn some patience from the Suffrage and Civil Rights Folks....
No one is saying this is the first time it's happened. People are pointing out the desperation by the pro-DADT crowd to keep this ridiculous law in place.
Speaking of which...
VATICAN ROCKED BY GAY SEX SCANDAL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/vatican-hit-by-gay-sex-sc_n_486218.html
Kelly
03-05-2010, 04:03 PM
No one is saying this is the first time it's happened. People are pointing out the desperation by the pro-DADT crowd to keep this ridiculous law in place.
I don't think its desperation, I think it is simply what happens on 90% of political petitions, that's what I meant. It happens all the time, this isn't the first and won't be the last dead person's name on a political petition, nor will it be the first or last time the opposition calls foul on it. Hell, wait till you see the amount of dead people in the census numbers...
GAY COUPLE'S CHILD DENIED RE-ENROLLMENT AT CATHOLIC SCHOOL
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=133945&catid=339
...
wiegeabo
03-05-2010, 04:22 PM
Can't really say anything about this. Private schools have the right to deny entry. Especially if it's a religious school and the matter is in conflict with their tenants.
Can't really say anything about this. Private schools have the right to deny entry. Especially if it's a religious school and the matter is in conflict with their tenants.
They may have the right...but it's still a shame.
Schlosser85
03-05-2010, 04:27 PM
If you were a gay couple, why would you want to enroll your child in a Catholic school in the first place? That's kind of guaranteeing your child is going to be bullied.
If you were a gay couple, why would you want to enroll your child in a Catholic school in the first place? That's kind of guaranteeing your child is going to be bullied.
You do have a good point, but obviously religion is very important to this couple.
UPDATE: SACREMENTO MAYOR SAYS 'FAMILY VALUES' SENATOR ASHBURN WAS A 'REGULAR' AT GAY HOT SPOTS
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/gay_sacramento_pol_roy_ashburn_is_a_regular_at_gay .php?ref=fpblg
wiegeabo
03-05-2010, 04:42 PM
hahaha. ****ing hypocrite.
hahaha. ****ing hypocrite.
It just blows my mind. I mean, it's one thing to be closeted...it's quite another to be closeted and actively and furiously fight for an anti-gay agenda.
Bathead
03-05-2010, 04:45 PM
I don't think its desperation, I think it is simply what happens on 90% of political petitions, that's what I meant. It happens all the time, this isn't the first and won't be the last dead person's name on a political petition, nor will it be the first or last time the opposition calls foul on it. Hell, wait till you see the amount of dead people in the census numbers...
Regardless of whether or not it's been done before or by who, it still needs to be pointed out.
Mystirious
03-05-2010, 04:57 PM
Now, if we can just get gay marriage recognised as every bit as valid as the marriage between a man and a woman throughout the States I'll be REALLY happy. This is a definite step in the right direction though
Kelly
03-05-2010, 05:01 PM
Regardless of whether or not it's been done before or by who, it still needs to be pointed out.
Sure it does...I'm just saying it doesn't prove much, considering it happens so often.
IMO, its a waste of time as a factor of wrong doing or not. Spend time and money on getting across the positives of your position, not pointing out the negatives of the other. People are tired of that...that is politics as usual.
BlackLantern
03-05-2010, 06:00 PM
UPDATE: SACREMENTO MAYOR SAYS 'FAMILY VALUES' SENATOR ASHBURN WAS A 'REGULAR' AT GAY HOT SPOTS
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/gay_sacramento_pol_roy_ashburn_is_a_regular_at_gay .php?ref=fpblg
Dime. Dropped. :hehe:
Sloth7d
03-06-2010, 11:12 AM
UPDATE: SACREMENTO MAYOR SAYS 'FAMILY VALUES' SENATOR ASHBURN WAS A 'REGULAR' AT GAY HOT SPOTS
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/gay_sacramento_pol_roy_ashburn_is_a_regular_at_gay .php?ref=fpblg
Ah, so we waste time with pursuing the course of demonstrating how ignorant anti-gay proponents are when we should convince them they're probably gay themselves?
-Arya-
03-06-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm bewildered that this is even an issue in America. All I can do is just shake my head in disbelief.
Ah, so we waste time with pursuing the course of demonstrating how ignorant anti-gay proponents are when we should convince them they're probably gay themselves?
What? :huh:
Senator Ashburn (who is an anti-gay, 'Family Values' senator) was ARRESTED for a DUI after leaving a gay club...and there was a man in the car with him at the time of his arrest.
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS VIRGINIA COLLEGES NEED TO END 'GAY PROTECTIONS'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html?hpid=moreheadlines
:dry:
El_Citrus
03-06-2010, 12:08 PM
:facepalm:
BlackLantern
03-06-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm bewildered that this is even an issue in America. All I can do is just shake my head in disbelief.
it's because the gays are icky....totally legit concern:oldrazz:
wiegeabo
03-06-2010, 01:59 PM
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS VIRGINIA COLLEGES NEED TO END 'GAY PROTECTIONS'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html?hpid=moreheadlines
:dry:
Maybe it's just a thing in my state, but aren't discrimination/harassment laws just minimum requirements? According to the law, a company has some leeway with an employee committing sexual harassment. But my company goes beyond that and has a zero-tolerance rule. You do it, you're out.
So, similarly, wouldn't the university be allowed to go one step beyond the law in ensuring equal treatment of employees?
TheFuture
03-06-2010, 02:17 PM
Seriously, any other "western" country populace would lynch their politicians if they tried to say crap like that. What scares me is that these aren't even veiled attacks, these are straight out blatantly hateful things being said, and that it actually goes without some sort of reprimand? Wow.....
wiegeabo
03-06-2010, 02:33 PM
If there're no laws protecting homosexuals in the state, then he can say whatever he wants. All he has to worry about is getting re-elected. And with such a conservative populace in the state, that's likely not a big worry.
Now, if other politicians, like the governor, were to fear public backlash, he'd be getting some kind of reprimand, if not flat out being asked to resign. Again, though, that'll only happen if they fear public backlash. And if most of the state agrees with them...
Sloth7d
03-06-2010, 05:41 PM
What? :huh:
Senator Ashburn (who is an anti-gay, 'Family Values' senator) was ARRESTED for a DUI after leaving a gay club...and there was a man in the car with him at the time of his arrest.
Implying he's a closet case, no? What with the other revealed closet cases with other anti-gay proponents, it seems like we shouldn't even bother telling them how untenable and incorrect their anti-gay arguments are. Instead we should find out whether these homphobes are gay themselves, and perhaps try to convince them there's is nothing wrong with who they are.
Implying he's a closet case, no? What with the other revealed closet cases with other anti-gay proponents, it seems like we shouldn't even bother telling them how untenable and incorrect their anti-gay arguments are. Instead we should find out whether these homphobes are gay themselves, and perhaps try to convince them there's is nothing wrong with who they are.
I do see your point...but I'm not sure how much convincing you can do to someone who furiously and actively pushes an anti-gay agenda. As I said earlier, it's one thing to be closeted. It's quite another to work so hard toward an anti-gay agenda.
Kelly
03-07-2010, 10:07 AM
I don't know that you will ever change them, so why spend time and money trying to do it?
IMO, there are MANY out there, that are fine with equal rights, etc....but are turned off by some of the actions that seem to get the media. For instance, the Gay Pride Parade here in Houston, for the most part is awesome, the floats are gorgeous, but you have about 10% of those participating that have taken it upon themselves to try and totally 1. shock, 2. gross out, 3. anger people watching....I think they are going for #1, but it ends up leading to #2 and #3, and that is what gets the media. They have to stop that ****....that is the perception that is going out to those that are either on the line, or fine with equal rights, but that is what they see and they sure as hell don't see that as deserving of much of anything. We have also had fighting between Gay Pride Parades, which is totally stupid....between those two factions, the ones that want to go all the way because they feel that they have a right to try and shock the audience, and those that want to show off their art, cars, etc....and have a good time. So now, we have 2 parades some years. It's crazy, and does nothing to help their cause.
As I've said before, I think Gay Pride parades have a tendency to do more damage than good. It's not so much the idea of the parade, it's all of over-sexed stuff that always gets the attention...
Mystirious
03-07-2010, 01:41 PM
I don't know that you will ever change them, so why spend time and money trying to do it?
IMO, there are MANY out there, that are fine with equal rights, etc....but are turned off by some of the actions that seem to get the media. For instance, the Gay Pride Parade here in Houston, for the most part is awesome, the floats are gorgeous, but you have about 10% of those participating that have taken it upon themselves to try and totally 1. shock, 2. gross out, 3. anger people watching....I think they are going for #1, but it ends up leading to #2 and #3, and that is what gets the media. They have to stop that ****....that is the perception that is going out to those that are either on the line, or fine with equal rights, but that is what they see and they sure as hell don't see that as deserving of much of anything. We have also had fighting between Gay Pride Parades, which is totally stupid....between those two factions, the ones that want to go all the way because they feel that they have a right to try and shock the audience, and those that want to show off their art, cars, etc....and have a good time. So now, we have 2 parades some years. It's crazy, and does nothing to help their cause.
I'm sorry but the bolded comment REALLY offended me
Sorry but NO. They don't have to "Stop that ****" So long as their all consenting adults I say people can do whatever they want. I don't see anything wrong with any of that "Over-sexed" stuff. In fact in my opinion "Over sexed" is contradiction in terms
I really don't care if bigots are offended by it.
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS VIRGINIA COLLEGES NEED TO END 'GAY PROTECTIONS'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html?hpid=moreheadlines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
:dry:
So...the mentally handicapped are allowed to hold the position of Attorney General in the US?
Still, I can't judge. I live in the UK, we let our version of the KKK run for political office.
Kelly
03-07-2010, 08:33 PM
I guess I should have explained further....
"simulated sex on their floats...." the children watching these parades are NOT consenting adults, they are in public, doing things that they should not be doing IN PUBLIC...
So as you are offended with my statement, I am offended by what they do in these parades. They want to do that in their home, as two consenting adults, heterosexual or not, that's fine with me. On a float, for all to see....is offensive to me.
So I guess we are both offended, and therefore equally offended.
Done....
And BTW, IMO, it is your attitude that will keep your agenda from ever being accepted in a way you desire.
LouFerignoDemon
03-07-2010, 08:42 PM
I'm sorry but the bolded comment REALLY offended me
I really don't care if bigots are offended by it.
I'm not exactly sure I fully understand your reply by these two lines here.
Would you please elaborate why it would be inappropriate for Kel to make the statement which offends you, while you see no problem with the offense of others?
Addendum
03-07-2010, 08:46 PM
I guess I should have explained further....
"simulated sex on their floats...." the children watching these parades are NOT consenting adults, they are in public, doing things that they should not be doing IN PUBLIC...
Then don't bring children to the parade.
Kelly
03-07-2010, 08:48 PM
It is advertised as family friendly.....families will come. That is how it is advertised. Nor is it the entire parade....for the most the parades are great...as I said before.
Addendum
03-07-2010, 09:07 PM
The only problem I have with any parade is that it makes traffic more of a pain in the ass. So I plan my route accordingly to avoid the route. There's not that many parades in Memphis anyway, so it's a minimal problem.
With what transpires in any parade, if the permit was approved, it's their parade so they can do whatever
Kelly
03-07-2010, 10:14 PM
Well, in my comment I wasn't necessarily saying what was or was not offensive, or even if I cared if it was or was not offensive. What I see is the problem is the Gay Rights Movement is facing a perception problem, and with things like I mentioned that is simply perpetuating that perception. The person's attitude above, IMO is what is hurting this movement, and will continue to hurt it. Doesn't matter if I agree with the attitude or not, if that is the attitude they want to have that's fine with me, more power to them. But, I don't think the perception of this movement will change as long as they want a "show it all or nothing" ok from society. That is just the reality of it...
I'm not talking really about my specific opinion or yours Add, its the perception as a whole.
And really "offended" might not be the right word for me...even if I was offended, not a big deal when looking at the whole. But, IMO, that is not what the movement is all about, yet it gets the most media because it is the most shocking.
Hobgoblin
03-07-2010, 10:40 PM
I guess I should have explained further....
"simulated sex on their floats...." the children watching these parades are NOT consenting adults, they are in public, doing things that they should not be doing IN PUBLIC...
So as you are offended with my statement, I am offended by what they do in these parades. They want to do that in their home, as two consenting adults, heterosexual or not, that's fine with me. On a float, for all to see....is offensive to me.
So I guess we are both offended, and therefore equally offended.
Done....
And BTW, IMO, it is your attitude that will keep your agenda from ever being accepted in a way you desire.
This.
BlackLantern
03-08-2010, 06:59 AM
Well, in my comment I wasn't necessarily saying what was or was not offensive, or even if I cared if it was or was not offensive. What I see is the problem is the Gay Rights Movement is facing a perception problem, and with things like I mentioned that is simply perpetuating that perception. The person's attitude above, IMO is what is hurting this movement, and will continue to hurt it. Doesn't matter if I agree with the attitude or not, if that is the attitude they want to have that's fine with me, more power to them. But, I don't think the perception of this movement will change as long as they want a "show it all or nothing" ok from society. That is just the reality of it...
I'm not talking really about my specific opinion or yours Add, its the perception as a whole.
And really "offended" might not be the right word for me...even if I was offended, not a big deal when looking at the whole. But, IMO, that is not what the movement is all about, yet it gets the most media because it is the most shocking.
exactly....well said Kel
You cannot counter a perception problem by standing by and doing nothing.
Kelly
03-08-2010, 11:40 AM
If you are going by what I said, then....I have to say, I never said that. I was speaking of what "is" being done in some areas.
I guess speaking in simple terms it is like they are walking 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I wish I could remember the officer's name, but they interviewed him on Fox last week, I only caught a small portion of the interview, but he was forced out of the military because he supposedly let it out that he was gay. He was extremely well spoken, strong, strong voice for this movement. THAT, is what needs to be put out consistently as these policies are looked at over the next year. Make those people the story.
If you are going by what I said, then....I have to say, I never said that. I was speaking of what "is" being done in some areas.
I guess speaking in simple terms it is like they are walking 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I wish I could remember the officer's name, but they interviewed him on Fox last week, I only caught a small portion of the interview, but he was forced out of the military because he supposedly let it out that he was gay. He was extremely well spoken, strong, strong voice for this movement. THAT, is what needs to be put out consistently as these policies are looked at over the next year. Make those people the story.
Are you referring to Lt. Dan Choi? His story has been very public. It's also important to note that anti-gay groups have attacked him as well and have attempted to undercut him AND his service to this country because of his sexual orientation.
The anti-gay crowd is shameless. For every awareness story that is pushed by gay advocacy groups, there is an anti-gay group there to undercut it with bigotry, ignorance, and fear.
Kelly
03-08-2010, 12:09 PM
That doesn't sound familiar, but again, I only saw a small portion.
Of course anti-gay groups are going to come out against these people. duh...
That is how it works, you should watch this documentary.... http://www.pbs.org/stantonanthony/
What the women of the Women's Suffrage Movement went through for years and years was unbelievable...that's how it works, those are the victims of these movements...its not easy, and it won't get easier. Again, that is not what I'm talking about...you meet the people where they live first. Grassroots, and these parades, and other media is a part of that grassroots...and then you move from there to the national stage. It's not and won't be an easy fight...
It took women 144 years to VOTE...its not going to happen tomorrow.
In other news...
UPDATE: ANTI-GAY GOP SENATOR ASHBURN COMES OUT AS GAY
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ashburn_im_gay.php?ref=fpa
wiegeabo
03-08-2010, 12:41 PM
In other news...
UPDATE: ANTI-GAY GOP SENATOR ASHBURN COMES OUT AS GAY
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ashburn_im_gay.php?ref=fpa
Ashburn, a divorced father of four, said that his many votes against gay rights (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/flashback_anti_gay_roy_ashburn_history.php) were efforts to represent the conservative views of his constituents.I can actually respect this because politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people.
Of course, I'd only respect it if it was true. At the moment it comes off more as lipserving bull to save face. And I'm guessing any speeches he gave for his anti-gay votes in session would sound more like a person actively fighting against gay rights than someone just serving the will of the people.
In my opinion, his 'excuse' is nothing more than lip service to save his own ***. His rhetoric went well beyond 'serving the will of his constituents'.
Gilpesh
03-08-2010, 12:48 PM
to save his own ***.
Oh wordplay... you are the funniest thing to happen to comedy.
Oh wordplay... you are the funniest thing to happen to comedy.
There was no pun intended in my comment.
Mystirious
03-08-2010, 03:33 PM
I guess I should have explained further....
"simulated sex on their floats...." the children watching these parades are NOT consenting adults, they are in public, doing things that they should not be doing IN PUBLIC...
So as you are offended with my statement, I am offended by what they do in these parades. They want to do that in their home, as two consenting adults, heterosexual or not, that's fine with me. On a float, for all to see....is offensive to me.
So I guess we are both offended, and therefore equally offended.
Done....
Eh. I fail to see any problem with any of that being done in public. :woot:
And BTW, IMO, it is your attitude that will keep your agenda from ever being accepted in a way you desire.
No. The stupidity, prejudice and cowardice of the ignorant masses is the obstacle there.
I'm not exactly sure I fully understand your reply by these two lines here.
Would you please elaborate why it would be inappropriate for Kel to make the statement which offends you, while you see no problem with the offense of others?
Bigots are, by their nature, worthless people in my eyes. Why should I give a damn if their offended?
I can actually respect this because politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people.
I wouldn't because I don't feel the will of people like that SHOULD be represented.
And also because I don't respect politicians full stop.
BlackestNight
03-08-2010, 04:46 PM
I guess I should have explained further....
"simulated sex on their floats...." the children watching these parades are NOT consenting adults, they are in public, doing things that they should not be doing IN PUBLIC...
So as you are offended with my statement, I am offended by what they do in these parades. They want to do that in their home, as two consenting adults, heterosexual or not, that's fine with me. On a float, for all to see....is offensive to me.
So I guess we are both offended, and therefore equally offended.
Done....
And BTW, IMO, it is your attitude that will keep your agenda from ever being accepted in a way you desire.
Those parades have pretty much turned into their equivalent of Mardi gras.
Schlosser85
03-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Bigots are, by their nature, worthless people in my eyes. Why should I give a damn if their offended?
I don't disagree with your basic sentiment, but you don't have to be a homophobic bigot to be offended by people- ANY people, gay or straight, simulating sex acts in public.
LouFerignoDemon
03-08-2010, 08:44 PM
Bigots are, by their nature, worthless people in my eyes. Why should I give a damn if their offended?
I imagine many of those things are said about homosexuals, to be perfectly honest.
I was more curious why you believe your offense outweighs another persons offense.
Mystirious
03-08-2010, 11:23 PM
I don't disagree with your basic sentiment, but you don't have to be a homophobic bigot to be offended by people- ANY people, gay or straight, simulating sex acts in public.
Personally I don't see the big deal. Then again I know Americans in general have all kinds of weird hangs ups and repression when it comes to sex
But whatever. If someones bothered by it, for whatever reason, they don't have to go watch the parade. No ones forcing anyone to go, unless attendance became mandatory all of a sudden.
But I don't appreciate being told what we should or shouldn't do just to spare the delicate feelings of the repressed or the prejudiced.
I imagine many of those things are said about homosexuals, to be perfectly honest.
To be perfectly honest this statement is akin to telling a Jewish person that they shouldn't say mean things about Hitler :whatever: I suppose I should treat bigots with respect? Turn the other cheek? Maybe invite them round to tea and let them tell me all about how I deserve to go to hell because of who I fall in love with? :whatever:
I'm not tolerant of bigots. People who hate others based on their skin colour, religion or in this case sexuality are frankly what I would call "Oxygen thieves".
The idea that we all have to respect the opinions of bigots, make nice to them and pander to them is ridiculous. And it's the reason why the planets in such godawful shape. The bigoted and the repressed hold back humankinds potential
I was more curious why you believe your offense outweighs another persons offense.
Because, as I have already said, as far as I'm concerned, the opinions, thoughts and feelings of bigots do not matter.
wiegeabo
03-09-2010, 12:15 AM
And not trying to appease just 3% of the population that were on the fence helped in the passage of Prop 8.
The people who have issues with public displays of sex are voters. And it's the voters that will determine the future of gay rights. Either directly (like Prop 8), or by electing politicians who represent their views on gay rights and write the legislation (like the Civil Rights Act).
People have the right to be as comfortable or uncomfortable with public displays of sex as they want. I'm willing to bet that a significant number, if not strong majority, of people who take issue with public displays of homosexual sex acts also take issue with public displays of heterosexual sex acts. If they didn't, we wouldn't have lewdness laws that prohibit sex of any kind in public.
It's all about compromise. Would it have been worth forgoing simulated sex acts during gay pride parades (and changing nothing else about the parades) for a couple of years if it had meant a better perception of homosexuals (as regular people and not some kind of sexual deviant), and therefore the defeat of Prop 8?
To be fair, I'm not sure what could have been done to counter the hatred and lies being spread by the Prop 8 backers.
LouFerignoDemon
03-09-2010, 12:29 AM
Personally I don't see the big deal. Then again I know Americans in general have all kinds of weird hangs ups and repression when it comes to sex
But whatever. If someones bothered by it, for whatever reason, they don't have to go watch the parade. No ones forcing anyone to go, unless attendance became mandatory all of a sudden.
But I don't appreciate being told what we should or shouldn't do just to spare the delicate feelings of the repressed or the prejudiced.
To be perfectly honest this statement is akin to telling a Jewish person that they shouldn't say mean things about Hitler :whatever: I suppose I should treat bigots with respect? Turn the other cheek? Maybe invite them round to tea and let them tell me all about how I deserve to go to hell because of who I fall in love with? :whatever:
I'm not tolerant of bigots. People who hate others based on their skin colour, religion or in this case sexuality are frankly what I would call "Oxygen thieves".
The idea that we all have to respect the opinions of bigots, make nice to them and pander to them is ridiculous. And it's the reason why the planets in such godawful shape. The bigoted and the repressed hold back humankinds potential
Because, as I have already said, as far as I'm concerned, the opinions, thoughts and feelings of bigots do not matter.
This post is honestly no better than some of the anti-gay things I hear.
You desire tolerance, but dole none out of your own.
And the Hitler comparison is a little bit much. While there have been anti-gay related deaths rarely, most anti-gay supporters don't cart gays off in trains to gas them as part of their genetic superiority propaganda while pushing an army to do so. The comparison has no more validity to it than if you compared Hitler to James Earl Ray, and used Ray as the face of the anti-black sentiment. There are degrees of tolerance and understanding. If you would desire it for your own cause, I would most definitely recommend thinking about it thoroughly.
However, if anything has been learned over the years, education, and reaching out have always worked better to turn the tide for gays in most communities than ever has going door to door and calling the resident a waste of life because they don't tolerate gays at the very moment.
With the given method you currently employ, I see no reason "anti-gays" should tolerate gays anymore than gays should tolerate those who hate them. If they hate each other over nothing more than ideology, it's really just even ground as long as it remains at debate level.
However, my question has been answered.
LouFerignoDemon
03-09-2010, 12:31 AM
To be fair, I'm not sure what could have been done to counter the hatred and lies being spread by the Prop 8 backers.
Much like history has shown thus far, it will just simply take time, understanding, education, and a growing tolerance from both sides. If you were to ask me, it would be an effort of expanding tolerances on each side to quell the hostilities. While big flashy movements have from time to time worked to greatly improve civil rights, it can be just as polarizing. It isn't always a good thing.
Schlosser85
03-09-2010, 08:14 AM
To be fair, I'm not sure what could have been done to counter the hatred and lies being spread by the Prop 8 backers.
In both Prop 8 and in Maine, gross misinformation was perpetuated by churches, such as they would lose their tax exempt status if gay marriage was legalized, as if one has anything to do with the other, churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, which no one is even trying to do, or schools would teach elementary schoolchildren about gay marriage.
In the first place, while churches have the right to believe whatever they believe, if they don't know or care that "thou shalt not lie" is one of the 10 Commandments, I question the genuineness of their faith, and I also find it revealing that apparently the only way they can argue against "the gay agenda" is by lying out both sides of their mouth.
Mystirious
03-09-2010, 09:48 AM
This post is honestly no better than some of the anti-gay things I hear.
You desire tolerance, but dole none out of your own.
I am tolerant. I do not hate someone because of their religion. The colour of their skin. The lifestyle they choose to lead. Their sexuality. Their economic status. Whether they are homeless or homed. What country they came from. None of these things matter to me
But if someone is bigoted? Yeah I hate them. And I have EVERY right to hate them. And the people who claim that bigots SHOULDN'T be hated frankly get nothing but mocking laughter from me. Why do I doubt you would be so "Tolerant" if the bigotry was being directed at YOU?
And the Hitler comparison is a little bit much. While there have been anti-gay related deaths rarely
"Rarely"? Oh good lord...:whatever: I do hope you're kidding
And ONE anti-gay death would be one too many. And more than enough to make me despise EVERYONE who is anti-gay
Simply put, if someone is prejudiced: I loathe them.
most anti-gay supporters don't cart gays off in trains to gas them as part of their genetic superiority propaganda while pushing an army to do so. The comparison has no more validity to it than if you compared Hitler to James Earl Ray, and used Ray as the face of the anti-black sentiment. There are degrees of tolerance and understanding. If you would desire it for your own cause, I would most definitely recommend thinking about it thoroughly.
No, they persecute innocent people and prevent them from getting basic human rights while self righteously declaring their moral superiority. often out of some laughable belief that some old guy up on a cloud supports their actions
Their are not "Degrees of tolerance". Only cowards believe that. Simply put, if someone isn't tolerant I want nothing to do with them. I'm not going to tolerate the intolerant
Your entire post sounds like the worst kind of apologism. I suppose we shouldn't hate the KKK either?
However, if anything has been learned over the years, education, and reaching out have always worked better to turn the tide for gays in most communities than ever has going door to door and calling the resident a waste of life because they don't tolerate gays at the very moment.
Why the hell should I "Reach out" to people who hate me just because of the way I was born? And did I say I did that I was "Going door to door"? All I said was that I hate bigots. And I do. If someone says or does bigoted things around me, yeah I'll tell them what I think of them.
No offence but from your comments I'm guessing your straight. So all I have to say is: What right do you have to tell me how I should react to bigotry?
With the given method you currently employ, I see no reason "anti-gays" should tolerate gays anymore than gays should tolerate those who hate them. If they hate each other over nothing more than ideology, it's really just even ground as long as it remains at debate level.
People should tolerate those who are LGBT because their is NO valid reason NOT to tolerate us.
Asking people to "Tolerate" bigots, to act as if their opinions are valid? That's utterly ludicrous. I hate bigots because they preach hatred toward innocent people and cause them to be not only be denied human rights, but often cause them to be harmed if not outright killed with their hate mongering
So NO. I'm not going to "Tolerate" the human garbage like Fred Phelps and the braindead morons who agree with him. And I'll be VERY happy when their all gone.
Saying there needs to be "Tolerance on both sides"? NO. WE don't have to tolerate those who spread hatred and violence against us. WE don't have the change.
The people who have issues with public displays of sex are voters. And it's the voters that will determine the future of gay rights. Either directly (like Prop 8), or by electing politicians who represent their views on gay rights and write the legislation (like the Civil Rights Act).[
I don't believe the voters should determine it. The people are ignorant and credulous fools. I don't want the basic human right to marry decided by those idiots. I think the government should simply grant LGBT people the right to marry, without a vote.
Leaving something like that up to popular vote is pure insanity in my eyes. Letting the voters determine the future of gay rights is sheer stupidity
wiegeabo
03-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Most of us agree that rights should never be put up to a vote. But guess what, they are. And because they are, the gay rights movement would be fools not to get voters on their side.
There're two ways for the government to grant equal rights. Either the legislature changes the law (confirmed by the executive), or the Courts do. Well, guess who puts those legislators (and the executive) into office? The voters. Who puts the judges on the Court? The executive and legislators who are placed into office by the voters. So once again, not getting the backing of as many voters as possible is just going to delay equal rights.
In both Prop 8 and in Maine, gross misinformation was perpetuated by churches, such as they would lose their tax exempt status if gay marriage was legalized, as if one has anything to do with the other, churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, which no one is even trying to do, or schools would teach elementary schoolchildren about gay marriage.
In the first place, while churches have the right to believe whatever they believe, if they don't know or care that "thou shalt not lie" is one of the 10 Commandments, I question the genuineness of their faith, and I also find it revealing that apparently the only way they can argue against "the gay agenda" is by lying out both sides of their mouth.
It's sickening man...
I am tolerant. I do not hate someone because of their religion. The colour of their skin. The lifestyle they choose to lead. Their sexuality. Their economic status. Whether they are homeless or homed. What country they came from. None of these things matter to me
But if someone is bigoted? Yeah I hate them. And I have EVERY right to hate them. And the people who claim that bigots SHOULDN'T be hated frankly get nothing but mocking laughter from me. Why do I doubt you would be so "Tolerant" if the bigotry was being directed at YOU?
"Rarely"? Oh good lord...:whatever: I do hope you're kidding
And ONE anti-gay death would be one too many. And more than enough to make me despise EVERYONE who is anti-gay
Simply put, if someone is prejudiced: I loathe them.
No, they persecute innocent people and prevent them from getting basic human rights while self righteously declaring their moral superiority. often out of some laughable belief that some old guy up on a cloud supports their actions
Their are not "Degrees of tolerance". Only cowards believe that. Simply put, if someone isn't tolerant I want nothing to do with them. I'm not going to tolerate the intolerant
Your entire post sounds like the worst kind of apologism. I suppose we shouldn't hate the KKK either?
Why the hell should I "Reach out" to people who hate me just because of the way I was born? And did I say I did that I was "Going door to door"? All I said was that I hate bigots. And I do. If someone says or does bigoted things around me, yeah I'll tell them what I think of them.
No offence but from your comments I'm guessing your straight. So all I have to say is: What right do you have to tell me how I should react to bigotry?
People should tolerate those who are LGBT because their is NO valid reason NOT to tolerate us.
Asking people to "Tolerate" bigots, to act as if their opinions are valid? That's utterly ludicrous. I hate bigots because they preach hatred toward innocent people and cause them to be not only be denied human rights, but often cause them to be harmed if not outright killed with their hate mongering
So NO. I'm not going to "Tolerate" the human garbage like Fred Phelps and the braindead morons who agree with him. And I'll be VERY happy when their all gone.
Saying there needs to be "Tolerance on both sides"? NO. WE don't have to tolerate those who spread hatred and violence against us. WE don't have the change.
I don't believe the voters should determine it. The people are ignorant and credulous fools. I don't want the basic human right to marry decided by those idiots. I think the government should simply grant LGBT people the right to marry, without a vote.
Leaving something like that up to popular vote is pure insanity in my eyes. Letting the voters determine the future of gay rights is sheer stupidity
Let's take it down a notch Mysterious. There's no need to be so abrasive. You'll find that the majority of people in this thread support gay rights.
There are just varying opinions on different aspects of it.
LouFerignoDemon
03-09-2010, 11:12 AM
I am tolerant. I do not hate someone because of their religion. The colour of their skin. The lifestyle they choose to lead. Their sexuality. Their economic status. Whether they are homeless or homed. What country they came from. None of these things matter to me
But if someone is bigoted? Yeah I hate them. And I have EVERY right to hate them. And the people who claim that bigots SHOULDN'T be hated frankly get nothing but mocking laughter from me. Why do I doubt you would be so "Tolerant" if the bigotry was being directed at YOU?
"Rarely"? Oh good lord...:whatever: I do hope you're kidding
And ONE anti-gay death would be one too many. And more than enough to make me despise EVERYONE who is anti-gay
Simply put, if someone is prejudiced: I loathe them.
No, they persecute innocent people and prevent them from getting basic human rights while self righteously declaring their moral superiority. often out of some laughable belief that some old guy up on a cloud supports their actions
Their are not "Degrees of tolerance". Only cowards believe that. Simply put, if someone isn't tolerant I want nothing to do with them. I'm not going to tolerate the intolerant
Your entire post sounds like the worst kind of apologism. I suppose we shouldn't hate the KKK either?
Why the hell should I "Reach out" to people who hate me just because of the way I was born? And did I say I did that I was "Going door to door"? All I said was that I hate bigots. And I do. If someone says or does bigoted things around me, yeah I'll tell them what I think of them.
No offence but from your comments I'm guessing your straight. So all I have to say is: What right do you have to tell me how I should react to bigotry?
People should tolerate those who are LGBT because their is NO valid reason NOT to tolerate us.
Asking people to "Tolerate" bigots, to act as if their opinions are valid? That's utterly ludicrous. I hate bigots because they preach hatred toward innocent people and cause them to be not only be denied human rights, but often cause them to be harmed if not outright killed with their hate mongering
So NO. I'm not going to "Tolerate" the human garbage like Fred Phelps and the braindead morons who agree with him. And I'll be VERY happy when their all gone.
Saying there needs to be "Tolerance on both sides"? NO. WE don't have to tolerate those who spread hatred and violence against us. WE don't have the change.
I don't believe the voters should determine it. The people are ignorant and credulous fools. I don't want the basic human right to marry decided by those idiots. I think the government should simply grant LGBT people the right to marry, without a vote.
Leaving something like that up to popular vote is pure insanity in my eyes. Letting the voters determine the future of gay rights is sheer stupidity
You have no clue of who I am, or how I was brought up, or any intolerances I must have faced. Being bisexual alone nets me vast dislike in many crowds. A French native living in America who agreed with France when France turned down America's call for help? This had violence turned against me. I did not feel the need to succumb to baseline anger for a people who didn't understand the other side of the line.
As for a coward? You may believe what you want. Jumping to conclusions and broad accusations of an unknown subject of people is just a big an act of bigotry as any other.
As much as I do not enjoy turning posts into a direct observance of another person, in this case an exception shall be made:
You are no worse or better than those you claim to hate. Bigotry has no borders of who are what someone is. Your post is heavy with irrationality by process of extremely odd comparisons and blind hatred due to a personal situation you yourself deal with. I can tell you this as a native of France who had relatives die in the occupation of Hitler, what a mediocre group of people does to you simply for being gay and unapologetically offensive to them has no rational comparison to the hell, torture, violations, and death my family was put through simply for being an enemy combatant in a global war which consumed lives and souls in a conflagration of true bigotry and racism. While your anger is righteous, your methods and thoughts are heavily misplaced. What? Three, maybe four people you knew died due to violence placed against them at the most? Over thirty of my bloodline died in defense of their country, friends, and loved ones because of a German strike against France in WWI, which led to France putting insane conditions of Germany afterward which LED to the rise of Hitler, allowing the slaughter of millions. Hating someone irrationally because they hate you only starts violence. Only fools believe otherwise. And a few gay bashings is hardly a comparison to the evils some men and countries are truly capable of.
Some positive news...
UPDATE: FIRST SAME-SEX COUPLE MARRIES IN DC
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/09/same.sex.marriages/index.html?hpt=T1
:up:
VIRGINIA STUDENTS ANGERED BY CUCCINELLI COMMENTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/cuccinellis-gay-rights-sta_n_491503.html
Mystirious
03-09-2010, 12:21 PM
You have no clue of who I am, or how I was brought up, or any intolerances I must have faced. Being bisexual alone nets me vast dislike in many crowds. A French native living in America who agreed with France when France turned down America's call for help? This had violence turned against me. I did not feel the need to succumb to baseline anger for a people who didn't understand the other side of the line.
Well good for you. I however have no interest in being tolerant or understanding of bigots. The only thing they'll get from me is scorn and, if they try anything, a beat down
You are no worse or better than those you claim to hate.
Yes I am. I'm better than them in every possible way.
Bigotry has no borders of who are what someone is. Your post is heavy with irrationality by process of extremely odd comparisons and blind hatred due to a personal situation you yourself deal with. I can tell you this as a native of France who had relatives die in the occupation of Hitler, what a mediocre group of people does to you simply for being gay and unapologetically offensive to them
I'm sorry, living my life open and free is being "Unapologetically offensive"? Perhaps I should pretend to be straight to spare the feelings of all those poor, helpless bigots?:whatever:
The way you continually act as if bigots are VICTIMS here actually sickens me. Defending the opinions and feelings of bigots, telling people they have to tolerate them, is just as bad as bigotry in my opinion
has no rational comparison to the hell, torture, violations, and death my family was put through simply for being an enemy combatant in a global war which consumed lives and souls in a conflagration of true bigotry and racism. While your anger is righteous, your methods and thoughts are heavily misplaced. What? Three, maybe four people you knew died due to violence placed against them at the most? Over thirty of my bloodline died in defense of their country, friends, and loved ones because of a German strike against France in WWI
I am deeply sorry for your loss. And I mean that sincerely.
But I am not going to play "My tragedy is greater than yours" with you.
Yes people I know have been attacked and killed because of their sexuality. I have been attacked, verbally and physically for my sexuality. I don't give a goddamn about "Tolerating" people who hate those who are LGBT. As far as I'm concerned bigots don't deserve to share the same planet as I do
You say that I'm bigoted towards bigots? Well guess what: I am PERFECTLY happy with that description. I'm hateful towards the intolerant and I'm proud of that. Why shouldn't I be? Give me ONE good reason why I should be "Tolerant" of the bigoted.
Hating someone irrationally because they hate you only starts violence. Only fools believe otherwise. And a few gay bashings is hardly a comparison to the evils some men and countries are truly capable of.
It's not irrational to hate someone who hates you just for the way you were born
And "A few gay bashings"? I'll thank you not to be so dismissive. Evil is evil. As far as I'm concerned there is no sliding scale. The intolerant are just as bad as any other criminal and if I had my way, bigots would be locked away with the rest of the vermin.
Carcharodon
03-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Because, as I have already said, as far as I'm concerned, the opinions, thoughts and feelings of bigots do not matter.The irony hurts my brain. :csad:
LouFerignoDemon
03-09-2010, 12:38 PM
I am deeply sorry for your loss. And I mean that sincerely.
But I am not going to play "My tragedy is greater than yours" with you.
There is no game to play here. It was simply an elaboration on an irrational comparison you made in terms of evils of the world, and those who suffer in it.
You say that I'm bigoted towards bigots? Well guess what: I am PERFECTLY happy with that description. I'm hateful towards the intolerant and I'm proud of that. Why shouldn't I be? Give me ONE good reason why I should be "Tolerant" of the bigoted.
It's not irrational to hate someone who hates you just for the way you were born
I already described before why tolerance would be best for how the world views a moral personality. An entire war taught us how much hatred can destroy and consume.
However, your comment basically nullifies your entire argument by your own reasoning. If you yourself are a bigot, do your words, thoughts, feelings, strife, and struggles matter? Or should you be cast aside because you hate for no reason other than someone hates you?
Hating simply because you are hated is a baseline human emotion originally practiced by the most barbaric of humans of the past, and the most extreme of humans today. Reasonable people do not cast judgement of hatred against an entire population for no more reason than the other people hate them as well. In truth, it just feeds into deeper cycles of hatred and violence. It's a worthless, energyspending, baseless effort of getting nothing done other than moaning and groaning about things which could and should be changed.
And "A few gay bashings"? I'll thank you not to be so dismissive. Evil is evil. As far as I'm concerned there is no sliding scale. The intolerant are just as bad as any other criminal and if I had my way, bigots would be locked away with the rest of the vermin.
In comparison to the atrocities you compared them to earlier? These are quite minor. Evil? Yes. In the same league as genocide? No.
You ask for civil rights, but make the claim if you had your way, you'd take away the civil right of thought and choice with this final comment.
I would advise you to rethink how you feel about this entire situation, study hard, and hopefully come up with one which isn't fueled by the fires of basic hatred.
Hatred in defense is one thing, hatred just for hatred is another.
Mystirious
03-09-2010, 01:18 PM
There is no game to play here. It was simply an elaboration on an irrational comparison you made in terms of evils of the world, and those who suffer in it.
As I've already said, as far as I'm concerned the bigots are just as bad as all the other monsters this pathetic species has produced.
I already described before why tolerance would be best for how the world views a moral personality. An entire war taught us how much hatred can destroy and consume.
I don't CARE how the world views me.
Hating simply because you are hated is a baseline human emotion originally practiced by the most barbaric of humans of the past, and the most extreme of humans today. Reasonable people do not cast judgement of hatred against an entire population for no more reason than the other people hate them as well.
Except I am not casting "Judgement of hatred" against an entire population. I'm indifferent for the most part. I only cast "Judgement of hatred" against bigots.
In comparison to the atrocities you compared them to earlier? These are quite minor. Evil? Yes. In the same league as genocide? No.
Like I've already said. There is no "Major" or "Minor" in my eyes. So yes, I hate bigots with the same white hot passion that I hate murderers, rapists, torturers and thieves.
You ask for civil rights, but make the claim if you had your way, you'd take away the civil right of thought and choice with this final comment.
They can think whatever they want. But I have no tolerance for hate speech. It's illegal in my country and we're all the better for it. The sooner the US wises up and does the same, the better
I would advise you to rethink how you feel about this entire situation
In a word: NO
I have NO intention to ever stop hating any and all people who are bigoted towards people for their sexuality, skin colour, ethnicity, gender, lifestyle or nationality in any way, shape or form. They'll get nothing from me but scorn and hatred. It's all those scumbags deserve
VIRGINIA STUDENTS ANGERED BY CUCCINELLI COMMENTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/cuccinellis-gay-rights-sta_n_491503.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/cuccinellis-gay-rights-sta_n_491503.html)
Good. Nice to see that plenty of people there are smart enough to see what a stupid, bigoted piece of trash Cuccinelli is.
LouFerignoDemon
03-09-2010, 01:23 PM
I find myself deeply saddened by your response, and filled with the hope you one day re-think your position and attempt a new path.
Mystirious
03-09-2010, 01:32 PM
I find myself deeply saddened by your response, and filled with the hope you one day re-think your position and attempt a new path.
Why on EARTH would I want to "Attempt a new path"? No seriously. Give me ONE reason, just one, why I should treat bigots with respect. Or "Tolerance"
Take it down a notch Mysterious. LAST WARNING.
Take it down a notch Mysterious. LAST WARNING.
Gilpesh
03-09-2010, 02:05 PM
Why on EARTH would I want to "Attempt a new path"? No seriously. Give me ONE reason, just one, why I should treat bigots with respect. Or "Tolerance"
Because when they think they are right and among friends.... is when they say the most hilarious ****. Just look at Bachmann on Hardball... Mathews said nothing and Bachmann pretty much unloaded a whole lot of crazy.
PROPOSED LAW IN FLORIDA WOULD DENY TAX BREAKS TO FILMS THAT FEATURE GAY CHARACTERS
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/proposed_law_would_deny_tax_br.php
:facepalm:
Schlosser85
03-09-2010, 06:25 PM
Just when you thought the homophobes couldn't possibly get any more absurd.
BlackLantern
03-09-2010, 06:31 PM
Because when they think they are right and among friends.... is when they say the most hilarious ****. Just look at Bachmann on Hardball... Mathews said nothing and Bachmann pretty much unloaded a whole lot of crazy.
Bachmann needs someone to bang the crazy out of her....I volunteer
wiegeabo
03-09-2010, 07:46 PM
Bachmann needs someone to bang the crazy out of her....I volunteer
Did someone say road trip?! :awesome:
*gets bat*
BlackLantern
03-10-2010, 06:45 AM
Did someone say road trip?! :awesome:
*gets bat*
I think you misunderstand what I meant
wiegeabo
03-10-2010, 10:38 AM
You bang your way... :p
STATE BY STATE STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state
Wylie Times
03-10-2010, 11:11 AM
PROPOSED LAW IN FLORIDA WOULD DENY TAX BREAKS TO FILMS THAT FEATURE GAY CHARACTERS
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/proposed_law_would_deny_tax_br.php
:facepalm:
The ****? :facepalm:
Sloth7d
03-10-2010, 11:42 AM
PROPOSED LAW IN FLORIDA WOULD DENY TAX BREAKS TO FILMS THAT FEATURE GAY CHARACTERS
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/proposed_law_would_deny_tax_br.php
:facepalm:
"The freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation". Can that apply here, or is arbitrary discrimination against one form of speech allowed because it's "icky"? And I can understand the FCC putting a ratings system on violent or overly sexualized shows to prevent kids from seeing them (though they wouldn't do so just for the characters being gay of course), but attacking the shows financially seems like a form of oppression. Especially in the case of gays where you're essentially discriminating against a persons culture and life style.
Mystirious
03-10-2010, 04:23 PM
PROPOSED LAW IN FLORIDA WOULD DENY TAX BREAKS TO FILMS THAT FEATURE GAY CHARACTERS
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/proposed_law_would_deny_tax_br.php
:facepalm:
Just when you think these bigots can't get any stupider, you read about braindead wastes of flesh like this.
People like this are a great arguement for sterilisation
According to the AP, Virginia Governor McDonnel has overrode his Attorney General's order to withdraw gay protections from the state's universities.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Mystirious
03-10-2010, 06:27 PM
According to the AP, Virginia Governor McDonnel has overrode his Attorney General's order to withdraw gay protections from the states universities.
So this means that gay protections in the state universities will NOT be withdrawn?
Nice to have some GOOD news for a change.
One of the local news stations had a poll about gay marriage last night...here were the final results.
Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to conventional marriage?
Yes - 73%
No - 27%
:facepalm:
Sloth7d
03-10-2010, 10:46 PM
Maybe they think like the rainbow symbol gay people will so overly claim it that anyone who gets married will, like straight people wearing apparel with a rainbow, be confused for gay. </failed logic>
wiegeabo
03-10-2010, 10:53 PM
Didn't you know that once the gays marry, they'll all band together into a massive gay army, and strike out against all married straights? It's their final devious plan. Just like how Canadians are polite to lull us into a false sense of security while they work towards global domination.
BlackLantern
03-11-2010, 06:46 AM
and once they have their army, they will sweep over the nation....redecorating and coordinating fabulous parties as they go
the humanity......oooo the humanity
VenomVsSpidey
03-11-2010, 09:38 AM
JACKSON, Miss. – A northern Mississippi school district will not be hosting a high school prom this spring after a lesbian student sought to attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
The Itawamba County school district's board decided Wednesday to drop the prom because of what it called recent distractions but without specifically mentioning the girl's request, which was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The student, 18-year-old high school senior Constance McMillen, said the cancellation was retaliation for her efforts to bring her girlfriend, also a student, to the April 2 dance.
"A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this, so in a way it's really retaliation," McMillen told The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson. Calls to McMillen by The Associated Press late Wednesday went unanswered.
School policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. The ACLU of Mississippi had given the district until Wednesday to change that policy, arguing that banning same-sex prom dates violated McMillen's constitutional rights.
Instead, the school board met and issued a statement announcing it wouldn't host the event at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton, "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."
The statement didn't mention McMillen or the ACLU. When asked by The Associated Press if McMillen's demand led to the cancellation, school board attorney Michele Floyd said she could only reference the statement.
"It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors," district officials said in the statement. "However, at this time, we feel that it is in the best interest of the Itawamba County School District, after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students."
Kristy Bennett, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi, said the district was trying to avoid the issue.
"But that doesn't take away their legal obligations to treat all the students fairly," Bennett said. "On Constance's behalf, this is unfair to her. All she's trying to do is assert her rights."
Itawamba County is a rural area of about 23,000 people in north Mississippi near the Alabama state line. It borders Pontotoc County, Miss., where more than a decade ago school officials were sued in federal court over their practice of student-led intercom prayer and Bible classes.
Anna Watson, a 17-year-old junior at the high school, was looking forward to the prom, especially since the town's only hotspot is the bowling alley, she said.
"I am a little bummed out about it. I guess it's a decision that had to be made. Either way someone was going to get disappointed — either Constance was or we were," Watson said. "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I can't change what another person thinks or does."
Other students are on McMillen's side.
McKenzie Chaney, 16, said she wasn't planning to attend the prom, but "it's kind of ridiculous that they can't let her wear the tuxedo and it all be over with."
A Feb. 5 memo to students laid out the criteria for bringing a date to the prom, and one requirement was that the person must be of the opposite sex.
The ACLU said McMillen approached school officials shortly before the memo went out because she knew same-sex dates had been banned in the past. The ACLU said district officials told McMillen she and her girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to arrive together, that she would not be allowed to wear a tuxedo, and that she and her girlfriend might be asked to leave if their presence made any other students "uncomfortable."
McMillen said she feared she would be thrown out of the prom because "we do live in the Bible Belt."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date
:dry::doh:
chamber-music
03-11-2010, 09:54 AM
What is it with Mississippi school authorities?
I remeber the school that was still having segregated proms that Morgan Freeman finally convinced to finally get rid off.
ChickenScratch
03-11-2010, 10:00 AM
Pretty backwards. My prom was in '99 and we had quite a few gay couples in attendance. Guess that's the difference between New York and the sticks.
kane9321
03-11-2010, 10:13 AM
booo mississippi
i remember at our prom (95) we had a few gay/lesbian couples..no big deal
BlackLantern
03-11-2010, 10:19 AM
it's Mississippi....this surprises people??
Spidey-Bat
03-11-2010, 10:32 AM
Seems dumb to cancel the entire thing just because of them. Why not just ban them from going?
Prison Mike
03-11-2010, 10:33 AM
this doesn't surprise me. even the girl had a feeling since they live in the "bible belt". Still, it's a shame they cancelled it.
Wolfwood
03-11-2010, 10:36 AM
I think we need photogenic proof that these girls are lesbian. They may be faking it for the attention. :o
Carcharodon
03-11-2010, 10:38 AM
Seems dumb to cancel the entire thing just because of them. Why not just ban them from going?Well, there's this tiny organization called the ACLU...
ChickenScratch
03-11-2010, 10:56 AM
This is why I prefer the coasts and much of the middle of the country I pretty much ignore.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 11:42 AM
One of the local news stations had a poll about gay marriage last night...here were the final results.
Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to conventional marriage?
Yes - 73%
No - 27%
:facepalm:
I'm not sure a Picard face palm is enough to sum up the sheer levels of stupidity here. Has anyone got the Picard/Riker double face palm pic handy?
Where was this "Local news station" conducting it's poll? Saudi Arabia? :wow::cmad:
Didn't you know that once the gays marry, they'll all band together into a massive gay army, and strike out against all married straights?
It's at the top of our "To do" list when we meet to discuss our sinister "gay agenda":whatever:
El_Citrus
03-11-2010, 11:43 AM
I think any racist, sexist, or homophobic news from Mississippi can be summed up in two words: It's Mississippi.
No offense to anyone from Mississippi, though I doubt any of them are on here with electricity being so rare down there.
I keed, I keed.
I'm not sure a Picard face palm is enough to sum up the sheer levels of stupidity here. Has anyone got the Picard/Riker double face palm pic handy?
Where was this "Local news station" conducting it's poll? Saudi Arabia? :wow::cmad:
John Boehner country.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 11:49 AM
John Boehner country.
Not too many MENSA candidates in that part of the world I'm guess?
Let me guess: Inbreeding is the indoor past time of choice round those parts?
Not too many MENSA candidates in that part of the world I'm guess?
Let me guess: Inbreeding is the indoor past time of choice round those parts?
Inbreeding has nothing to do with it...it's just a very conservative area.
wiegeabo
03-11-2010, 12:13 PM
I'm not sure a Picard face palm is enough to sum up the sheer levels of stupidity here. Has anyone got the Picard/Riker double face palm pic handy?
Where was this "Local news station" conducting it's poll? Saudi Arabia? :wow::cmad:
It's at the top of our "To do" list when we meet to discuss our sinister "gay agenda":whatever:
http://i40.tinypic.com/x37de9.jpg
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 12:20 PM
Inbreeding has nothing to do with it...it's just a very conservative area.
I didn't realise "Conservative" now meant "Mentally handicapped"
http://i40.tinypic.com/x37de9.jpg
Ah, thank you wiegeabo! Too kind!:fhm:
Trainwreck2100
03-11-2010, 12:22 PM
well that's one way to avoid contreversy
I didn't realise "Conservative" now meant "Mentally handicapped"
In your world, it might mean that. In my world, it is an opinion different from my own. And everyone has a right to their own opinions.
Wow, how incredibly ignorant.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 12:35 PM
In your world, it might mean that. In my world, it is an opinion different from my own. And everyone has a right to their own opinions.
Yes. Idiots are perfectly welcome to the moronic opinion that gay marriage is a bad thing. So long as they don't do anything to act on it, anyway. They can think whatever they want. It's only when they open their mouths that I have a problem with it.
There is NO valid arguement against gay marriage. Therefore anyone against gay marriage is, in my opinion, mentally inferior.
Nell2ThaIzzay
03-11-2010, 12:36 PM
And people wonder why I hate religion.
And people wonder why I hate religion.
Religion is one of the worst things to happen to mankind in my opinion. To be honest though, it's not only the religious who don't think homosexuality is Ok. Most are I'm sure due to their religious morals but it's not only them.
JustABill
03-11-2010, 12:52 PM
And people wonder why I hate religion.
Religion is the bane of my existence. It causes nothing but hatred and chaos which is the opposite of what I'm sure some of it's original founders hoped for.
ChickenScratch
03-11-2010, 12:54 PM
I'm no fan of religion either, but if you get me started I'll probably get kicked off of this forum.
Lasirius
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
Wow, those comments on the yahoo page really astonish me. They're blaming the girls for ruining it for everyone.
Spidey-Bat
03-11-2010, 12:59 PM
And people wonder why I hate religion.
Religion is one of the worst things to happen to mankind in my opinion. To be honest though, it's not only the religious who don't think homosexuality is Ok. Most are I'm sure due to their religious morals but it's not only them.
Religion is the bane of my existence. It causes nothing but hatred and chaos which is the opposite of what I'm sure some of it's original founders hoped for.
I'm no fan of religion either, but if you get me started I'll probably get kicked off of this forum.
The problem isn't religion but the fanatics (a minority) who follow it.
Nell2ThaIzzay
03-11-2010, 01:02 PM
Religion is one of the worst things to happen to mankind in my opinion. To be honest though, it's not only the religious who don't think homosexuality is Ok. Most are I'm sure due to their religious morals but it's not only them.
Oh, I know it's not all religion based, but I live in the Bible Belt, and I know just how anti-gay they are down here.
As I've stated many times before around here when the subject comes up, I don't even like homosexuality myself, but I acknowledge that people have the right to live in a way that makes them happy, and just because I don't care for something, that gives me no right to impose my views and beliefs on them to tell them how to live.
Someone being gay has absolutely zero impact on my life, and I think it's incredible how seriously people take the issue of homosexuality, and how offended they are by it.
Yes. Idiots are perfectly welcome to the moronic opinion that gay marriage is a bad thing. So long as they don't do anything to act on it, anyway. They can think whatever they want. It's only when they open their mouths that I have a problem with it.
There is NO valid arguement against gay marriage. Therefore anyone against gay marriage is, in my opinion, mentally inferior.
You and I are on the same side of the fight Mysterious. I am a huge supporter of gay rights and equality...but I do recognize that everyone has a right to their opinion. No matter how different from my own.
Trainwreck2100
03-11-2010, 01:17 PM
how did i know she would be fat
BlackLantern
03-11-2010, 01:25 PM
The problem isn't religion but the fanatics (a minority) who follow it.
yes...the crazy and very vocal minority
The problem isn't religion but the fanatics (a minority) who follow it.
Yeah, I guess that's very true. I have met and known a good number of religious people who were actually sane and well mannered about their beliefs.
Oh, I know it's not all religion based, but I live in the Bible Belt, and I know just how anti-gay they are down here.
As I've stated many times before around here when the subject comes up, I don't even like homosexuality myself, but I acknowledge that people have the right to live in a way that makes them happy, and just because I don't care for something, that gives me no right to impose my views and beliefs on them to tell them how to live.
Someone being gay has absolutely zero impact on my life, and I think it's incredible how seriously people take the issue of homosexuality, and how offended they are by it.
This is pretty much the exact view I have on it. I'm not a homophobe and I sure as hell don't hate gays but I never will agree or believe in it entirely. I just hate saying that because most lazy people just label and throw you in with the actual homophobes out there.
how did i know she would be fat
Hahaha. It's funny that a good number of guys I know and have met are always talking about how hot lesbians are but they ignore the fact that they're basing that view off of porn, were just about all the girls are smoking hot.
With real lesbians who are actually gay and not doing it for money like porn stars, they're not always attractive...just like any number of people out in society. I don't care if two girls are making out or getting it on, if I don't find either one attractive it's still not a turn on.
BlackLantern
03-11-2010, 01:48 PM
Can't we just fence off Mississippi and put out a news bulletin "If you want to be racist, intolerant, d-bag and you don't like anyone who isn't white, Christian, and heterosexual, move to Mississippi"
Trainwreck2100
03-11-2010, 01:55 PM
Hahaha. It's funny that a good number of guys I know and have met are always talking about how hot lesbians are but they ignore the fact that they're basing that view off of porn, were just about all the girls are smoking hot.
With real lesbians who are actually gay and not doing it for money like porn stars, they're not always attractive...just like any number of people out in society. I don't care if two girls are making out or getting it on, if I don't find either one attractive it's still not a turn on.
That's why i always preface my lesbian opinions with the word "hot" in front of lesbians
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 02:02 PM
You and I are on the same side of the fight Mysterious. I am a huge supporter of gay rights and equality...but I do recognize that everyone has a right to their opinion. No matter how different from my own.
And I'm not saying that they don't.
I'm not advocating thought police, forcing everyone to think exactly the same way.
But I will make no bones about it: If someone is bigoted against people who are LGBT, in any way, shape or form the only thing they'll get from me is scorn and hatred and a few choice words about them, their parentage (With particular regard to their momma) and their I.Q...or lack thereof
So yeah, as far as I'm concerned every single person who voted to say that gay marriage was a "Threat" is, as far as I'm concerned, a worthless idiot without two brain cells to rub together
That's why i always preface my lesbian opinions with the word "hot" in front of lesbians
I see what you mean.
I'm just used to a lot of guys, when saying "hot lesbians" meaning that lesbianism itself is hot, not necessarily individuals.
And I'm not saying that they don't.
I'm not advocating thought police, forcing everyone to think exactly the same way.
But I will make no bones about it: If someone is bigoted against people who are LGBT, in any way, shape or form the only thing they'll get from me is scorn and hatred and a few choice words about them, their parentage (With particular regard to their momma) and their I.Q...or lack thereof
So yeah, as far as I'm concerned every single person who voted to say that gay marriage was a "Threat" is, as far as I'm concerned, a worthless idiot without two brain cells to rub together
Don't get me wrong, those people make me sick. The opposition boils down to two things - it's icky or it's 'against my religion'. Neither of which, are basis for legislation in this country.
E-Man
03-11-2010, 02:10 PM
Wow, those comments on the yahoo page really astonish me. They're blaming the girls for ruining it for everyone.
I saw what you mean. It's pretty hilarious how dumb people are acting about this. It's like they want her to stop being gay for one day, because it's just oh so offensive to them.:whatever:
mrvlknight21
03-11-2010, 02:11 PM
I think we need photogenic proof that these girls are lesbian. They may be faking it for the attention. :o
Thats actually what I heard a radio talk show host say this morning, partly because she made it known that she planned to wear a tux.
He said he doesnt feel that she is truly gay. He called her a "LUG" which means Lesbian Until Graduation.
wiegeabo
03-11-2010, 02:19 PM
Can't we just fence off Mississippi and put out a news bulletin "If you want to be racist, intolerant, d-bag and you don't like anyone who isn't white, Christian, and heterosexual, move to Mississippi"
Hey, don't leave out Alabama. :p
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Don't get me wrong, those people make me sick. The opposition boils down to two things - it's icky or it's 'against my religion'. Neither of which, are basis for legislation in this country.
Exactly. And the religious arguement is just flat out laughable.
I mean I honestly don't care what people believe in...I've said it before and I'll say it again: people are free to worship whoever or whatever they want and I think that's great. if it makes them feel good to believe in a higher power, well then good for them
But you can't justify persecution, hatred and denying people their basic human rights by saying "There's some mystical being who says 'Gayz are teh suck'".
The fact that the opposition even exists is depressing. The fact anyone takes them seriously makes me wonder if the human race is taking crazy pills. And the fact that the GOVERNMENT actually listens to psychos like the people who voted in favour of Prop 8 is, to me, proof of just how mindless and useless they are
chamber-music
03-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Don't get me wrong, those people make me sick. The opposition boils down to two things - it's icky or it's 'against my religion'. Neither of which, are basis for legislation in this country.
Ah the old religion defence :whatever:
That one always reeks of hypocrisy. Its funny how people who claim to be religious pick and choose which parts to follow and when or when its not relevent to their beliefs.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 02:28 PM
I saw what you mean. It's pretty hilarious how dumb people are acting about this. It's like they want her to stop being gay for one day, because it's just oh so offensive to them.:whatever:
People are stupid insensitive **** at the best of times. High school takes humanities naturally lousy nature and turns it up to eleven
So sickening but not shocking, sadly:csad::cmad:
Thats actually what I heard a radio talk show host say this morning, partly because she made it known that she planned to wear a tux.
He said he doesnt feel that she is truly gay. He called her a "LUG" which means Lesbian Until Graduation.
Ah yes. When you can't get a REAL job, you become a radio talk show host. Nice to see that's still the case and the job still attracts the same kind of ***-clown
Schlosser85
03-11-2010, 02:29 PM
In my high school, a guy got harassed for even considering bringing his black girlfriend to prom.
As far as the situation in Mississippi...it's incredibly shameful, but not surprising.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 02:37 PM
In my high school, a guy got harassed for even considering bringing his black girlfriend to prom.
I'd ask "Are you joking?" but I know full well that yes, the world really is that pathetic and narrow minded.
I hate people. Just saying
El_Citrus
03-11-2010, 02:41 PM
It's Mississippi. 'Nuff said. Get out of the state as soon as possible if you're not straight and white, basically.
mrvlknight21
03-11-2010, 02:48 PM
Ah yes. When you can't get a REAL job, you become a radio talk show host. Nice to see that's still the case and the job still attracts the same kind of ***-clown
Well it was Neal Boortz, who was a lawyer at one time.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 02:57 PM
It's Mississippi. 'Nuff said. Get out of the state as soon as possible if you're not straight and white, basically.
Mississippi is where intelligence goes to die a slow, lingering death.
What's the average I.Q thereabouts, about negative 12 or so?
Well it was Neal Boortz, who was a lawyer at one time.
"At one time" huh? How'd he lose it? Incompetent, drunk or could he just not hack it anymore?
Let's not paint all of Mississippi with a broad stroke. I'm sure there are intelligent, open-minded people there as well.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 03:05 PM
Let's not paint all of Mississippi with a broad stroke. I'm sure there are intelligent, open-minded people there as well.
And I hope to any god that may be listening that they get the hell out of Mississippi as fast as they humanly can, before the dead weight that makes up most of the populace drags them down.
mrvlknight21
03-11-2010, 03:10 PM
"At one time" huh? How'd he lose it? Incompetent, drunk or could he just not hack it anymore?
I dont know. Im not doing an A&E biography on him or anything. It sounds like you havent heard of him. It sounds like you are being a bit presumptuous about him though.
I went to his website and checked out the bio section and there isnt much there about his career as an attorney, so Im not even sure if he was a defense attorney or a prosecutor. No information on why he is not practicing law other than the tidbit that he devoted all of his time to talk radio. He is actually one of the writers of the Fair Tax book (along with John Linder) and is a Libertarian.
Not sure why I typed all that out other than to inform you about him a bit.
El_Citrus
03-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Let's not paint all of Mississippi with a broad stroke. I'm sure there are intelligent, open-minded people there as well.
True, though it's hard to find them with news like this and segregated proms still occuring.
Mystirious
03-11-2010, 03:23 PM
I dont know. Im not doing an A&E biography on him or anything. It sounds like you havent heard of him. It sounds like you are being a bit presumptuous about him though.
I went to his website and checked out the bio section and there isnt much there about his career as an attorney, so Im not even sure if he was a defense attorney or a prosecutor. No information on why he is not practicing law other than the tidbit that he devoted all of his time to talk radio. He is actually one of the writers of the Fair Tax book (along with John Linder) and is a Libertarian.
Not sure why I typed all that out other than to inform you about him a bit.
I alreayd know enough about him. I don't have much respect for someone who comes out with stupid bull-**** like "Lesbian Until Graduation".
True, though it's hard to find them with news like this and segregated proms still occuring.
Segregated proms? Is that even LEGAL?
If so, what the HELL? What, do they still lynch people for drinking out of the "Whites only" drinking fountains too?:whatever:
danoyse
03-11-2010, 06:25 PM
Wow, those comments on the yahoo page really astonish me. They're blaming the girls for ruining it for everyone.
Which is why they cancelled the prom. It shifts the blame so everyone can be mad at the girls instead of their own homophobic ignorant policies. :whatever:
I'm willing to bet someone is going to step in and host an event that everyone will be welcome too. Screw that school.
We had a gay couple at my senior prom. They did have to get permission from the school, but the school was fine with it and none of the students had a problem with it either. In fact, everyone commented that they were a really sweet couple.
Kelly
03-11-2010, 07:29 PM
Oh hell, gay couples are going to proms all across America, my school has several every year.
That whole thing is silly...
vindrow
03-11-2010, 09:12 PM
Ahhhh..Mississippi, where it is ok for brother and sister to marry, but by god you better not even think about bringing someone of the same sex to the prom.
HALLELUJAH!!!
Schlosser85
03-11-2010, 09:49 PM
My $.02 about this whole Mississippi situation is that I find it really amusing, some of the people who think they're better than me.
El_Citrus
03-11-2010, 09:58 PM
Segregated proms? Is that even LEGAL?
If so, what the HELL? What, do they still lynch people for drinking out of the "Whites only" drinking fountains too?:whatever:
It was noted here on the Hype about a year or two ago about how Morgan Freeman went and spoke to a high school because they were still having segregated proms. It had just developed into a way of life down there, I think.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.