Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Schlosser85]

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.


I'm not continuing to respond to a temporarily banned poster just to continue an argument, I'm trying to make a point...

Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Many homosexuals doesn't realize they're gay until they hit puberty in their teens. Very few 2 or 3 year old children have any concept of "sexual orientation", be it gay or straight or whatever. And most gays are initially in denial growing up because they have the weight of society bearing down on them telling them they have to be straight and being anything else is simply not possible. I flirted with girls when I was in kindergarten and first grade. I never had any serious desire to date them, though. I went through the whole denial/acceptance stages: first I claimed I was straight, than I claimed I was bi (because that means you're at least half-straight, and thus more "normal" than being gay), than I finally acknowledged that I was just plain gay. And I have friends who can remember finding classmates of the same sex cute in first grade.

[Schlosser85]

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.


I'm not continuing to respond to a temporarily banned poster just to continue an argument, I'm trying to make a point...

Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Many homosexuals doesn't realize they're gay until they hit puberty in their teens. Very few 2 or 3 year old children have any concept of "sexual orientation", be it gay or straight or whatever. And most gays are initially in denial growing up because they have the weight of society bearing down on them telling them they have to be straight and being anything else is simply not possible. I flirted with girls when I was in kindergarten and first grade. I never had any serious desire to date them, though. I went through the whole denial/acceptance stages: first I claimed I was straight, than I claimed I was bi (because that means you're at least half-straight, and thus more "normal" than being gay), than I finally acknowledged that I was just plain gay. And I have friends who can remember finding classmates of the same sex cute in first grade.

[Schlosser85]

How many 2 and 3 yr old boys do you see flirting with 2 and 3 yr old girls? I've seen hundreds. How many 2 yr old boys have you seen flirt with other 2 yr old boys? I've seen none. Not a scientific poll by any means I know. I just find it curious that so many say they are born gay, and yet I have never seen a 2 or 3 yr old boy exhibit any gay flirting. It's always with little girls.


I'm not continuing to respond to a temporarily banned poster just to continue an argument, I'm trying to make a point...

Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Many homosexuals doesn't realize they're gay until they hit puberty in their teens. Very few 2 or 3 year old children have any concept of "sexual orientation", be it gay or straight or whatever. And most gays are initially in denial growing up because they have the weight of society bearing down on them telling them they have to be straight and being anything else is simply not possible. I flirted with girls when I was in kindergarten and first grade. I never had any serious desire to date them, though. I went through the whole denial/acceptance stages: first I claimed I was straight, than I claimed I was bi (because that means you're at least half-straight, and thus more "normal" than being gay), than I finally acknowledged that I was just plain gay. And I have friends who can remember finding classmates of the same sex cute in first grade.

[Matt]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

[Matt]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

[Matt]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

[The Senator]

I need to start waking up earlier... it looks like I miss all the fun...

[The Senator]

I need to start waking up earlier... it looks like I miss all the fun...

[The Senator]

I need to start waking up earlier... it looks like I miss all the fun...

[The Senator]

I was born straight because that is how we are made.

If that's the case, then I would have been attracted to girls at one point in my life. I dated a few, but I was never sexually attracted to them. In fact, any sort of romance between myself and girls was awkward and fairly embarrassing for all involved. I'm much better with men-- as if (:eek:) I am naturally attracted to them...

[The Senator]

I was born straight because that is how we are made.

If that's the case, then I would have been attracted to girls at one point in my life. I dated a few, but I was never sexually attracted to them. In fact, any sort of romance between myself and girls was awkward and fairly embarrassing for all involved. I'm much better with men-- as if (:eek:) I am naturally attracted to them...

[The Senator]

I was born straight because that is how we are made.

If that's the case, then I would have been attracted to girls at one point in my life. I dated a few, but I was never sexually attracted to them. In fact, any sort of romance between myself and girls was awkward and fairly embarrassing for all involved. I'm much better with men-- as if (:eek:) I am naturally attracted to them...

[BlackLantern]

Flirting for Toddlers....

[BlackLantern]

Flirting for Toddlers....

[BlackLantern]

Flirting for Toddlers....

[The Senator]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

That's pure nonsense.

When you call homosexuality a "perversion," I don't know how that isn't a tad bit hateful.

When you advocate taking away rights from a minority, I don't how that isn't bigoted.

Meanwhile, other posters here have been able to approach this topic with at least a shred of respect-- even those who disagree that homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt or what have you. Hell, I have this debate with people in my own family, who disagree with me on this topic, and they can at least get their point across without resorting to wedge-talking points such as "homosexuality is a choice" or "homosexuality is a perversion."

You and many others seem unable to actually give your opinion without coming off as ass holes. It's as simple as that.

[The Senator]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

That's pure nonsense.

When you call homosexuality a "perversion," I don't know how that isn't a tad bit hateful.

When you advocate taking away rights from a minority, I don't how that isn't bigoted.

Meanwhile, other posters here have been able to approach this topic with at least a shred of respect-- even those who disagree that homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt or what have you. Hell, I have this debate with people in my own family, who disagree with me on this topic, and they can at least get their point across without resorting to wedge-talking points such as "homosexuality is a choice" or "homosexuality is a perversion."

You and many others seem unable to actually give your opinion without coming off as ass holes. It's as simple as that.

[The Senator]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

That's pure nonsense.

When you call homosexuality a "perversion," I don't know how that isn't a tad bit hateful.

When you advocate taking away rights from a minority, I don't how that isn't bigoted.

Meanwhile, other posters here have been able to approach this topic with at least a shred of respect-- even those who disagree that homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt or what have you. Hell, I have this debate with people in my own family, who disagree with me on this topic, and they can at least get their point across without resorting to wedge-talking points such as "homosexuality is a choice" or "homosexuality is a perversion."

You and many others seem unable to actually give your opinion without coming off as ass holes. It's as simple as that.

[jaguarr]

Flirting for Toddlers....

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

[jaguarr]

Flirting for Toddlers....

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

[jaguarr]

Flirting for Toddlers....

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

[jaguarr]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

[jaguarr]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

[jaguarr]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

[BlackLantern]

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

It's all about franchises and follow ups

[BlackLantern]

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

It's all about franchises and follow ups

[BlackLantern]

This must be a tie-in for the "How To Date Women" book written by a 9-year old there's a thread for in Community.

jag

It's all about franchises and follow ups

[jaguarr]

It's all about franchises and follow ups

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

[jaguarr]

It's all about franchises and follow ups

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

[jaguarr]

It's all about franchises and follow ups

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

[BlackLantern]

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

[BlackLantern]

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

[BlackLantern]

That's true. I feel the Leapfrog learning system people should jump on this.

jag

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

[jaguarr]

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

Are they offering dating advice to kids, yet? When they have speed-dating packs for their learning systems, then we'll have progress. :up:

jag

[jaguarr]

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

Are they offering dating advice to kids, yet? When they have speed-dating packs for their learning systems, then we'll have progress. :up:

jag

[jaguarr]

umm...not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they are....have you seen the commercials?...they are totally branching out into the older kids

Are they offering dating advice to kids, yet? When they have speed-dating packs for their learning systems, then we'll have progress. :up:

jag

[BlackLantern]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

[BlackLantern]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

[BlackLantern]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

[jaguarr]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

"Hit her in the back of the head, I said!"

"I will not punch a chick! I will not won't not, do you take me for a hick!?"

jag

[jaguarr]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

"Hit her in the back of the head, I said!"

"I will not punch a chick! I will not won't not, do you take me for a hick!?"

jag

[jaguarr]

No...it hasn't progressed that far....though we might only be a decade from having 'Dr. Seuss' Donkey Punch' on the shelves

"Hit her in the back of the head, I said!"

"I will not punch a chick! I will not won't not, do you take me for a hick!?"

jag

[BlackLantern]

"Could you, would you, in a trailer?"

[BlackLantern]

"Could you, would you, in a trailer?"

[BlackLantern]

"Could you, would you, in a trailer?"

[jaguarr]

"Could you do it to a sailor?"

jag

[jaguarr]

"Could you do it to a sailor?"

jag

[jaguarr]

"Could you do it to a sailor?"

jag

[thedeadite]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

[thedeadite]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

[thedeadite]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

[BlackLantern]

He has noble intentions....while the word 'homosexual' isn't negative in itself, the term has garnered negative perceptions...I don't see anything wrong with trying to come up with something new

[BlackLantern]

He has noble intentions....while the word 'homosexual' isn't negative in itself, the term has garnered negative perceptions...I don't see anything wrong with trying to come up with something new

[BlackLantern]

He has noble intentions....while the word 'homosexual' isn't negative in itself, the term has garnered negative perceptions...I don't see anything wrong with trying to come up with something new

[jaguarr]

Fixating on semantics won't change anyone's perceptions, to be honest.

jag

[jaguarr]

Fixating on semantics won't change anyone's perceptions, to be honest.

jag

[jaguarr]

Fixating on semantics won't change anyone's perceptions, to be honest.

jag

[BlackLantern]

Maybe it could help, or like deadite said, make the issue worse

[BlackLantern]

Maybe it could help, or like deadite said, make the issue worse

[BlackLantern]

Maybe it could help, or like deadite said, make the issue worse

[The Senator]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

It's bull ****. Gender-preferenced doesn't make a damn bit of sense, considering gender isn't what's at the core of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to. Gender-preferenced essentially implies that you only are attracted to people based on their gender... well, what about pansexuals, who don't "see" gender?

Homosexuality, meanwhile, describes orientation perfectly: Homosexuals are attracted to one sex-- the same sex.

Christ this is such a difficult topic to explain...

[The Senator]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

It's bull ****. Gender-preferenced doesn't make a damn bit of sense, considering gender isn't what's at the core of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to. Gender-preferenced essentially implies that you only are attracted to people based on their gender... well, what about pansexuals, who don't "see" gender?

Homosexuality, meanwhile, describes orientation perfectly: Homosexuals are attracted to one sex-- the same sex.

Christ this is such a difficult topic to explain...

[The Senator]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

It's bull ****. Gender-preferenced doesn't make a damn bit of sense, considering gender isn't what's at the core of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to. Gender-preferenced essentially implies that you only are attracted to people based on their gender... well, what about pansexuals, who don't "see" gender?

Homosexuality, meanwhile, describes orientation perfectly: Homosexuals are attracted to one sex-- the same sex.

Christ this is such a difficult topic to explain...

[thedeadite]

See Jman, that's how I was looking at it. The whole gender thing makes it very confusing.
The word "preferenced" also can make it easy for someone who isn't educated in psychological terminology to take that as there is a choice in the matter and that a person just "prefers" to be gay.

I'm pretty certain it's the case of a psychology grad-student trying to use his education to "make a change" yet not fully understanding the material he has been taught and how to properly use it (and the terminology that comes with it).

[thedeadite]

See Jman, that's how I was looking at it. The whole gender thing makes it very confusing.
The word "preferenced" also can make it easy for someone who isn't educated in psychological terminology to take that as there is a choice in the matter and that a person just "prefers" to be gay.

I'm pretty certain it's the case of a psychology grad-student trying to use his education to "make a change" yet not fully understanding the material he has been taught and how to properly use it (and the terminology that comes with it).

[thedeadite]

See Jman, that's how I was looking at it. The whole gender thing makes it very confusing.
The word "preferenced" also can make it easy for someone who isn't educated in psychological terminology to take that as there is a choice in the matter and that a person just "prefers" to be gay.

I'm pretty certain it's the case of a psychology grad-student trying to use his education to "make a change" yet not fully understanding the material he has been taught and how to properly use it (and the terminology that comes with it).

[BlackLantern]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

[BlackLantern]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

[BlackLantern]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

[Marx]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

[Marx]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

[Marx]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

[C.F. Kane]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.

[C.F. Kane]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.

[C.F. Kane]

On a different note, my psych professor said something the other day that was a little bit off.
"I don't like using the word 'homosexual' because it has too many negative connotations attached to it. I prefer to say 'gender-preferenced'".
Now, without being 100% sure, I don't think he was trying to come off as he did with this choice of wording. Personally I find his new "terminology" quite a bit more offensive than homosexual could ever be. Though most young psych profs I've had tend to say things that are a little bit sketchy at one point during the semester (in my opinion anyway).

What do you guys think of this new "terminology"?


ps. I wasn't totally offended by this to the point of wanting this guy to stop teaching, just found his attempt to curb "negative connotations" actually would do more to add to them.

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.

[wiegeabo]

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.


Sadly, it does. Car dealerships in California are required to provide contracts in both English and Spanish to spanish speakers so a customer can't claim they didn't understand something because it wasn't their native language. But they're afraid to ask someone if they're Mexican because it might offend them. So they ask if they're Spanish.

Which is dumb because, like my Mexican friend at work said, Mexicans aren't Spanish. They're Mexican. Why should they be insulted by being called by their proper nationality?

[wiegeabo]

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.


Sadly, it does. Car dealerships in California are required to provide contracts in both English and Spanish to spanish speakers so a customer can't claim they didn't understand something because it wasn't their native language. But they're afraid to ask someone if they're Mexican because it might offend them. So they ask if they're Spanish.

Which is dumb because, like my Mexican friend at work said, Mexicans aren't Spanish. They're Mexican. Why should they be insulted by being called by their proper nationality?

[wiegeabo]

There's a scene from The Office that goes like this:



Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you prefer? Something less offensive?
Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.
Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.


Sadly, it does. Car dealerships in California are required to provide contracts in both English and Spanish to spanish speakers so a customer can't claim they didn't understand something because it wasn't their native language. But they're afraid to ask someone if they're Mexican because it might offend them. So they ask if they're Spanish.

Which is dumb because, like my Mexican friend at work said, Mexicans aren't Spanish. They're Mexican. Why should they be insulted by being called by their proper nationality?

[Marx]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

[Marx]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

[Marx]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

[The Senator]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

Business as usual for the Mormons. They usually make a decision which backfires right in their face once every six years or so; they're actually a little bit late with this one, since their last public relations nightmare occurred in 2001 after several Jews sued the church for posthumously converting Holocaust victims to the Mormon faith...

[The Senator]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

Business as usual for the Mormons. They usually make a decision which backfires right in their face once every six years or so; they're actually a little bit late with this one, since their last public relations nightmare occurred in 2001 after several Jews sued the church for posthumously converting Holocaust victims to the Mormon faith...

[The Senator]

MORMON CHURCH PUBLIC RELATIONS BACKLASH
RoRPKhQa6g0

Business as usual for the Mormons. They usually make a decision which backfires right in their face once every six years or so; they're actually a little bit late with this one, since their last public relations nightmare occurred in 2001 after several Jews sued the church for posthumously converting Holocaust victims to the Mormon faith...

[Scarlet spidey]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

[Scarlet spidey]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

[Scarlet spidey]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

[The Senator]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...

[The Senator]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...

[The Senator]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...

[Marx]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.

[Marx]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.

[Marx]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...That's why I included nature in there. :p

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.
The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...That's why I included nature in there. :p

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.
The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well, considering the Judeo-Christian God hates us all and damned us all from birth, I don't really think it's God's job to dictate who can get married either...That's why I included nature in there. :p

It's not the church's job to scare people with lies and distortions to further their causes of hate and division either.
The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

[Marx]

The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.

[Marx]

The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.

[Marx]

The Church doesn't make laws though. Government does. If Government wasn't involved with making laws about marriage it would be up to the specific churches whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. And I know some churches favor gay marriage.

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.

[Scarlet spidey]

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.
Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

[Scarlet spidey]

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.
Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

[Scarlet spidey]

But you must admit that there are instances where minority rights should be protected, and it takes the government to do that. With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.
Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

[Schlosser85]

With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.


Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

[Schlosser85]

With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.


Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

[Schlosser85]

With regard to gay marriages and churches, I believe that the decision on whether or not to recognize it should be left of to the churches themselves.


Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

[Scarlet spidey]

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.
The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

[Scarlet spidey]

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.
The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

[Scarlet spidey]

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.
The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

[Marx]

Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

Hate crimes. Discrimination. Adoption. Etc.

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

I agree, Schloss.

[Marx]

Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

Hate crimes. Discrimination. Adoption. Etc.

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

I agree, Schloss.

[Marx]

Minority rights in what respect?
The right to get married? As I said before, churches already are for gay marriage. Some are not, some will never be.

Hate crimes. Discrimination. Adoption. Etc.

Well if gay marriage was legalized, churches would have the choice whether or not to perform it. But it has to be the government making the initial decision, because marriages are not only performed in churches.

I agree, Schloss.

[Marx]

The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

For starters, we don't live in ancient times on an island in the middle of nowhere. We live in a world with laws. There are rights UNDER LAW that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not.

[Marx]

The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

For starters, we don't live in ancient times on an island in the middle of nowhere. We live in a world with laws. There are rights UNDER LAW that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not.

[Marx]

The Government shouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.
They should have to grand you the right to do something like that. If you were living on an island that had no government what would stop you from getting married (gay or straight)?

For starters, we don't live in ancient times on an island in the middle of nowhere. We live in a world with laws. There are rights UNDER LAW that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not.

[Joker]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

Wait...so me saying "enormous poof" all these years has been offensive!?!?!? My entire life is a lie!!!!

[Joker]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

Wait...so me saying "enormous poof" all these years has been offensive!?!?!? My entire life is a lie!!!!

[Joker]

so is 'Sissy Mary' not the preferred term??

Wait...so me saying "enormous poof" all these years has been offensive!?!?!? My entire life is a lie!!!!

[danoyse]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

[danoyse]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

[danoyse]

This has probably been said before, but I'm not about to read 63 pages to find out.
This whole Gay Rights thing is stupid, as is Women's Rights.
The only rights that exist are Human Rights, which are granted to you by God/Nature, not Government.
It's not the Government's job to dictate who can get married, which drinking fountain you can drink out of, or if you should be allowed to adopt or not.

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

[spideyboy_1111]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

[spideyboy_1111]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

[spideyboy_1111]

You could have simply read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread and come to this realization Lou.

This site, like many, is predominantly a bunch of liberals. Thus, any person who has even the slightest conservative value, even if that person is not a Conservative, must immediately be labeled as a Bigot, racist, homophobe, etc etc.

You are only allowed to have your own opinion on things like gay "rights" if your opinion is in line with the liberal ideology. Otherwise, you are just full of hate.

It take s alot of tolerance and intelligence to be a liberal. "Agree with us or you are just a hate-monger". Wow. How very tolerant and enlightened of them.

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

[spideyboy_1111]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

We played that "game" for quite a while.. and if F'd up alot of lives. Denying yourself is the worst thing a person can EVER do, ask any psychologist. Or do you consider that "the devils work" too :o

[spideyboy_1111]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

We played that "game" for quite a while.. and if F'd up alot of lives. Denying yourself is the worst thing a person can EVER do, ask any psychologist. Or do you consider that "the devils work" too :o

[spideyboy_1111]

You are correct in that there will always be homsexuality. No argument there. The difference is you feel we should embrace and encourage perversion while I feel it should be discouraged in every way possible.

We played that "game" for quite a while.. and if F'd up alot of lives. Denying yourself is the worst thing a person can EVER do, ask any psychologist. Or do you consider that "the devils work" too :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

i have a friend who claims he's been flirting with boys since he was in elementary school... he didn't know why till much later though. And after watching home movies of him as a kid.. haha i believe it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

i have a friend who claims he's been flirting with boys since he was in elementary school... he didn't know why till much later though. And after watching home movies of him as a kid.. haha i believe it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Furthermore I would like to know what he defines as "flirting?" Children interact with any other child they see, male or female. They do not...flirt. Flirting is a social device, not a biological or instinctual action.

i have a friend who claims he's been flirting with boys since he was in elementary school... he didn't know why till much later though. And after watching home movies of him as a kid.. haha i believe it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

isn't that kinda the definition of a bigot? which he is claiming he is not? you know the whole fact of being narrow minded and making everything fit into your idea of black and white? interesting... maybe he should look in a mirror

[spideyboy_1111]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

isn't that kinda the definition of a bigot? which he is claiming he is not? you know the whole fact of being narrow minded and making everything fit into your idea of black and white? interesting... maybe he should look in a mirror

[spideyboy_1111]

Referring to other people as "perversions" simply because they don't fit into your narrow world view is, in of itself, a perversion.

jag

isn't that kinda the definition of a bigot? which he is claiming he is not? you know the whole fact of being narrow minded and making everything fit into your idea of black and white? interesting... maybe he should look in a mirror

[spideyboy_1111]

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

yeah i agree as well, "gender-preference" to me sounds like a choice.... it's like..

Woman: Do you like boy's or girls? what is your gender-preference?
Man: well... i do prefer to go with boys over girls

The man totally sounds like he likes guys MORE, meaning he may still like girls.. which makes it sound like a choice to me.

[spideyboy_1111]

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

yeah i agree as well, "gender-preference" to me sounds like a choice.... it's like..

Woman: Do you like boy's or girls? what is your gender-preference?
Man: well... i do prefer to go with boys over girls

The man totally sounds like he likes guys MORE, meaning he may still like girls.. which makes it sound like a choice to me.

[spideyboy_1111]

Im with Jman and Jag on this. 'Gender-preference' is a bit confusing and a tad bit ridiculous. And tryng to argue semantics isn't going to change people's perception.

yeah i agree as well, "gender-preference" to me sounds like a choice.... it's like..

Woman: Do you like boy's or girls? what is your gender-preference?
Man: well... i do prefer to go with boys over girls

The man totally sounds like he likes guys MORE, meaning he may still like girls.. which makes it sound like a choice to me.

[The Senator]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

[The Senator]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

[The Senator]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

[Gilpesh]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

According to those very bigots that spidey is happy to see dying off.

[Gilpesh]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

According to those very bigots that spidey is happy to see dying off.

[Gilpesh]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

According to those very bigots that spidey is happy to see dying off.

[CaptainClown]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/jesus_nephites.jpg
um...duh.

[CaptainClown]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/jesus_nephites.jpg
um...duh.

[CaptainClown]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/jesus_nephites.jpg
um...duh.

[Marx]

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

Well said Dan. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

Well said Dan. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

And when certain Humans are denied rights - such as the gay community or women, they fight for those rights. When the government decides who can vote and who can't, or who can get married and who can't - or when religious groups who should mind their own bloody business try to influence governments to make those kinds of decisions, then people should fight to change absurd laws that keep groups from being equal than everyone else.

Well said Dan. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

i never said he was.... I said Jesus, MLK, and the founders of our country. Not saying Jesus and MLK are founding fathers of our country.

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

i never said he was.... I said Jesus, MLK, and the founders of our country. Not saying Jesus and MLK are founding fathers of our country.

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't know Jesus founded this country...

i never said he was.... I said Jesus, MLK, and the founders of our country. Not saying Jesus and MLK are founding fathers of our country.

[Scarlet spidey]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud
Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

[Scarlet spidey]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud
Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

[Scarlet spidey]

you do know Jesus, Martin Luther King, and the founders of our god damn country were all by definition... LIBERALS. right? God you conservatives just simply don't like change, and throw around the world liberal as if it's a curse word. I'm so happy this world is changing and you bigots are becoming the minority more and more on a daily basis. :applaud
Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

[CaptainClown]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.
We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."

[CaptainClown]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.
We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."

[CaptainClown]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.
We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."

[Scarlet spidey]

We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."
Which is not what the founding fathers were.

[Scarlet spidey]

We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."
Which is not what the founding fathers were.

[Scarlet spidey]

We talking about those liberals who in the classroom say "aw, all of you are special."
Which is not what the founding fathers were.

[CaptainClown]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.
ok good cause I hate that coddling that society is getting.

[CaptainClown]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.
ok good cause I hate that coddling that society is getting.

[CaptainClown]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.
ok good cause I hate that coddling that society is getting.

[spideyboy_1111]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

i suggest you look at the definitions of liberals than.. because you obviously have no idea.

Merriam-Webster's definition

1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly Listen to the pronunciation of liberally \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun

We go against the grain (if need be) in favor of liberty, justice and rights for all. It's the very thing our nation was founded upon, we question authority when authority needs to be questioned. It's the American way and always has been.

sorry if you like being a sheep

[spideyboy_1111]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

i suggest you look at the definitions of liberals than.. because you obviously have no idea.

Merriam-Webster's definition

1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly Listen to the pronunciation of liberally \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun

We go against the grain (if need be) in favor of liberty, justice and rights for all. It's the very thing our nation was founded upon, we question authority when authority needs to be questioned. It's the American way and always has been.

sorry if you like being a sheep

[spideyboy_1111]

Classical Liberals are not the same thing as what we call Liberals today.

i suggest you look at the definitions of liberals than.. because you obviously have no idea.

Merriam-Webster's definition

1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly Listen to the pronunciation of liberally \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun

We go against the grain (if need be) in favor of liberty, justice and rights for all. It's the very thing our nation was founded upon, we question authority when authority needs to be questioned. It's the American way and always has been.

sorry if you like being a sheep

[spideyboy_1111]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Which is not what the founding fathers were.

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o

[CaptainClown]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

[CaptainClown]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

[CaptainClown]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

[spideyboy_1111]

Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.

[spideyboy_1111]

Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.

[spideyboy_1111]

Wait are you saying that the founding fathers original intended for an "equal" america?

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.

[CaptainClown]

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.
To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

[CaptainClown]

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.
To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

[CaptainClown]

No, I'm speaking about there liberal minds. Liberalism isn't just about civil equality, but generally going against there authority in order to do what's right. That's exactly what out founding fathers did against the British.
To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

[Scarlet spidey]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

[Scarlet spidey]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

[Scarlet spidey]

You really do not know much about US history do you? doesn't surprise me... though, seems like more and more conservative people i meet know less and less about the topics in which they speak. :o
I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

[Joker]

To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.

[Joker]

To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.

[Joker]

To do whats right? It wasn't like the British were mistreating the colonies in an inhumane nature. The reason for rebellion was because of isolationism and then swiftly retracting that thus pissing off the colonies.

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.

[CaptainClown]

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.
Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

[CaptainClown]

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.
Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

[CaptainClown]

A lot of it was about unfair taxation too. And the founding fathers were just a rowdy lot in general really.
Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

semantics :o

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

semantics :o

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not really a conservative. At least not in the Republican sense of conservatives.
By the way, the founding father's were libertarian. Not liberal.

semantics :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

and if they existed today, doing the same thing, they'd be called liberals to those who were perfectly fine with a british rule.

Liberals typically want change in favor of freedom where as conservatives think they are already as free as they need to be, and hate the idea of change. Sure they want to conserve tradition, but they tend to not see how that affects others rights and freedoms.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

and if they existed today, doing the same thing, they'd be called liberals to those who were perfectly fine with a british rule.

Liberals typically want change in favor of freedom where as conservatives think they are already as free as they need to be, and hate the idea of change. Sure they want to conserve tradition, but they tend to not see how that affects others rights and freedoms.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well it was unfair taxation especially when you left the Americas alone for a long time not taxing them at all then all of a sudden loading a bunch of rules on them.

Also like you said the founding fathers were a rowdy bunch.

and if they existed today, doing the same thing, they'd be called liberals to those who were perfectly fine with a british rule.

Liberals typically want change in favor of freedom where as conservatives think they are already as free as they need to be, and hate the idea of change. Sure they want to conserve tradition, but they tend to not see how that affects others rights and freedoms.

[wiegeabo]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.

[wiegeabo]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.

[wiegeabo]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.

[BlackLantern]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government

[BlackLantern]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government

[BlackLantern]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government

[Kelly]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government


I'm independent and I'm big on those things as well. What pisses me off about the Republicans is I could usually rely on them in the house to watch over my tax money.....not anymore...........:csad:

[Kelly]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government


I'm independent and I'm big on those things as well. What pisses me off about the Republicans is I could usually rely on them in the house to watch over my tax money.....not anymore...........:csad:

[Kelly]

My dad is a very middle of the road Republican, but he's big on states rights and small government


I'm independent and I'm big on those things as well. What pisses me off about the Republicans is I could usually rely on them in the house to watch over my tax money.....not anymore...........:csad:

[wiegeabo]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

[wiegeabo]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

[wiegeabo]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm very much a Libertarian. I believe in minimal government in everything and the rights of lower levels of government like states, counties, cities, and individuals.

Usually means on social issues I side with Democrats and economic issues I'm with the Republicans.

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[BlackLantern]

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

[BlackLantern]

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

[BlackLantern]

id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

[Kelly]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.

[Kelly]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.

[Kelly]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.

[Marx]

NEWSWEEK POLL: SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE GROWS
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399


Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

[Marx]

NEWSWEEK POLL: SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE GROWS
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399


Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

[Marx]

NEWSWEEK POLL: SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE GROWS
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399


Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

[spideyboy_1111]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

problem is they only view it as "rich and poor" what about the middle class who is smart? but were getting poor because of the riches decisions.

[spideyboy_1111]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

problem is they only view it as "rich and poor" what about the middle class who is smart? but were getting poor because of the riches decisions.

[spideyboy_1111]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

problem is they only view it as "rich and poor" what about the middle class who is smart? but were getting poor because of the riches decisions.

[spideyboy_1111]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

[spideyboy_1111]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

[spideyboy_1111]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

[Marx]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

[Marx]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

[Marx]

wow.. the 14% who don't support hospital visitation rights are some seriously messed up people. And that truly disgusts me

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

[wiegeabo]

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.


:applaud

[wiegeabo]

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.


:applaud

[wiegeabo]

I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.


:applaud

[wiegeabo]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

"If you could find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steel a couple of million dollars each, you'd see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddamn quick. I'll guarantee you that."

-George Carlin


It applies to poverty as just as well.

[wiegeabo]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

"If you could find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steel a couple of million dollars each, you'd see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddamn quick. I'll guarantee you that."

-George Carlin


It applies to poverty as just as well.

[wiegeabo]

There seems to be no motivation to help the poor though....their mindeset is "why help the poor, they aren't going to be smart enough to save their money anyway"

"If you could find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steel a couple of million dollars each, you'd see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddamn quick. I'll guarantee you that."

-George Carlin


It applies to poverty as just as well.

[spideyboy_1111]

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

definately... but none the less those people disturb the hell out of me.

[spideyboy_1111]

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

definately... but none the less those people disturb the hell out of me.

[spideyboy_1111]

That is disturbing, but the more important thing is that public opinion is changing for the GOOD.

definately... but none the less those people disturb the hell out of me.

[XpunkRocker]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.


nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

[XpunkRocker]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.


nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

[XpunkRocker]

Classifying Republicans as conservatives and Democrats as liberals is a bit of a misnomer. In social issues, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. But if you look at economic issues, Republicans are the liberals, and Democrats are the conservative.

All conservative means is that one prefers government (or higher-level) involvement/regulation/enforcement.
All liberal means is that one prefers self (or lower-level) governing/regulation/enforcement.

Libertarians are liberal on both social and economic issues. Authoritarians are conservative on both.


nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

[spideyboy_1111]

nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

[spideyboy_1111]

nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

[spideyboy_1111]

nope. that isn't true. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike. democrats are liberal on social issues and economic issues. Liberals raise taxes and spend a lot (democrats). conervatives cut taxes and spend little (republicans, except G bush who is a Radcon). conservative people in general don't spend, they save. liberal people spend.

G bush wasn't a conservative. he spent to much money and put us in higher debt. that isn't conservative at all. but all these other republicans, like romney, palin, and all them. yeah, they are def economic conservatives.

What liberal really means is "to give." It was defined by George Washington as to "give." which is give power to the people. In modern day, liberals have defined themselves as the "progessives." They raise taxes, they want to higher regulation, they want bigger government. They are the ones that want the government to control things. That is why communism is extreme liberalism. where the government controls everything.

As for conservatives, it means what it does mean. They want to conserve and keep things the same. They want lower taxes, little government regulation, little gun control, traditional values, and so on. conservative doesn't mean they prefer the "higher level of government." that is silly. the republican party is the one that wants to give states the rights rather than the nation. and the dems are the ones that want the national level to have the rights. it has been that way since the birth of our country when they argued slavery. the liberals wanted the whole nation to be free, the conservatives that the states should choose on slavery.

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

[XpunkRocker]

....no. conservatives don't spend a lot. conservatives always make sure they have more money coming in than they do coming out. that is conservatism. They sticklers for budgets, they do almost ANYTHING to save money. Do you know what "conservative" means? It means some one whoe likes "to keep." Litterally. If you don't believe me, go check the dictionary.

The people who spend the most are people who buy more than they can afford. Which is usually liberals. Liberals raise taxes and spend money on a lot of dofferent programs, a lot are ones we don't need. Conervatives cut programs and cut taxes..... anyone who is economically conerservative wants to cut taxes, and cut spending. anyone who is economically liberal wants to raise taxes and raise spending. it is politics 101.

btw, donald trump isn't exactly a "republican." he might be member of the party, but he plays a small role in politics. But he obviously makes more than he spends. You have to look at the actuall politicians and their policies.

[XpunkRocker]

....no. conservatives don't spend a lot. conservatives always make sure they have more money coming in than they do coming out. that is conservatism. They sticklers for budgets, they do almost ANYTHING to save money. Do you know what "conservative" means? It means some one whoe likes "to keep." Litterally. If you don't believe me, go check the dictionary.

The people who spend the most are people who buy more than they can afford. Which is usually liberals. Liberals raise taxes and spend money on a lot of dofferent programs, a lot are ones we don't need. Conervatives cut programs and cut taxes..... anyone who is economically conerservative wants to cut taxes, and cut spending. anyone who is economically liberal wants to raise taxes and raise spending. it is politics 101.

btw, donald trump isn't exactly a "republican." he might be member of the party, but he plays a small role in politics. But he obviously makes more than he spends. You have to look at the actuall politicians and their policies.

[XpunkRocker]

....no. conservatives don't spend a lot. conservatives always make sure they have more money coming in than they do coming out. that is conservatism. They sticklers for budgets, they do almost ANYTHING to save money. Do you know what "conservative" means? It means some one whoe likes "to keep." Litterally. If you don't believe me, go check the dictionary.

The people who spend the most are people who buy more than they can afford. Which is usually liberals. Liberals raise taxes and spend money on a lot of dofferent programs, a lot are ones we don't need. Conervatives cut programs and cut taxes..... anyone who is economically conerservative wants to cut taxes, and cut spending. anyone who is economically liberal wants to raise taxes and raise spending. it is politics 101.

btw, donald trump isn't exactly a "republican." he might be member of the party, but he plays a small role in politics. But he obviously makes more than he spends. You have to look at the actuall politicians and their policies.

[BlackLantern]

This ties in with the view that a majority of people view the gay community as well educated and well off financially....If you're regular Joe American whos driving a 10 year old car, it's a bit tough to empathize with someone who's driving an 08' Infiniti or Benz and says they are being discriminated against and being treated as a second class citizen

[BlackLantern]

This ties in with the view that a majority of people view the gay community as well educated and well off financially....If you're regular Joe American whos driving a 10 year old car, it's a bit tough to empathize with someone who's driving an 08' Infiniti or Benz and says they are being discriminated against and being treated as a second class citizen

[BlackLantern]

This ties in with the view that a majority of people view the gay community as well educated and well off financially....If you're regular Joe American whos driving a 10 year old car, it's a bit tough to empathize with someone who's driving an 08' Infiniti or Benz and says they are being discriminated against and being treated as a second class citizen

[XpunkRocker]

i agree. although i have to admit, i myself was and still am prejudace against "rich people." Especially the corrupt coorperations. There are a lot of really bad ones out there, but there are a lot of good ones as well.

As far as gay rights go.... i think this is one where the politicians have it right. Civil unions should be allowed. but gay marraige no. I personally think what they should do is take marraige out of the government all together and make it all "civil unions." Marraige should be left to the churches. and i believe in seperation of church and state. that idea might be a bit radical for some, but i think it is the best.

but yeah, i can't believe that there are a couple people on here and think that fiscal conservatives spend a lot of money and raise taxes. Edmund Burke must be laughing in his grave.

if anyone wants to touch up on fiscal conservatism, be my guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

[XpunkRocker]

i agree. although i have to admit, i myself was and still am prejudace against "rich people." Especially the corrupt coorperations. There are a lot of really bad ones out there, but there are a lot of good ones as well.

As far as gay rights go.... i think this is one where the politicians have it right. Civil unions should be allowed. but gay marraige no. I personally think what they should do is take marraige out of the government all together and make it all "civil unions." Marraige should be left to the churches. and i believe in seperation of church and state. that idea might be a bit radical for some, but i think it is the best.

but yeah, i can't believe that there are a couple people on here and think that fiscal conservatives spend a lot of money and raise taxes. Edmund Burke must be laughing in his grave.

if anyone wants to touch up on fiscal conservatism, be my guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

[XpunkRocker]

i agree. although i have to admit, i myself was and still am prejudace against "rich people." Especially the corrupt coorperations. There are a lot of really bad ones out there, but there are a lot of good ones as well.

As far as gay rights go.... i think this is one where the politicians have it right. Civil unions should be allowed. but gay marraige no. I personally think what they should do is take marraige out of the government all together and make it all "civil unions." Marraige should be left to the churches. and i believe in seperation of church and state. that idea might be a bit radical for some, but i think it is the best.

but yeah, i can't believe that there are a couple people on here and think that fiscal conservatives spend a lot of money and raise taxes. Edmund Burke must be laughing in his grave.

if anyone wants to touch up on fiscal conservatism, be my guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

[Kelly]

That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.

Not exactly true.....do a simple google, and you'll find that on average conservative republicans give more (charitable giving) than liberal democrats, and on average liberal democrats have a higher income.


I can't remember the book, but it was highlighted on a philanthropy website I was reading awhile back. It gives some specific numbers in the book. I don't have time to research it, but I think a simple google would suffice.