Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 6 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

VILAVON

Monday, January 3, 2005 4:22 PM

I think we should all just have a beer and get on with our lives (wherever that goes).

Vilavon AKA Claude

UNICORN

Monday, January 3, 2005 5:02 PM

The rights of the many gay people who don't flash small children to marry their equally inoffensive partners should not be trampled just because there is a minority of gay people who do run around clad scantily in gay pride parades. (Frankly, what are you doing watching a gay pride parade with your children at all if that sort of thing embarrasses or offends you?)

To hold all people in a minority responsible for the few bad apples is unfair and illogical. If there are people doing dangerous things in a society (never mind how I feel about public nudity-- that's another thread entirely) then everyone in the society is equally responsible for finding a legal way to put a stop to it without punishing innocent parties in the process. According to the law of this land, protecting the innocent has always taken precedence over punishing the guilty.

If people can't marry their partners because they're gay, that's discrimination. Plain and simple. I'm sorry if it offends you, but I'm calling a spade a spade. Just because you have gay friends who acknowledge how very far away we are from equality doesn't mean they wish to abdicate the right to have their long-term, monogomous relationaships sanctioned and supported by the state to which they pay taxes.

As for the whole perversion question which keeps getting tossed casually arounnd in this conversation, the number of heterosexual perverts in this country is far greater than the number of homosexual perverts, where the word pervert is used to describe molesters, sex offenders, and people who would harm others in a sexually intimate way. Yet somehow, heterosexuals are allowed to marry without anyone questionning their right to do so. EVEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS are allowed to get married to whomever they want if their partners are consentual and of the opposite gender. I've never heard anyone mention this as a concern.

Child molestation is completely separate from homosexuality, just as it is completely separate from heterosexuality. Generally, molesters are people who have suffered such abuse at the hands of others that the only way they can feel good about themselves, feel powerful, is to hurt somebody else. I'll get back to you with some statistics on that separation of loving versus non-loving sexuality.

There is no such thing as a weed.

RADHIL

Monday, January 3, 2005 5:41 PM

I bet the guy who started this thread is now shaking his head - in amusement or irony - at the "unimportant" arguements that have now hijacked the thread.

Ah well.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, January 3, 2005 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Actually it’s called Tyranny. That’s what you call it when the government, under the control of a single person, usurps the will of the people and imposes his own will in its place.

I really think that you should check a dictionary about this word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Tyranny
"
A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
"
Note the "absolute." If the local government in this case had absolute power then this would still be happening. It isn't, so therefore there is no absolute power and thus isn't a tyranny.

But, don't you have a precedence legal system down there? If so, wouldn't this be an attempt to set one?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.

I agree.

You're one of those people that like quoting out of context aren't you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad

The truth can have that affect on people.

Um, what?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, January 3, 2005 8:19 PM

@Radhil:
How has the thread been hijacked? This is about gay-rights which is in the threads title.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

REEQUEEN

Monday, January 3, 2005 8:31 PM

Interesting thread - so many things to comment on, but I'll start with polygamy.

RhymePhile:

Quote:
Polygamy does still exist in the U.S. and Canada, albeit illegal. It has everything to do with the original tenets of the Mormon faith, and those who practice polygamy believe in the classical, fundamentalist interpretation of the faith, as begun by Joseph Smith.

As a current and former, although non-practicing (I'm an observant agnostic), Mormon (I'm not concerned with the looong, "proper" name), I feel qualified to interject.

I don't know about "classical" but it is "fundamental." Joseph Smith initiated polygamy because (this is the party line given to women, I'm sure the actual reasoning was quite different) many more women were being converted to the Church than men, and since only temple marriage guaranteed accession to the highest "heaven" (Eternal Kingdom in Mormon parlance), polygamy was introduced to ensure as many souls made it as possible. *sarcasm alert* It had nothing to do with a bunch of dirty old men wanting to boink the fresh-faced immigrants joining the community. /sarcasm

Quote:
It's an enlightening read about a religious segment of the U.S. population that many don't even know about, and how the practice of polygamy is destroying families.

Many don't know about it because they don't live in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Northern Mexico, or British Columbia.

Quote:
After reading Krakauer's book, you may surprised to learn that almost all of the fundamentalist Mormons (and their huge families) live off the government, using welfare payouts; girls are forced to marry much, much older men and are expected to bear even more children; and that these poor kids and women have barely any education at all.

I wouldn't be surprised, but then again, I've known about this most of my life. In addition to living off the gummint, these "patriarchs" don't pay much in the way of taxes, and yet a lot of the wealthier ones have "family" businesses to keep them in the style to which they've become accustomed. If not their younger wives and children, because if the gummint's paying for them, why should the patriarchs bother?

Just my cynicism coming out, nothing to worry over.

On the other hand, this is just one sect of a religion that now (publicly) rejects the article of polygamy. While mainstream Mormonism does not practice polylgamy, in the here-and-now, it does practice afterlife polygamy. A man can marry more than one woman in the temple, if he is divorced or widowed, thus having more than one wife in the hereafter. Women cannot, just as they cannot hold the priesthood. Until very recently, women could not even get a temple divorce, it must be obtained by her husband - the temple divorce cuts all ties, both now and after death.

Incidentally, I found out my mother and father had been divorced in the temple only after my mother remarried in the temple. But that's probably just a personal issue and I should shut up about it now. ;-D

As for the thread topics: Stem cell research - yes. Gay rights - gay people are human beings, and deserve anything and everything every other human being is owed. Abortion - don't care for it, but it's none of my business what another human being does with her body. Jane Jackson's boob - hasn't she gone bananas like her brother, yet?

I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about gay marriage, or even polygamous marriage. Somebody else's personal relationship is no concern of mine. My relationship with my husband is no concern of anybody else, and I don't see how two (or more) people getting married affects our marriage in any way. I mean, seriously. If my friend Richard married the love of his life (which he will be doing shortly), it will make me happy for him, and surprise lessen my commitment to my husband not one iota. If five people decide to marry each other because that's the way they feel about it, same consequence.

It's not my business until I'm invited to the ceremony, and even then, I would atte

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I really think that you should check a dictionary about this word.

Okay.

Tyrant:
an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tyrant

In other words, a Mayor who ignores democratically enacted law by the will of the people in favor of his own ideology might be called a tyrant. Unless he’s usurping the will of the people in a way you agree with, then I guess it’s okay, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
The rights of the many gay people who don't flash small children to marry their equally inoffensive partners should not be trampled just because there is a minority of gay people who do run around clad scantily in gay pride parades.

True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay? The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions. I must accept all of these things with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. That’s not good enough. If that’s the choice you intend to give Middle America, then Middle America will choose NOT gay marriage. Not because they are necessarily opposed to it or something like it, but because they are opposed to the perverts and the tyrant Mayors and the dismissing of their traditions. I’m in favor of gay marriage, but if I feel that in order to bring the gay community into the mainstream of American families I must acquiesce the perverts, then it’s not going to happen.

UNICORN

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 4:44 AM

I don't have a problem if you're offended by nudity in public. You're free to have your feelings about it and free to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, public nudity is a completely separate issue from gay marriage. Frankly, I find it offensive that so many people seem to think these issues are linked.

But there are a lot of people who aren't as offended by frat guys --who show up in speedos to have a kegger in stadium seats in mid November, not even when they paint their bare chests in school colors and get drunk on TV-- as you say you are by men wearing thongs in Boystown parades. I don't see a difference there, and it mystifies me that some people do.

The pro-gay-marriage movement is about human rights. The people on this side of the argument who are really serious about it aren't asking for the 9:00 News to be shot in the nude. They're not asking to pose nude in storefronts up and down Michigan Avenue. They're not asking to mandate public nudity in all midtown parks between the hours of six and nine every second Thursday. They're not interested in affecting at all what other people do when they get married. We don't disdain other people's customs and beliefs. All we're asking is that our equally valid rights and beliefs be respected, which right now, they aren't.

Why do the people on the anti-marriage side of this issue always seem to think they have to give up something, anything, that's rightfully theirs? If your church holds that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, fine. Nobody's forcing your church to change its stance. But at a national level, there should be no laws governing what consenting adults can and can't do with their own bodies and lives, provided no laws that affect other people's safety or physical well-being are broken. I ask the room: can somebody please tell me what the 'anti-'s are giving up if nice gay couples can marry? Please?

Finn--
Not knowingly having accused you of anything (if I'm wrong, show me the quote, and I mean the complete sentence), I can't speak for the people who call you anything. I reiterate that in my view, to be anti-gay marriage is to take an unsupportable (and I say again, Unconstitutional) stance against the civil rights of a minority of United States citizens, including gays, lesbians, and all members of churches wishing to be free of state interference in bestowing the sacrements of marriage.

In my view such a stance is bigoted. I have deliberately criticized the position rather than the people holding that position outright because I have no personal knowledge of any of those people. This is not a personal attack on a person or persons. This is my strong criticism of what I feel to be an unsupportable and unconscionable position.

I've had my husband helping me out looking around on the internet for information. (I'm such a slave driver...) I wish I could remember where I read the statistical information I remember. Anyway, here is a site which had a wealth of statistics and citations. (The four to six religious sites I looked at regarding the 'evils' of being gay all had the same single article blaming the scandal in the Catholic Church on gays, although they offer very little in the way of studies, statistics, or scientifically arrived-at data to bolster their claims; there were no numbers used in that article.)

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

In particular, direct your attention down the page a ways to:

3) Homosexuals are no more promiscuous or predatory than heterosexuals

And read from there. Lots of statistical data from reputable sources. Most mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists agree that statistically speaking, homosexuals are no more likely to commit sex offenses or acts of pedophilia than are straight people.

There is no such thing as a weed.

RADHIL

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 5:07 AM

OK, sum-up reply to everything I see - too lazy to make separate posts here.

Finn: True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay? The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions.

Maybe you're listening to some loud-mouthed lunatic fringe lefty a bit much. I'm of the opinion that all lunatics should be ignored, myself. You are talking with what appears to be a crowd of reasonable people here, on this board. If you're being called bigot here (I've seen some statements of yours to suggest it's possible), it's also being pointed out why, and I doubt it's simply because of a problem with thongs. If it's from some lunatic somewhere else, it's worthy of being ignored.

On the tyrant thing: Yes, rule of the majority by a minority (or singular) is tyranny. On the flip side, rule of the minority by a majority is mob rule. You cannot justify something as right simply because it falls into either category. Both are something to be avoided, in my opinion. To avoid either, it takes reason, and balance - traits in precious and rare supply these days, at least in the public spotlight.

Sigmanunki: How has the thread been hijacked? This is about gay-rights which is in the threads title.

Re-read the title. It's asking how these things are so important against so many other things. Thus, I say hijack. This thread was surely NOT intended to be a new debate on these topics. I merely find it amusing that it has.

Reequeen: Take religion out of all these issues, please. Myth and legend should not bear upon our laws, only morality and ethics.

Great post, by and large. Just one small flaw. Myth, legend, religion, all inform our morality and ethics. They are some of the founding blocks. It is impossible to separate morals from some legend that demonstrates it. Someone can come up with ethical and moral thoughts on their own, surely, but a religion often provides a grounding in practicality and reality (I say this with full sense of irony) that free-form ethics lack. The problem is not involvement of religion - the problem is the priority of religion. When beliefs come before reason, when a faith is more important than the results of that faith, is where it all goes FUBAR.

A stolen line that puts it more bluntly: Does the sacred brook no improvement?

Unicorn: Thank you for saying everything I probably would have tried to say and screwed up.

Rhymepile: I am not suprised. At all. Leeches are leeches, whether dealing with wives or money.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Okay.

Tyrant:
an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tyrant

In other words, a Mayor who ignores democratically enacted law by the will of the people in favor of his own ideology might be called a tyrant. Unless he’s usurping the will of the people in a way you agree with, then I guess it’s okay, right?

Perhaps you should look up the world absolute. Again if the mayor had absolute power, this would still be going on, period.

The mayor was restrained by law.

But, then again, the bay area has a huge gay population and the turn out was massive to get married. So, then it was the will of at least a large chunk of the local population to have this done.

Thus an argument could be made that this was the will of the people.

And I'd really like to hear a comment from you on my comment about your presedence type legal system.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

True. But why can’t I criticize perverts for being perverts without being accused of being anti-gay?

You can, no-one is saying otherwise. What we are saying is that you can't make gross generalizations based on a select minority of any populace.

If the gay community told me that I'm a womanizing

because they based what I am on the sterotypical jock at university, I'd be calling them a bigot just the same.

You seem to be confusing what a pervert is, or aren't you aware of any hetero perverts?

You also complain about being called anti-gay when what this statement also says is that you think gays are perverts?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The way I see it, and the way I think millions of American see it, is that the pro-gay marriage camp is telling me that I must accept the perverts with the gay marriage or else I’m a bigot. I must accept the tyrant Mayors with the gay marriage. I must accept the insulting and dismissive attitude towards my sacred traditions.

Where the hell are you getting this? No-one is telling you that you have to accept such things.

And what the hell is with the sacred traditions?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Not because they are necessarily opposed to it or something like it, but because they are opposed to the perverts and the tyrant Mayors and the dismissing of their traditions. I’m in favor of gay marriage, but if I feel that in order to bring the gay community into the mainstream of American families I must acquiesce the perverts, then it’s not going to happen.

I really think that you are against it.

You start off saying that you're for it and then say that you can't speak of perverts without being called anti-gay? What the hell?!?!?

I'm really starting to think that your legal stance against gay marriage is some sort of justification for you yourself being anti-gay.

You spout off about the "perverts" and then compain about being called a bigot? If I were gay and you were talking about us, the word "pervert" kept coming up and you spoke of us as you are doing now... I be calling you a bigot and justifibly so.

You can keep talking about how same-sex marriage is illegal, the act of one mayor, the acts of a minority of minorities, blah, blah, blah until the cows come home. You still aren't addressing the issue and are being quite prejudice in the process.

You have to start talking about what we are, which is what should be and the reasons why. We have posted a number of links which are found above and backed it up with logic.

You've posted prejudice, bigotry and opinion. All your arguments are, is a house of cards. You can't build a case based on exceptions to a rule.

I find it absolutly stunning that people like you actually still exist. I guess it's just proof of how far we still have to go and a race

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE