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 7 of 20

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

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.

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

We seem to be discussing that now.

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

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

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.

Sure it is. Name one religion from the west and one from the east and they teach certain values differently. If the value wasn't seperable from the legend then it couldn't be taught another way and that way would be across the world. It isn't, thus qed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

...
but a religion often provides a grounding in practicality and reality (I say this with full sense of irony) that free-form ethics lack.

Speaking specifically to this conversation.

Which religion? There are a number of radically differently ones in North America as with the world and it's just getting more and more diverse because of the relative ease of immigration.

So, which one do we follow to guide the laws?

It's one of the reasons why I like secular government so much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

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.

I think that problem is both... and more. The priority of religion is as you say, way too high. But religion should have no bearing no what is commanded to the public in general.

Should christians be allowed to force there way on those that don't wish it? Should any religion?

I really think that this gay-rights things boils down to that. The people in power are trying to oppress a people. This never works out for the best.

(not directed at Radhil specifically, just a comment

)
Look at Rome. They tried to supress the christians and look what happened. So, if this happened to them, then I could happen to GW and friends.

But then again, I wouldn't suggest that a christian in north america would know about such things. That would require reading outside of the scope of the bible, which is after all, evil.

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

REEQUEEN

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 9:41 AM

Radhil:

Quote:
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.

I beg to differ, although I thank you for your analysis. Philosophy - not religious philosophy, the other kind - has of old searched for moral and ethical foundations people can live with, and use to live with other people, without resorting to the "Great Beard in the Sky Said So" argument. It is most definitely possible to separate the morals from the legend, since legends sprang up to explain the morals. Although that could be a long chicken'n'egg argument....

(edited because I'm up at 2am with Insomnia)

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
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.

I don’t think you’ve said anything that would constitute a personal attack against me; and you’ve certainly not said anything to me that I found offensive. Compared to many discussions that I’ve been involved in, this one has been very civil and interesting.

But I’m using my own experiences more as a metaphor then anything else. I’m trying to point out how immature the pro-gay marriage argument has become. I realize that you feel that you are arguing in favor of civil rights and freedom, and you may be, but the issue is more complex then polarizing it as gay marriage is right and traditionalists are bigots. I believe that until the pro-gay marriage camp can learn to appreciate that one can oppose gay marriage without being a bigot, they will have a very hard time getting gay marriage to stick.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
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.

Without a doubt the lunatic fringe of the Left is where this kind of thing gets most attention, and I’m not necessarily referring to anything or anyone here. The problem is that the pro-gay marriage camp has become a mop up organization seeking to “cover-up” the problems with the gay community instead of pointing them out and denouncing them. I realize that many people who favor gay marriage believe that they must protect the image of the gay community in order to protect American sympathy for the gay community, but this is a mistake, because Americans need to see more maturity coming from the gay community. Americans need to know that the gay community can police itself, set boundaries and understand the reasons why grown men dry-humping themselves in public is not the kind of behavior that washes with the American family. You all seem to be arguing (some more bluntly then others) that traditionalists are the problem, and that the core of American traditionalism needs to change in order to suit gay marriage. What the pro-gay marriage camp seems to refuse to see is that there needs to be change in the gay community and in the way that community presents itself as well, and in fact, first. People seem to insist that the gay community has no problems and that the apparent corruption and indecency displayed by the gay community is just a few fringe elements. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. What I do know is that gay marriage will never be reality so long as traditionalists form the core of the American populus and gay rights activists intend to put forth a divisive and aggressive policy. So you have two options, wait and hope that the American core changes to something less traditional, which is at best a long wai

REEQUEEN

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 8:38 PM

Oh, for crying out loud. Trying to say, as Finn Mac Cumhal has, that:

Quote:
but the issue is more complex then polarizing it as gay marriage is right and traditionalists are bigots.

is like saying that peanut butter and banana sandwiches have subtle layers. Please. The people who want to get married just want that. There is no agenda, unless you call wanting the same thing everybody else has an agenda. The religious wingnuts of this country are the ones who have polarized the issue, so worried are they that Christianity will suddenly *poof* disappear if gay people are allowed to marry those they love.

Quote:
The problem is that the pro-gay marriage camp has become a mop up organization seeking to “cover-up” the problems with the gay community instead of pointing them out and denouncing them.

So, denying them a theoretically stabilizing institution like marriage makes it all just go away, does it? Makes the gays behave according to some sort of pre-approved seemliness? Makes everyone sit up and take notice how extremely well-behaved and discreet most Christian bananaboats are, yes?

(snipping rest of post because, well, yuck)

If everyone else is being polite to you, Finn, I will take a deep breath, gird my loins, and be rude. Because I don't have the patience to be nice - you're touting a bigoted line, you've fooled yourself into thinking you're broad-minded, and you're proselytizing. Which, to me, is about the rudest thing anyone can do.

Here's the deal: Christian Rightwing Wingnuts, of every variety and flavour, those Biblical literalists, those moon-faced morons who gave up their higher brain functions to believe everything will be oh. kay. for them if they just believe in what they're told to believe in, these same religious angels of vengeance think that marriage will somehow dissolve as a sacrament if people of the same sex have it too. To this end, they argue that somehow gay culture is, well, strident or promiscuous, or whatever their tiny little minds imagines it to be. As if there was such a thing as "gay culture," all people being individuals. Should we follow that reasoning, however, wouldn't it make more sense for those scared folks to advocate marriage, for everybody, since it cuts down on the promiscuity. At least in theory. I mean, if gays were all married to each other, they wouldn't be bothering the Straight White Male Protestants, now, would they? What with their fun lifestyles and carefree ways.

I'd love to know what "problems" the gay community has. I mean, besides the normal problems people have with each other in every situation.

People are people, people. We're all different, and we're all the same. Dividing us into pre-approved groups only serves to make you look stupid.

Unless you're a religious nutjob, in which case, enjoy your faith in the privacy of your own home, as long as it doesn't disturb anybody or frighten the horses.

/over-the-top

"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi

UNICORN

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 10:22 PM

I do go on...

I have to get my baby girl, so this will actually be very short.

Finn--
I can agree with you that of course the gay community has problems (I don't personally know anybody who claims otherwise) if you can agree with me that these problems are not unique to the gay community. Everybody has problems.

Heck, hets have: Mardi Gras, Las Vegas, strip clubs, football games, soccor matches, basketball games, golf, Florida, gambling boats and other establishments, and reality TV in which to riot and flaunt quick nudity here and there, dressing flambuoyantly, disturbing the peace, overturning cars, and flashing people indiscriminately in some cases, usually freely yelling profanities and other explitives all the while. (I may be wrong about the majority of these types of events, but I know what I've seen on TV. I assume that's where most of the people opposed to gay marriage are getting their information too.)

I don't think anyone should be held legally responsible for the flambuoyant actions of others, but I agree with you that a nuanced position is vital in any discussion if you're going to come up with a solution that really works.

There is no such thing as a weed.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 11:46 PM

@Finn mac Cumhal:
All you've done is come up with straw-man arguments and complain that no-one is listening to you.

If you would read the posts in response to yours you'll see that we have, very logically, gone through your arguments and argued against them, showing the straw-man-ness of them. And quite effectively if I might say so.

Why you still cling to what has been proved otherwise here I have no idea.

Perhaps you should actually read the lit. from the gays instead of (from what I can gather here) listening to the right-wing religious nuts telling you what they think the gays want and the implications as well.

I'm really actually boggled by the "reality" you live in.

How can you say that gays are perverted people because of x, y, z when x, y, z are the fringe of there culture. Not to mention that hetero culture has x, y, z (or at least the analog of it) as well.

Have you actually listened to yourself? Because by your arguments, heteros shouldn't be getting married because they are deviants as well.

You should really take the time to find out what gay culture really is and what they really do, because your idea of what it and what they are, is very very off.

You should also find out what the real implications to same-sex marriage are as what you think is, again, very very off.

And I'll mention it once more here because it really needs to be said... again.

If you are being called a bigot here, with all the quite intelligent resonable people that post to this forum... well, you might want to think about that.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 12:53 AM

Okay, one last post:

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
I can agree with you that of course the gay community has problems (I don't personally know anybody who claims otherwise) if you can agree with me that these problems are not unique to the gay community. Everybody has problems.

I don’t know. Do you think I can agree with that? I’ll leave that up to you, but let me remind you of a recent post from me to you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
These pink thong wearing gay men certainly demonstrate a horrendous degree of immaturity by exposing themselves in such a manner that children are likely to see. But heterosexuals are just as likely to do that same thing. There are perverts are both sides. The difference is that if a heterosexual pervert does something that is offensive to me or my family, I can do something about it. I can criticize it. I can insist that there is something wrong with exposing my children to this and most intelligent people in this country will respect my feelings. But if a gay man does something similar and I criticize it, I’m as likely to be called a bigot or a homophobe. There’s no consideration given to the idea that I’m not a bigot or a homophobe. That I have no ill will towards gay people and even have some friends who are gay (who happen to agree with me on many things), or that I, in fact, support gay rights. Just that I criticized a gay man or the gay community is enough to get me labeled a bigot by a segment of the Left in this country. That’s the greater immaturity. It’s not rational, or just or equitable. It’s an immaturity of thought.

To further illustrate my point:
Examine SIGMANUNKI’s posts who has consistently called me a bigot with no support for such a claim other then his contention of his own self-proclaimed reasonableness.

Examine REEQUEEN’s post who introduced his/herself to this discussion by calling me a bigot, whose support for my presumed bigotry apparently lies in her contention that Christians are “Rightwing Wingnuts” and “moon-faced morons.”

Now granted SIGMANUNKI and REEQUEEN may represent a fanatical wing of this discussion, but aside from their use of adhomenem and insults, their arguments are not dissimilar from the typical pro-gay marriage argument. The pro-gay marriage strategy is to zealously and prejudicially attack traditionalism, asserting that an anti-gay marriage position is paramount to bigotry. Indeed, one can be in favor of gay marriage (as I am), but to criticize the gay rights movement is enough to get one labeled a bigot. The desire is not to discuss the issues, but to silence dissent and criticism, through false accusations and intimidation. And when you understand this, you understand why the gay rights activists put on parades in which they ALLOW weirdoes in pink thongs to represent the gay community. These promiscuous individuals did not happen to be in the parade by mistake. They were allowed to be in the parade by parade organizers. Following the strategy as is used by SIGMANUNKI and REQUEEN, which is to say: Traditionalists are bigots therefore we will insult them. Do you believe this is a strategy that is likely to prevail, or an immature attitude which needs revising? Indeed, it did NOT prevail and in fact, now there are eleven new States with laws restricting marriage to the traditional definition.

A quote from Tammy Bruce who is, by the way, a lesbian.
“In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12339

RUE

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 2:05 AM

English common law has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Show me a historical quote in English common law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Then show me a historical quote in US law (preferably legislated Federal law, or State legislated law, or Federal or State state common law) that DEFINES marriage as between a man and a woman. Definitions have meaning in law, so a presumption that that's what they WOULD have said is not adequate. To make your claim, you need to find a bona fide definition that actually says what you claim.

And I think you 'misunderestimate' history. Do you not think homosexuals actually existed in the past? For hundreds of years common laws covered all sorts of things - including when abortion is the perogative of a woman. Why is there no specific, ancient common law against homosexual relationships? Was it because they didn't happen? (Unlikely) More likely, the neighbors simply - looked the other way. Did not check too deeply into the nature of the relationship between same sex people living together BECAUSE it would not produce children, or paternity and inheritance questions. I find the silence of common law to a common situation simply astounding, and extremely revealing.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 2:16 AM

According to FindLaw, a database of legal definitions and jurisprudence.

Quote:
. . . a common law marriage can occur only when:
1. a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
2. for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
3. holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
4. intending to be married. [Emphasis mine]

http://public.findlaw.com/family/nolo/faq/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA3483638
8313A3C.html

Since Common Law forms the bases of our statutory law, it is enough that Common Law defines marriage as being between a man and woman to support the precedence behind statutory and constitutional marriage definitions.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE