Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

POLITICS: Alabama Bill to Ban 'Gay' books and Gay Authors

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Aside from the semantics FlyersFan, I think you're
actually agreeing with me. At least I agree with you.


I think so ... I think we agree.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

The only reason I mentioned the 'sacrament instead of ceremony'
thing is because there is a difference and I THINK the law recognizes
the difference between a ceremony and a sacrament. I think???
Forcing sacraments wouldn't work .. allowing a ceremony in a church
that approves of such, or in a town hall, (or whatever) WOULD work.

Oh .. and semantics is what the law is all about, isn't it?

Change a word here, a word there, and you have progress.

[edit on 4/28/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
double post. sorry. How'd that happen??

Guess the computer thought that what I said was
twice as good as the rest? ha ha ha

[edit on 4/28/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
[edit on 6-6-2005 by asala]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You stop attacking posters and name calling too.


[edit on 28-4-2005 by RANT]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Personally I'm against any laws that regulate or show favor to someone based on their sexual preferences as long as the activity is legal and involving adults. Hey if a homosexual wants to write a book on the joys of swapping spit with another man, then let him. I honestly could care less. Just don't go passing laws that force libraries to stock these books, or restrict them from having them. Let our capitalist system of supply and demand praise or boo the author.

Why would any self respecting conservative politician promote a bill that gives the government more input into how you live your life?

[edit on 28-4-2005 by dbates]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
how about this one lol

Hitlers Mein Kampf is in the Alabama Library nobody trying to ban it!

BUT they did in the past!

Banning books or stumping for bans is not new in politics and certainly is not 'an Alabama thing.' This is a world-wide phenomenon.




Originally posted by ServoHahn
Yes, there are many things here which are untrue. My dogs are both male and they try to have sex with each other all the time. Maybe I should take them out back and shoot them?

Operative word is try

I had a dog that hunched a couch leg. Nothing I could do made him quit. From swats to covering the couch leg, he had to get on that couch leg. I finally got rid of the couch. The dog ran away after that.

Was he sad? Was he 'gay?' Was the couch gay?
Is this why a small couch is called a 'love seat?'

Have you ever seen a male dog 'bung' another male dog? Nope- doesn't happen.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
We moved to Alabama in 1992. We left 8 years later. When we were down there one of the national TV networks was going to show The Rocky Horror Picture Show on TV
for Halloween. Then I found out that most of N. Alabama didn't celebrate Halloween (they turn their lights out and humbug it) and also the TV stations were going to block
Rocky Horror because of the gay/bi implications.

(emphasis added) Not true. MOST run around in silly costumes and try to get candy. SOME- sure, not most.


Originally posted by dbates
Personally I'm against any laws that regulate or show favor to someone based on their sexual preferences as long as the activity is legal and involving adults.
- - -
Why would any self respecting conservative politician promote a bill that gives the government more input into how you live your life?

O.K.- yes! Why would . . .?

This thread is about this. Why? It isn't about gays or any thing else, it is about why would government, especially a conservative government, impose more restrictions on its populace?

You folks have been sidelined. A controversial subject is the red-herring. While people that might support such a ban focus on the fish they are missing the hook.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.
external image

Tax dollars=public control=politican=?



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   


Have you ever seen a male dog 'bung' another male dog?

Actually I have. Not that I would care to repeat the experience. I've also seen deer do it in my backyard. Homosexual behavior is not rare in the animal kingdom, I even read a report that discovered 40% of nesting seagull pairs were made of two females. There is a very funny article on science's uneasy relationship with discoveries about homosexual behavior in nature here: The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals



WHAT? Stoning! where do you get that fact from? Personally I'm all for stoning some folks...lets start with convicted pedophiles! However short of Islamic law I doubt we will see Stoning in THIS country anytime soon! Anyway I would be interested in any link you have to this "stoning craze" !

The Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist movement is a growing semi-underground movement behind much of what we call the "religious right." They intend to impose a theocratic Christian government on the US, imagine a Christian version of the rule of the mullahs in Iran. One of their major platforms is a very broad application of the death penalty, for homosexuality, apostasy, even premarital sex. You can read more about them here: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence.

[edit on 28-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Six bighorn rams cluster, rubbing, nuzzling and mounting each other. "Aggressosexual behavior," the biologist explains. A way of establishing dominance.

Big difference from 'rubbing/mounting' to analcourse.

So what happened to the old saw that animals don't have sex for pleasure?

Hmmm,

Thanks for the thocracy link- good read



[edit on 28-4-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The dogs and the deer I saw went all the way, skipping second and third and going straight to home base, if you get my drift.


NP on the link, spreading information around is my fave pastime



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Wow, whole lot of action...

A flurry of ban hammer blows...



Anyway, just wanted to add my nickel on a few points.

1.) Animals do indeed engage in homosexuality, but the act is rarely consumated. It's a social interaction to determine heirarchy and show affection or domination. It looks like they're really going at it, but it's mostly play acting. It certainly goes on though, so nobody can say there's no such thing as homosexual animals. They just don't have the same hedonism as we do, so they use the act for what it's good for in their world - social interaction pure and simple.

2.) Having gay literature in a library isn't an attempt to convert children to the 'Gay Side' nor is it an attempt to force gayness on adults. It's equal representation. Gays read, and that means there's a market for literature targetting them. Also, there is something to be said for gay literature being used to broaden the horizons of the bigoted and cloistered. Alabama has been, for a while (maybe forever), a repressive state. They have a fairly extensive list of these sorts of actions. I guess what it comes down to is that a lot of people in America (and indeed the world moreso even) have a very dim view of those who bugger their own sex. Well, do they deserve equal representation too? Of course, but, they don't deserve to define who gets representation. Simple. Alabama can fill the shelves with anti-gay literature (as long as it's not hate speech that incites violence), but they go too far in trying to cut off peoples access to other forms of literature, in my opinion. Pretend two men are having an argument (microcosm) and one is for being gay, and the other is against. The one who's for takes his turn, but before he can get three words out, the one who's against drowns him out with a megaphone, going "La-La-La" incessantly. The one who's against isn't doing the gentlemanly thing, and participating in an argument, he's being a child-like malcontent and trying to silence his opponent to prevent people from having any exposure to alternate ideas, and therefore, a right to choose.

3.) If everybody sensible takes this oppurtunity to move out of Alabama, all that will be left will be the so called 'Righteous' and pure Alabamians. They'll high five each other for a while, and then go on with their business. They'll think they've got the gay problem licked. Next generation comes along, and whadya know? Gays by the bushelful. Oops.
I doubt if anyone has ever been turned gay by literature. Maybe Alabama will figure that out after a few generations come and go. Their intolerance really grates on me though. They don't have to like gays, but they do have to let them live their lives in peace.

4.) I said it before, I'll say it again - Homosexuality is a response to crowded city living. It's only been evidenced in urban cultures. There may be the occasional abberation in the countryside, but by and large, there is only evidence for homosexuals arrising from crowded city-states. If you desire an end to homosexuality, at least in your blood line, leave the cities. Should work wonders.


5.) A final note about gay literature. Why is it seen as promoting gay lifestyles? Murder mysteries aren't accused of causing murders. The gay characters in books are representative of real life, not representative of an ideal state of being. For the same reasons heroes are often drunken, timid, or blustery, gay characters add a dimension of believability to fiction (newsflash: gays exist). I think it's safe to say that people are, or are not gay, and no amount of literature or Will and Grace will change that.

Joe Doaks
No, I don't watch television - I killed my television several years ago. No, I don't drive a little now and then, I sold my car ages ago (in an emergency I'll borrow a jeep and head down the mountain). Yes I use toilet paper, but I don't see how that's an issue in the large scheme of things. Obviously I use electricity, and obviously I use a computer, I'm not an ascetic and never claimed to be. I don't use welfare or social services, and I don't collect disability. Because I don't do those things, I have the ability to choose whether or not to vote based on the merits of the candidates. If the candidates have no merit, I won't support them. Simple.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Everyone needs to forget the subject of the proposed banning, and focus on the issue. Should the government regulate what we read? What's the next subject that gets banned or censored after this one? Sure you'll support the ban on gay books, but how will you feel when the Bible is banned because some Senator doesn't think it's appropriate for the library.

[edit on 28-4-2005 by dbates]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Then I found out that most of N. Alabama didn't celebrate Halloween (they turn their lights out and humbug it

(emphasis added) Not true. MOST run around in silly costumes and try to get candy. SOME- sure, not most.


Hey Joe .. don't know what part of N. Alabama you live in... but
in Madison AL - just outside of Huntsville - where we lived, at least
half of the houses turned out their lights. The lights were out and
some had big signs in their yards with some scripture reading of
some kind. Some other houses left the lights on and the kiddies
went to get candy .. instead they got pencils with scripture on
them (which was fine). Some others (like ours) gave candy.

Now .. that was 10 years ago so perhaps some have turned their
porch lights on since then.


Oh .. and when Halloween fell on a Sunday, the major of Huntsville
would move Halloween to Saturday or Monday. Can't do the devil
worship thing (Halloween
) on the Lord's day, but it's okay
on the other days.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Everyone needs to forget the subject of the proposed banning, and focus on the issue. Should the government regulate what we read?


Honestly - It should be up to the tax payers to spend their money on
what ever they want in their library. If they want to spend money on
books written by gay people, then they can. If they want only 'straight'
people .. so be it. It's their tax money and they can do, or not do, as
they wish. Who ever pays the $$ for each town library should be able
to pick the books. Aren't there library committees responsible for each
town library? There was in my home town in Connecticut when I grew
up (a long time ago).



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hey Joe .. don't know what part of N. Alabama you live in... but
in Madison AL -

Ahh, well there's the problem


something like 1/4 of the people there are native (2nd generation and beyond)

Madison is NOT old time Alabamians-

No. Alabama, Tenn.- lots of of transients (move in, stay a few years then move out) bring their cultures with them in small groups.

I remember moving Halloween- again, SOME not most. Huntsville is a tad different anyway


Halloween in Huntsville




freedom works
Washington, D.C. - This Halloween Day, the 60th annual National Peanut Festival gets under way in Dothan, Ala.

Did you know that you were a host?

After all, you the taxpayers are sponsoring the event.

Despite a $374 billion federal deficit for fiscal 2003 — projected to reach $480 billion next year — Rep. Terry Everett, an Alabama Republican born in Dothan, sliced $202,500 from the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act for the festival, which this year features a Spam-recipe contest. Is Spam the new pork-barrel politics!?

Lots of myths surround different parts of the country.

Moving to ban books in Alabama is certainly no myth. However, trying to pretend that Alabama is the only place where this could happen is scary.

What motives push a politician to attempt book bans?

If you vote and got others to vote the politician OUT of office then it wouldn't matter anyway



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Joe, some animals do indeed have sex for pleasure (the most popular of which is (hu)man). Some monkeys masturbate and some dolphins may engage in gay sex.

Again, I pose the question: if homosexuality is indeed unnatural then why are there homosexuals? Would this be such a big issue if we deleted Christianity from the picture? I suppose I'd have to ask a some non-Christians.

What is the big deal about homosexuality? Why is it a bad thing? I have never come to any harm because I know gay people and I have never had to pay any extra money to allow for homosexual behavior. I would love a gay son as much as a straight one. I fail to see what makes homosexuality immoral or wrong.

As far as I can gather from Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong, the conversation will always go something like this:
"Homosexuality is wrong."

"Why?"

"Because it is a sin."

"What makes you say that?"

"It says so in the bible."

"Oh. Well, what makes the bible right? It was written by men, no?"

"Yes, but it's holy and was inspired by God and has things which God said contained within it."

"What makes you think that it's holy and therefore true?"

"Because it says it is."

"Oh, well in that case I'm Holy also."

"No you're not."

Well, at any rate, any anti-homosexual arguements I've heard wind up becoming circular and self-explanitory or self-proclaimed, but in the end, homosexuality being wrong is very opinion-based and therefore deductively, inductively, and ethically unprovable.

Those who would tell me that homosexuality is "unnatural", all religion aside, I have this to say: Is modern society not unnatural? What's so natural about driving cars and wearing clothing that homosexuality belongs in a different category?

If it offensive to people, I say that no one has ever invited you to be a homosexual. No one is making you watch gay men act sensitive, or kiss, or have sex. If a gay person asks you out, you may reject him or her just the same as you may reject a person of the opposite sex (though if a gay person were to ask you out, you should consider what kind of "vibes" you were sending).

If you tell me that gay people go to hell, I would say to you that you've
a. Misunderstood the whole point of Jesus,
b. have not read any of the material surrounding the few areas where the bible says things like "men should not lie with other men the way they lie with women", and
c. do not respect church denominations that differ from yours. Many churchs consider it a "minor sin", like lying (different from bearing false witness against thy neighbor", being rude, refusing to admit when your wrong, and even murder. Many churches don't consider it a sin at all. Yes, read the bible... Jesus forgives all who truly repent... and he even claims that you don't need a middle man to do it.

Any of you who want to come here to waste space, telling others not to waste space by going off topic: anything having to do with the controversial nature of homosexuality either supports or rejects an argument made that does directly correlate to the topic and I would like to (unless you're a mod of course) politely invite you to bugger off.
-S



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
All this slip-slide to the side (right or left) detracts from the thread.

Want a relgious debate or some wrangling over animal impulses then start a thread on it.

The 'topic' that seems to be slidding away is censorship.

I have presented my views on how to deal with this- none of the posters agree. Most want to jump religion or jump into animal husbandry- that is not the issue.

I look forward to link to a thread discussing either of those. In the meantime,
Vote!



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Does Alabama have art museums? Would they close those down because many of the famous painters were homosexuals?

Well, who needs culture anyway...Fly to the north east for an education, i guess.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Don't fly to the north east. We don't need any more damn tourists. Fly to Europe or something, visit the Louvre. Tour a dozen cathedrals. Check out the castles. Eat a haggis. That's culture for ya'.



Anyone remember the Elephant Dung Madonna in NY? That ruling should apply equally to Alabamian censure, shouldn't it? Art/Literature is sacred, more so than religion IMO. Art came before religion, it deserves seniority.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Hey, halloween isn't evil, it was stolen from the witches/druids to get followers. Why they think a holiday they created is evil IDK, stupidity I guess.

Also, in the same chapter that says Gays are evil IT SAYS STONE CHILDREN TO DEATH FOR MISBEHAVING! SO, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HATE GAYS THEN YOU MUST STONE CHILDREN TO DEATH FOR SAYING NO/THROWING TANTRUMS!!!!!!!!!! So, what are you gonna do? Make gays good or stop giving out ritalin and just start stoning kids to death?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I am seeing alot of ignorance and intollerance on both sides of the issue. This is extremely disturbing.

First off, while I feel that this politician is little more than a book burning fascist, I certainly do not believe that homosexuality should be taught in schools to children, period. Not as an alternative lifestyle, nor as an "abomination. Teaching homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle is in clear violation of the constitional rights of the parents. Freedom of religon means more than allowing people to attend church or read bibles. Freedom of religon also means the right for parents to raise and teach their children their religous beliefs and convictions. Thus, teaching homosexuality as something normal, acceptable, natural, ect, is violating the religous beliefs of some parents, who, because of their religous convictions, believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful. They do not want their children to be taught acceptance of something that is at odds with their own religous beliefs. The state has no right to indoctrinate their political agendas or beliefs into the minds of children. Ultimately, homosexuality is something that parents need to teach their children about, in accordance with whatever belief system they cherish. If the parents believe homosexuality is ok, then let them teach their children that. The state needs to keep out of such issues. The job of the schools should be restricted to teaching reading, writing, math, science, history, geography, and the like. Their job is not to indoctrinate or try and teach tolerance or acceptance of certain lifestyles, and if the liberals would stop trying to bring indoctrination as part of the educational system, and concentrated more on getting kids to learn the basics, they would gain alot more acceptance. But tolerance and acceptance of different races, religons, or sexual preferences is something that can not and should not be forced on people, it is something people must learn and come to terms with on their own. leave the moral and ethical questions to the parents, the state should be banned from any sort of moral or ethical teaching in regards to homosexuality or any other controversial issue. The rights of parental consent and religous rights far outweigh and trump any desire of the state. And its not only Christians who view homosexuality as an abomination and sinful: Muslims and Jews also view it as wickedness and immorality.

Second, marriage is not a monotheistic invention. Anyone with any knowldge of history and ancient civilization knows marriage existed in the first civilizations, which were polytheistic. The Romans, Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Egyptians, and Persians, all were polytheists, and all had marriage. In fact, these civilizations had gods and goddesses who were the patrons of marriage. The word hymen, which is the flap of skin that covers a girls vagaina when she is still a virgin, comes from the Greek god Hymen, who was the god of marriage and commitment. hera, who was also the Roman Juno, was the goddess of married women. Marriage is a universal institution that transcends religons, cultures, and races. it is universal in all people, and existed for thousands of years before monotheism ever reared its ugly head. Monotheism is relatively new, being only about 3000 years old, when compared to 7,000 years of recorded civilization, the first 4,000 years consisted of polytheist religons. Even after monotheism came about, it would be about 1500 years before monotheism ever became a major religous feature. Polytheism has by far been more prevailent. And these polytheists also held marriage in the highest regard. We know this from ruins and tombs of many cultures, like the Etruscans, in whose tombs we find husbands and wives not only buried together, but their resting places decorated with images to insure the married couple would be reunited in happieness in the afterlife. Even the bible has many parts that distinctly show that non Hebrews had marriage as a building block of their society. Remember the egyptians? Phaeroh's WIFE?

There also seems to be confusion on the status of homosexuality in the bible. Anyone who has honestly read the bible knows, that without a doubt, that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Christian/Jewish god.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Levitcus 18:22-23

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:13

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Corinthians 6:9

"realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" 1 Timothy 1:9-10

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27

And of course, theres Sodom and Gommorah, but everyone knows about that.

Now, my point is, is that liberals who claim that the bible does not condemn homosexuality have never read the bible, obviously. Its very clear the Christian God has problems with man-man woman woman love. I have talked to some Christian ministers about the subject, however, and the Christian fundementalists are also incorrect in their behavior towards homosexuals. A couple pastors basically have told me, that while homosexuality is wrong, Christians who engage in "fag bashing" or those lovely people who stand around carrying signs saying "god hates fags" are committing terrible sins themselves. According to the ministers, while it is the duty of Christians to reject homosexuality as a sin, Christians are still supposed to love and forgive the homosexual for their sins. As I was told by them: love the sinner, but hate their sin. In otherwords, while churchs should still embrace homosexuals as people, they are to reject the lifestyle of homosexuality and to kindly, but firmly, implore the homosexual to turn away from their immoral lifestyle, ask god for forgiveness, and from then on, refrain from homosexual activity.

Thus, both sides are wrong. The liberals are wrong in saying that Christianity accepts or allows homosexual behavipr, and the fundementalists are wrong when they say homosexuals are evil worthless people. The Christian faith believes all people sin, need forgiveness, and should turn away from sinful lifestyles and refrain from it. It is the lifestyle that is condemned in the bible, not the homosexuals themselves, whom, despite their sins, Jesus still loves, forgives, and only wants them to turn away from it.

The sad thing about this all, is that I am not even a Christian, or a liberal, or a conservative, yet I find myself having to educate the above about their own beliefs, doctrines, ect, since none of them seem to have any clue about what their respective groups actually believe in or preach.

Denying ignorance begins with actually knowing a bit about the belief system you supposedly are enspousing.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join