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 10 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Actually, if your example is any indication, I don’t think you do. Basically, you’re just calling me a bigot; you’re just using more words. Isn’t that really what you’re saying? Did I miss your point?
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Finn--
I understand your distress. .
Yes, you totally missed my point. I'm no anti-semite. I'm half Jewish, for crying out loud! But I've been unfairly called an anti-semite by a very emotional person (the girl in my story above) who couldn't be reasoned with and who woiuld not listen to a word I said after she made that decision about me. Therefore I understand your distress at being called a bigot when you take pains not to be one. That's all I was trying to illustrate with my (apparently too long and complicated) story.
Now quit accusing me if name-calling! I'm working very hard to keep this conversation civil and reasonable, because it's the only way to get anything done and still feel good about the result.
I apologize for the emoticon (or the embarrassing, flubbed use of such); they're not really my style, but I was testing out usage.
There is no such thing as a weed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, then I did miss your point, and I owe you an apology. I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. I perhaps should have reread your posts before responding so hastily, but starting work this week has placed serious constraints on my time. I hope you’ll accept my apology.
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Yes, you totally missed my point. I'm no anti-semite. I'm half Jewish, for crying out loud! But I've been unfairly called an anti-semite by a very emotional person (the girl in my story above) who couldn't be reasoned with and who woiuld not listen to a word I said after she made that decision about me. Therefore I understand your distress at being called a bigot when you take pains not to be one. That's all I was trying to illustrate with my (apparently too long and complicated) story.
Now quit accusing me if name-calling! I'm working very hard to keep this conversation civil and reasonable, because it's the only way to get anything done and still feel good about the result.
And after re-reading your post, I realize what you actually said was not what I originally construed it to mean, and if you’ll permit me, I’ll address the question that you asked.
There is no difference between the flamboyant behavior of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Traditionalists don’t like sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals anymore then they like it under homosexuals, particularly the ones who have teen-age daughters. But traditionalists, by and large, also don't know that much about homosexuals, and in the absence of other images, these sexuality explicit ones take on much more emphasis then perhaps they should. There’s already a huge uphill climb for gay marriage, and it’s only going to get worse if gay rights activists intend to put forth this image of the gay community has promiscuous. Now you can say all day that one gay person doesn’t represent the whole, and I agree with you, but when that one (or one like him) gay person, seems to find his way into the gay pride parades every single year, it does not make Traditionalists feel any better about accepting gay marriage. If the gay community puts forth an image of homosexuals as being responsible adults, then I think traditionalists will come to accept gay marriage.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We've already determined that your assumptions about what I've said are essentially fabrications. This is simply further fabrication.
And you're fabrications and accusations of bigotry continue to prove my point.
Actually no you haven't, you've just stated that without proof. Which incidentally, I've asked for.
Also, I put forth an argument without using any personal attack or any such thing. I put forth an argument based on what americans keep telling the rest of the world and what I know of that country of yours.
I've also stated that there has clearly (from what you've said) been a misunderstanding. I've asked you to re-state your arguments (hopefully without using pink thong gay guy) and I'll reply accordingly.
I find it interesting that you've not commented on this. It kind of tells me that you havn't been reading my previous posts and are you just assuming the content.
I'll quote myself you need not use the page up key
Quote:
But even throwing aside the bigotry issue, how do you justify not allowing gays to marry given that it is unConstitutional to do so? Or is it now, america the free, unless you're gay? Do you not see the future implications by not allowing gays to marry? How many other things might come up in the future that are Constitutional, but because the majority find it icky or are uncomfortable with it and thus want it banned, it will be banned? What happened to all that freedom that I keep hearing you guys talking about?
I think that at this point I must mentioned that there are other things in a gay pride parade besides what you keep refering to. There are typically hundreds of normally dressed individuals walking in the parade as well.
I think that it must also be mentioned, that it is an unreasonable demand to say that it is only the gay community that must put forth a better image of themselves to prove that they are more than what some people perceve them as.
Reason dictates that it is the others in society that must do the same. Because the "traditionalists" are coming off just as crazy as you say the gay rights people are.
And even given what I've experienced talking to these people, even if one sticks to statistics, civil liberties, etc in the discussion, they won't listen.
So, how would it help if the gay community did this? When I've done it, they just tell me that I'm lieing, etc. That if they don't want it to happen in there country, they'll vote and that'll be it, human rights be damned.
So, why can't it be both? That is the logical, reasonable solution. You know, to require both the behave in a civilised fashion.
Basically, I agree with you that the gay pride parades must be made more... tame. But I disagree with you that it is only the gay community that must do something for forward this.
It is the resonsibility of all "traditionalists" to truely understand the issue before coming to a conclusion. This is what the (most at least) "traditionalists" have not done.
It is the resonsibility of the gays to not yell and scream about this. Perhaps they did in the beginning (or maybe just in your country because this certainly didn't happen in mine), but I see no evidence that this is still going on. If it is, please provide proof to the contrary.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Also, I put forth an argument without using any personal attack or any such thing.
I think what's-his-name was mostly unhappy with my rudeness (and I did have a disclaimer/warning at the top of my post that I was going to be rude, so I don't think anybody should've been surprised), and he just threw in your name because, well, you disagreed with him.
Quote:
I find it interesting that you've not commented on this. It kind of tells me that you havn't been reading my previous posts and are you just assuming the content.
This happens a lot - I do it all the time, because I simply haven't got the patience for people who write what they think are literate rebuttals, when what those posts really are, are screeds. I've written more than a few, so I should know.
SigmaNunki, you clearly have more patience than I do, and I happen to admire that. I just can't emulate it because there's a not-a-thing-you-can-tell-me dynamic at work here. Since I already know I am not going to convince anyone (meaning Finn) that he's wrong, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong, and no matter what factual, reasoned, and logical reasons he's given that prove he's wrong, I went with the rant option.
It's much less stressful that way, I find posting a screed or three often relieves tension. I understand that some people may not "get" this, and that's okay. We're not all built like obsessive/compulsive keyboard monkeys.
Quote:
I think that it must also be mentioned, that it is an unreasonable demand to say that it is only the gay community that must put forth a better image of themselves to prove that they are more than what some people perceve them as.
This is the rub, isn't it? To admit that heterosexual Christians may not act in a generally socially acceptable way is to admit that someone else may be right.
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
[snip]
and he just threw in your name because, well, you disagreed with him.
Well, although I don't think I was rude (I backed up what I said) I definitly wasn't polite and I was somewhat aggressive. So I understand being thrown in that pile.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
SigmaNunki, you clearly have more patience than I do, and I happen to admire that. I just can't emulate it because there's a not-a-thing-you-can-tell-me dynamic at work here. Since I already know I am not going to convince anyone (meaning Finn) that he's wrong, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong, and no matter what factual, reasoned, and logical reasons he's given that prove he's wrong, I went with the rant option.
I don't know that it's patience, probably more akin to stubbornness
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
This is the rub, isn't it? To admit that heterosexual Christians may not act in a generally socially acceptable way is to admit that someone else may be right.
< sarcasm >
What do you mean wrong? They're the majority! How can they be wrong?
< /sarcasm >
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
LOL, that awesome!
Do you find it as interesting as I do regarding the tumble-weeds blowing by in this thread?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tumblin' along with the tumblin' tumbleweeds. 
Quote:
Well, although I don't think I was rude (I backed up what I said) I definitly wasn't polite and I was somewhat aggressive. So I understand being thrown in that pile.
Don't you know aggressiveness is often arbitrarily mistaken for rudeness? My gosh! Heh.
Quote:
I don't know that it's patience, probably more akin to stubbornness
Yeah, I know about stubbornness. Love the stubbornness. When I agree with the stubbonrnness.
Is that wrong?
Quote:
< sarcasm >
What do you mean wrong? They're the majority! How can they be wrong?
< /sarcasm >
Omigod. I see what you mean. My bad.
And now that we've completely managed to throw this thread off-track, I think our work is done here. Hah! It's not done till it's over-done!
(The "cat on fire" is quoted from Cosi, a lovely little Australian movie about a bunch of institutionalized nutbars (psychologically-speaking) putting on a production of Cosi fan Tutti. The guy who says it is recalling when he actually set cats on fire. Toni Collette and Barry Otto, who played Scott Hastings' father, Doug in Strictly Ballroom, are in it.) /extraneous detail
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*slaps head on forehead*
Okay, first of all, isn't it wierd I have to write essays about this stuff! I'm actually going to write both sides off the argument - just based on the bible, and church canon- and then write my actual opinion.
Why just from the bible? Because the christian's here so poorly argued their point I felt sorry for them.
Even though I'm not actually a christian.
Christian fundamentalists these are your balanced points:
It says in the bible in the OT (Leviticus 18:20) - man lying with man is and abomination against the law and punishible by death.
Rational Christian replies in italic:
the same passage has no problem with polgamy, and as previously mentioned says you can't wear a garment made of two different types of cloth -they don't like homosexulaity because it mixes roles, not because there's necessarily anything intrinsically wrong with it. Plus abomination may be a mis-translation, more like shameful.
Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah brought down by God for amongst other things trying to rape a man.
this is actually about kindness to strangers - a huge theme in the OT, Lot actually chucks out one of his daughters(or wives can't remember) to be raped instead.
Moore (a monk) said that M/M homossxuality was not permissible not because it was homosexual but because one partner takes on the female 'subservient' role.
With the rise of women talking their place in the workforce that's a bit of a moot point
St Paul condemns homosexuality in Corinths 6:9-10 and Romans 1.
Paul is actually trying to define the difference between christians and gentiles - we're special because we don't do this - honestly he could have picked anything
According to the pope (highest link to God), sex is a procreative and unitive event - gays can't have kids therefore immoral.
given that this is actually a 60s change to the original statment that sex was just about procreation ~ there is a change coming in the church me thinks. Plus some m/f couples can't have children - does that make their marriages immoral? The pope also says in the same document 'We are called to love each other as God loves his creations' It doesn't say it has to be m/f love.
According to natural law, (ie what nearly all christian teaching is based on) it is immoral to use anything in a way that does not fulfil it's natural purpose. genitallia is to procreate can't procreate with homosexual sex.
as before - as well as naturalistic fallicy - just because something ought to be used for a particular thing doesn't meant it won't get used for something else, and does it mean it's wrong to use it for anything else? example - mouths are to eat with, so should we never talk?
Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality - and it *was* around at the time. What does that mean? That he probably didn't give a rats ass about it either way - 'Cos everything he thought was important he bangs on about all the time, things like love and respect and being kind to your neighbours even if they believe different things to you.
less religious-y points:
homosexuality spreads desease (like AIDS)
so does hetoresexual sex - i didn't really want to put in the AIDS point, but I thought someone would eventually, and I'd rather have the rebuffle up before they did
There is a decrease in population
what about priests - catholic ones can't have kids? the infertile? Plus it may actually be good for the world at this point to have a decreasing population. (though we don't to be clear)
Males taking role of women to have children - wrong, goes against the complimentalitry of man/woman two parts making one whole as with Adam/Eve.
these roles are becoming defunct. besides - who says that complimentarity they were describing wasn't actually love? in which case there's no reason why there can't be homosexual relationships, between loving homosexuals as with heterosexuals.
It undermines family life/ changes family structure.
so do a lot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Weasy:
Quote:
Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah brought down by God for amongst other things trying to rape a man.
this is actually about kindness to strangers - a huge theme in the OT, Lot actually chucks out one of his daughters(or wives can't remember) to be raped instead.
Sorry to be nit-picky, but that's just me and nothing to do with any ongoing argument hereabouts. I thought your post was highly entertaining, Weasy, I just have to get this off my chest: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm
As far as I can tell, browsing the sites and what remains of my religious upbringing, what the crowd outside Lot's house wanted was to rape, have sex with, or "know" the angels who were visiting him. It does have to do with hospitality, but also to do with the state of the cities in that area at the time and why they were punished like the naughty little monkeys they were. (For a given accuracy of the history recorded, of course.) So, Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd to prevent the angels from being harmed.
The site linked says that the crowd refused the daughters, which may be part of where a preference for males becomes so offensive in some passages of the bible. I mean, if a human male wants to engage in non-consensual acts of intercourse with an angel (legendarily asexual, although generally male-ish), how perverse must he be?
What irritates me (among so many other things, not going to go into them right now
) is that Biblical literalists take what they want, when they want to be fundamentalist in their treatment of the Biblical canon, but ignore the stuff they'd get the chair for. Mostly. I know I've seen fundies wear polyester and nylon together, and you can't tell me that's right."There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t remember anyone trying to argue a Christian religious point here. I could be mistaken. I’m also not so sure that your presentation of the Christian religious opinion on gay marriage is terribly genuine and certainly not well argued, since you seem to be trying to debunk it, not present it.
Originally posted by Weasy:
Why just from the bible? Because the christian's here so poorly argued their point I felt sorry for them.
Quote:Yes AIDS can be spread as efficiently through heterosexual sex as it can be through homosexual sex, but in reality we don’t see this. What we see is AIDS being spread largely by and within the gay community. What this suggests is that there is a larger amount of unprotected casual sex in the gay community then in the heterosexual community. Indeed, it suggests that promiscuity among the gay community may actually be a more common phenomenon then it is among the heterosexual community. And this stands to reason, as gay relationships are rarely burdened by unexpected pregnancies
Originally posted by Weasy:
homosexuality spreads desease (like AIDS)
so does hetoresexual sex - i didn't really want to put in the AIDS point, but I thought someone would eventually, and I'd rather have the rebuffle up before they did
Quote:Actually, federal law clearly prohibits polygamy, and so do the laws of most states. In fact, I’m not sure there are any states in which polygamy is legal. Gay rights activists were seeking to impose gay marriage through the courts in one state and then to seek a Supreme Court ruling to support the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, thereby bypassing the democratic process. I don’t believe this will work, but if the gay rights activists had managed to succeed, it is certainly reasonable to believe that polygamist would seek the same loophole. Gay marriage may yet become an institution, and if it does then it is likely that polygamists will seek establishment of polygamy. So the slippery slope argument is quite alive and well.
Originally posted by Weasy:
Religious Marriage: (Christian here but obviously this differs)
Now, Finn and others, in the OT there is absolutely nothing wrong with Polygamy. In fact, Jacob forefather of Jesus himself - had two wives. So if you're going to argue that homosexual marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy - too late it's already there. Plus as someone else pointed out, the mormons never bothered to stop practicising it.
By the settlement in Israel polygamy was outlawed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
Finn-Finn-Finny-Finn-Finn-Finn:
Quote:
Yes AIDS can be spread as efficiently through heterosexual sex as it can be through homosexual sex, but in reality we don’t see this. What we see is AIDS being spread largely by and within the gay community. What this suggests is that there is a larger amount of unprotected casual sex in the gay community then in the heterosexual community. Indeed, it suggests that promiscuity among the gay community may actually be a more common phenomenon then it is among the heterosexual community. And this stands to reason, as gay relationships are rarely burdened by unexpected pregnancies
Actually, you're quite wrong about this. AIDS is actually down among gay people (although there has been a minor spike upward since medication has made the disease chronic, rather than fatal, but that is across all of the at-risk groups). Since AIDS was first recognized to be spread by gay men, however erroneously, good information was spread more quickly among those folks; since gay men see themselves (or used to) as more at risk, they took the precautions available quite seriously. (I speak as someone who, while I lived in LA in the late eighties/early nineties, had a circle of friends consisting of ninety-eight percent gay men.) Like information about using condoms, safe sex practices, abstinence issues, and so on.
Buying into a stereotype like the one you, Finn, just presented, ignores the people who were poisoned by a tainted blood supply before all blood was tested for HIV (hepatitis was also a big problem), as well as drug users, and heterosexual people who passed the virus amongst themselves and others. And this is without mentioning the current epidemic of AIDS in the African subcontinent, where it is spread mainly by heterosexual sex.
Promiscuity has little to do with the spread of disease. A good little sexual connoisseur (and I am one, so I know whereof I rant) is aware of risk factors, and always practices safe sex. Naturally, there are exceptions, as there always will be, but blaming a disease on the presumed promiscuity of a certain group of people, or using it as proof of the promiscuity of a certain group of people, is as stupid as it is ignorant. It's a lack of knowledge that prevents someone from practicing safe sex, not the number of partners with whom one boinks.
Quote:
Actually, federal law clearly prohibits polygamy, and so do the laws of most states.
Quote:
In fact, I’m not sure there are any states in which polygamy is legal.
Just because there may be a law against polygamy - and there is no such law in Utah, which really chaps the hides of some in this state (I know they were trying to get a law passed, but I got bored and stopped paying attention, so there could be such a law now, but I doubt it. The Utah legislature is too loaded with really good Mormons who believe polygamy will once again be practiced by the church out-of-the-closet) - doesn't mean it's not practiced, or even that it's prosecuted. In fact, here in Utah, polygamy itself is not prosecuted at all, but welfare fraud, child abuse, molestation, and sometimes even tax evasion are prosecuted. Which is as it should be.
People can marry each other, without the marriage being recognized by the state. Bigamy, in terms of law, is when a person marries more than one spouse under the presumed auspices of legality. Generally this happens when one person neglects to divorce (for whatever reason) the first spouse, then marries another person. Polygamists generally marry their first spouse, and have that marriage civilly recognized, and marry subsequent spouses in religious ceremonies unrecognized by the state.
Quote:
Gay rights activists were seeking to impose gay marriage through the courts in one state and then to seek a Supreme Court ruling to support the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, thereby bypassing the democratic process.
So? The "democratic" process in this country isn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME