It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sexual Preferences

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
ubermunche

WOW, IM INSIDEOUS in my argument!!!! Why is that?
Is it because i dont cling to religious or other very subjective (and lame) ways to hit this point? Is this because ive focused the argument down to its basics and stripped away the fluf stuff?

The basic issue here IS a cultures rights to self determination, not acceptance of gay marriage.

Or are you willing to throw a sociological definition of how a culture works out the window too? (like the marriage deffinition?)

Im NOT for gay marriage and DUBIOUS on civil union (as ive seen no plan for the legal changes thruought our laws that need addressing FIRST before adopting this plan....

I am not into arbitrary changes to cultural mores that have evolved over thousands of years....I am not opposed to them either....

Trying to rip away the crap arguments and get down to the real basis of this argument...
The fact that my argument seems"insideous" or threatening to you is good...it means im hitting REALLY close to the actual point in debate here...

Cazmedia the problem I'm having with your point is the insistence that cultural will is the be all and end all as to whether gay people are allowed a degree of self determination and legal and social acceptance to their relationships. Society is predjudiced and bigoted, that's a given and can't be written off as the paranoid fancy of some oversensitive radical queens and dykes however much some would like to dismiss it as such. I don't doubt for a minute that the majority opinion usually does and will inform legislation but with this particular issue that opinion is flawed by predjudice and bigotry, you cannot put up idealised models of marriage as an argument when all the examples objected by gay marriage have their counterpart within heterosexual unions. It's an argument based on predjudice pure and simple. Do I find that threatening, damn right I do, as I find a brick through my window or queer bastard scrawled on my front door 'threatening'. Feeling threatened does not of itself prove my opinions wrong.




posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Todeskopf

In the debate I point out that only 3 years ago Alabama had a law stopping interracial marriages


As a resident of said State I guess I should point out that this is one of those laws that was just "left on the books" its not like anyone was prosecuted for interracial marriage...it was kind of like these I found from DumbLaws.Com from New York State:

A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.

While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.

Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 P.M.


[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Todeskopf]

I lived there for 15 years. I found it to be one of the most anti-progressive states I've ever seen. Everyone is fighting so damn hard to keep everything the way it's always been. There would still be slavery, if it weren't for the civil war. BTW, I think oral sex is still illegal there. Sex toys and pornography are banned, too. It's one of those states that it's illegal to ship pornography to. If you live there, you're on the blacklist of every adult item retailer on the web who adheres to the list. They have all kinds of stupid religious laws. All 6 packs of beer must be placed in a bag before you can leave the store, yet 12 packs can be carried as is.
I used to have a little joke about that. I'd put my hands up to the sides of my eyes like horse blinders and say, "Just put the beer in the bag, quick!"
The only time you can't buy alcohol, is from 2am - 12noon Sunday. (They want you good and sober for church, apparently)

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
UBER,

THIS IS TOTALLY ABOUT A CULTURES RIGHTS OF SELF DETERMINATION, NOT SELF DETERMINATION.

Are you saying that a minorities abillity to ask its culture/society for more acceptance/accomodations is MORE IMPORTANT than the cultures rights of majority concensus?

Gay people can self determine they want to be gay all day and night, but what makes this ok to DEMMAND accomodations based on their self determinations, and then point the finger and call people in the majority names because the answer was no to their request?

Take ANY issue, Issue X......Mega-culture is debating if to adopt issue X as policy. Issue X was proposed by 20% of the population. Mega-culture, thru democratic processes gets a 60% no determination on this issue X, and so they decline to implement issue X.

ITS NOT ABOUT THE WHAT YOUR ASKING FOR....it does not matter if you insert gay marriage, murder, drug use or anything as ISSUE X....The reality of the situation is that you have a democratic republic, being asked by a minority, to make an adjustment to its cultural base. IS THIS NOT THE CASE??

Trying to say gay marriage is more important that the overall society just shows i was right about the "GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME" approach...the one that tries to equate a culture thats not activly trying to do anything to add restrictions/oppression to people being gay or the resulting behaivior or activities, to one that upholds slavery.

For you to say that ALL SOCIETY is bigoted is a fallicy of logic. We wouldnt be getting along here as good as we are if everything was bigoted...and no compromises were made.

Why is everyone that doesnt agree with gay marriage a biggot?

Why arent those in the minority that are the ones pushing and shoving this into the spotlight against the wishes of the majority biggots too? after all, they expouse the same intolerance of the majority?

Notice i didnt use god, morality, good/evil? Notice im not saying dont be gay, or gays get out, or any other such nonsence...
Im just looking at basic civics 101, and wondering why sociology has been tossed aside?

As far as your assertion that there is oppression vs gays, YES there is and are some examples of "gay bashing" but i do not see a concerted effort by even a minority of people to persecute/restrice/or cause grief to any gays. There is no ground swell to make gays go away, hide or other crap. We mostly see an attitude that what you do in your bedroom is none of our business, and therefore none of societies business either.

Your say that; me saying no to your request is equal to throwing a brick thru your window, or scrawling hateful graffiti? What a way to overhype your opression.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Gay people can self determine they want to be gay all day and night, but what makes this ok to DEMMAND accomodations based on their self determinations, and then point the finger and call people in the majority names because the answer was no to their request?
My whole problem with this scenario is, people shouldn't have to ask you, or anyone else, for rights. They should always be allowed to do what they want, as long as it's not harmful to others. That's freedom, isn't it? You shouldn't have to get permission to be who or what you want to be. If that's society's role, then I say # SOCIETY! They can kiss my ass, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I never cared for society anyway. For the most part, they're dumb asses whom I want nothing to do with. Yet, they insist on inflicting their silly closed minded beliefs upon me, never realizing that, even though they may be the majority, they're fools. Live and let live. That's what it's all about. Until people can understand that, this is always going to be a fuctup country and/or world.
You see, I won't live by society's rules. Although I've never harmed anyone, ever, I've been made a criminal by your idiotic laws. Many, otherwise harmless, people have. Now, I guess gay people will be the new criminals? This is rather ironic, really. I don't give a rats ass about gays. It's just the principles here that bother me.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
UBER,

THIS IS TOTALLY ABOUT A CULTURES RIGHTS OF SELF DETERMINATION, NOT SELF DETERMINATION.

Are you saying that a minorities abillity to ask its culture/society for more acceptance/accomodations is MORE IMPORTANT than the cultures rights of majority concensus?

Gay people can self determine they want to be gay all day and night, but what makes this ok to DEMMAND accomodations based on their self determinations, and then point the finger and call people in the majority names because the answer was no to their request?

Take ANY issue, Issue X......Mega-culture is debating if to adopt issue X as policy. Issue X was proposed by 20% of the population. Mega-culture, thru democratic processes gets a 60% no determination on this issue X, and so they decline to implement issue X.

ITS NOT ABOUT THE WHAT YOUR ASKING FOR....it does not matter if you insert gay marriage, murder, drug use or anything as ISSUE X....The reality of the situation is that you have a democratic republic, being asked by a minority, to make an adjustment to its cultural base. IS THIS NOT THE CASE??

Trying to say gay marriage is more important that the overall society just shows i was right about the "GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME" approach...the one that tries to equate a culture thats not activly trying to do anything to add restrictions/oppression to people being gay or the resulting behaivior or activities, to one that upholds slavery.

For you to say that ALL SOCIETY is bigoted is a fallicy of logic. We wouldnt be getting along here as good as we are if everything was bigoted...and no compromises were made.

Why is everyone that doesnt agree with gay marriage a biggot?

Why arent those in the minority that are the ones pushing and shoving this into the spotlight against the wishes of the majority biggots too? after all, they expouse the same intolerance of the majority?

Notice i didnt use god, morality, good/evil? Notice im not saying dont be gay, or gays get out, or any other such nonsence...
Im just looking at basic civics 101, and wondering why sociology has been tossed aside?

As far as your assertion that there is oppression vs gays, YES there is and are some examples of "gay bashing" but i do not see a concerted effort by even a minority of people to persecute/restrice/or cause grief to any gays. There is no ground swell to make gays go away, hide or other crap. We mostly see an attitude that what you do in your bedroom is none of our business, and therefore none of societies business either.

Your say that; me saying no to your request is equal to throwing a brick thru your window, or scrawling hateful graffiti? What a way to overhype your opression.


Caz media, you're misreading what I say. I never said that the minority SHOULD have it's interests take precedent over the majority, I'm saying in this instance whether it be civil union or marriage I found the arguments against it to be mainly knee jerk, emotive or debated from a point of ignorance. I fully agree with a cultural majority's right to self determination but when they use points like 'next sex with children and animals will be legalised' I find it hard to find any rational basis for their objections and therefore I'm left feeling that the issue of gay marriage or civil union has not been properly addressed. Incidentally you may wish to take the religious veiwpoint out of the equation but seeing as a fair few people within society follow, at least nominally, some kind of belief system based on the bible that may inform their veiwpoint in this debate, I can't see how it can be ignored completely.

I never said that ALL society is bigoted I'm just making the observation that it exists and extends throughout all strata and classes and so will influence the democratic process. I never said that all people who are against gay marriage are bigots I've just found that whenever you get to the nub of their objections it seems to have a lot to do with misinfomed opinion and/or bigotry, I even base my own opinion that we gay people should opt for civil union rather than marriage on the fact that many in society cannot or will not get their head around the fact that it wont corrupt, defile or destroy 'marriage' so better to comprimise and hope they come round to the idea one day. But it's still an opinion that basically panders to predjudice and ignorance. I doubt you can accuse me of putting my own interests above the wishes of the many on that score.

Finally I don't equate throwing bricks through my window/graffiti etc as on a par with objecting to gay marriage, I used that example to illustrate the fact that feeling threatened does not in itself invalidate a persons arguments, something that you seemed to be implying in your earlier post, I don't play the 'persecuted fag' card, very passe these days don't you know,:shk:and feel no need to overhype my or anyone elses oppression in fact the majority of gays tend to have a shoulder shrugging attitude to a lot of the silliness from both pro and anti's. If anything we tend to play a lot of it down, life's too short.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Remember that all this sillyness came from the statement I made in regards to being married is not a right, but rather a recognition.

_______________

A recognition by a religion, right? Whose religion? It seems like you think the judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts; the Church of the Gay Union is hocus-pocus, in your words.

Intolerant:

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

You sure sound intolerant to me.

______________________
Quote by KJ:

I made no claims other than that.

SO, when you brought something up, I clarified. Where's the deflection considering YOU brough it up?

As for the Episcopalian faith, they have degrated the faith of Christianity in that homosexuality is not allowed.

There is nothing hypocritical or intolerant about any of what I said, so why don't you try backing up your claims while you make them.


______________________________

I just did. You can try to spin it any way you want, it won't work.

_______



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia

JSOBECKY
Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?



____________________________

You are citing laws that deal with the public safety, as with child labor laws.

Discrimination is not a valid definition, in this case.

Discrimination

1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

This is where public safety exits, and the real definition of discrimination applies. It is a case of intolerance.

Try to deny a man a job because he is black. Or atheist. See how far you get. That's exactly what you're trying to do.

As far as your "societal boundaries" argument goes, our society has decided that it is illegal to discriminate based upon race, religion, creed, gender, or sexual preference. Deal with it.


_________________



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Try to deny a man a job because he is black. Or atheist. See how far you get. That's exactly what you're trying to do.

Yeah, but you can deny a man a job because his hair is too long, or he didn't have a firm enough handshake. You can deny anyone, any job, for any reason, as long as you don't say why. It could be just because you don't like their personality. Discrimination is legal, and very common. It happens every day. It's when the reasons become known that people get mad. You know, if I say, "Well, frankly, I just don't hire black people." Then yeah, it's going to be a big deal, but only if the person can prove I ever said it in the first place. If we were in an office, at a private interview, good luck trying to bring up any charges. See how that works? There are no laws against discrimination. There are only laws against making it obvious.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
A recognition by a religion, right? Whose religion? It seems like you think the judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts; the Church of the Gay Union is hocus-pocus, in your words.

I was talking about it being a recognition by the government, not a religion. The government recognizes the religious union (although it has gained a governmental dynamic, i.e. state unions). I didn't say judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts, you did. The church of the gay union (which is not real as far as I have seen, and I looked) IS a hocus pocus (the opposite would be established) because there is a need so POOF, there it is. It would only be used to get around the words of law, nothing more.

Intolerant:

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

You sure sound intolerant to me.

Intolerant? No
Unaccepting? Yes
And thanks, but I know what the word means. Don't preconceive my opinion from a few sentences.

______________________
Quote by KJ:

I made no claims other than that.

SO, when you brought something up, I clarified. Where's the deflection considering YOU brough it up?

As for the Episcopalian faith, they have degrated the faith of Christianity in that homosexuality is not allowed.

There is nothing hypocritical or intolerant about any of what I said, so why don't you try backing up your claims while you make them.


______________________________

I just did. You can try to spin it any way you want, it won't work.

I find it hard to believe that I am being accused of trying to spin something that you weaved out of thin air. You assume and guess. You have no basis of attack on me in this arena. Weave away.

_______



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
UBER,

I agree that there is ignorance and intolerance on both sides of this issue. Thats why I felt it important to get to the real heart of this debate...what was the real question? I understood that the "slippery slope" argument about nambla and sex with animals ect, was not being communicated effectivly enough, OR recieved in the context this argument was meant to be put forth.
Yes the concerns about this "slope" argument are real, but the argument was not usable "as is" for a marriage defence.

I agree with you that both bigotry and religious ideology is behind many peoples decision making process...this is both good and bad. It is good that their cultural/religious beliefs/history have been carried on to a next generation. But this is bad when people are either too stupid or too "indoctrinated" to see outside their viewpoint and objectivly assess the issue.

I dissagree on your assertion that a change to the definition of marriage wont "hurt" it.
If we change the premise of an idea, then it is changed and not the same thing. The degree to which this change actually affected things can only be theorized on until the change is implimented. Meaning, untill we do the change, its only a guess as to how much this change affected things. While i agree that this change would not "destroy" the institution of marriage, a change to this idea is still a change, and there would be resulting concequences...many of wich are either unwelcome or unseen and hence "fear inducing".

now that you have discused this several times, it seems that you are a "moderate gay", in that you have taken a wise position on adopting civil unions over gay marriage. I do not agree with you on the REASON you took this stance. (its reasonable and an understandable logical approach but)

The reason you stated you adopted this stance is "many in society cannot or will not get their head around the fact that it wont corrupt, defile or destroy 'marriage' so better to comprimise and hope they come round to the idea one day." the reason i dont agree with this approach is that it belittles and shows NO respect for your opposition. In simpler terms, you took this compromise (in part im sure) because "they werent going to give us what we wanted", not because you respected their rights as the majority, and recognition of this cultures evolution up to now. Im not saying you have to respect them because they are right on the issue, but because it is their right to have those beliefs and act accordingly.

You can say their arguments pander to bigotry and ignorance, and you might be correct (in degrees) BUT it doesnt matter WHY they have those ideas it only matters that they CAN and do. again this is an insulting debate tactic....who are you in your arrogance to KNOW that they are ignorant becuase they dont aggree with you?

Feeling threatened does NOT invalidate an argument. You did basically state that out of all of the anti-gay marriage defences offered, that mine was the most threatening however. This leads me to believe thats because it has the most reasonable weight behind it.
Personally im glad i got this reaction, it was expected.
I knew that my line of reasoning here was very valid and one that puts BOTH sides on this issue into a pickle with their arguments.

When you make a statement that equates saying no to a violent/hoatile act...You have basically slandered the other person. Be careful with the analogies you make and how you say things...people are listening, and tone, and accuracy count.
i understand your zest to make a strong point, but the statement that you made did point to persecution that wasnt being put forth by me.
Feeling threatened doesnt invalidate the argument, nor does it validate exaggerations of circumstances.

"persecuted fag card"
Ive never heard that term before even tho ive agrued that this tactic has been utilized. You say as a gay person that this use is becomming passe' in your circles...i wonder why? (its not as valid as theyd like it to be??)

You said;
"the majority of gays tend to have a shoulder shrugging attitude to a lot of the silliness from both pro and anti's. If anything we tend to play a lot of it down, life's too short."

I thought MOST people of both persuasions felt this way...basically what you do in the privacy of your house is none of my business, hence none of societies business either...but now somehow, we wrestle with weather society has a concern here and have been lured into an us vs them mentality, instead of, hey its your sex life, just dont ask us to do something about it.

Interesting side note to this attitude of "dont ask dont tell"
Mankind has tried to wipe each other out based on race, religion, ideology, resources ect for many centuries...but i dont see any history of trying to single out gays for this kind of aggression....Why? i feel that thru time, mankind has realized that this type of relationship is basicly sexual between the people involved and didnt really matter to those outside as long as this behaivor was not "pushed intotheir faces"

While gay attitudes have been shown thru time, they seem to have neither risen to prominence OR become the focus of a "wipe them out" position.
Just a speculative thought there.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
JSOBECKY

Most of the examples i cited are at the FEDERAL level, and in fact most do NOT concern safety at all...
What does income base for taxing (economic discrimination) have to do with safety? or retirement bennifits (age based) have to do with safety?
As far as child labor laws, yes they were IN PART about safety, but also an effort to open up jobs to ADULTS in order to lower the unemployment rate during the depression.

The ACT of discrimiation is nessisary in order to set parameters...in order to tell one thing from another, and give defintion betwen things/ideas....
Its how and why this tool is used that becomes problematic. Yes this act can be misused, but this doesnt mean it should not exist.

Intolerance on this issue goes both ways...
majority too intolorant to become moreinclusive,
and the minority too intolorant of the majorities beliefs and cultural practices to see anything other than oppression.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:40 AM
link   
SATYR,

YOU SAID;
"My whole problem with this scenario is, people shouldn't have to ask you, or anyone else, for rights. They should always be allowed to do what they want, as long as it's not harmful to others."

RIGHTS are also RESPONSIBILLITIES...They are 2 sides of the same coin, and neither side is more important than the other.

Have you read the satanic bible, by Anton Levey?
The idea that one can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone IS EXACTLY THE POINT OF THEIR IDEOLOGY! Do whatever you want with no responsibillities is ANARCHY!!! Are you a Devil worshiper or an anarchist? (i try to use religion sooo rarely)

YOUR LACK OF CARING IS YOUR PROBLEM NOT OURS.
YOU SAID; "I never cared for society anyway. For the most part, they're dumb asses whom I want nothing to do with. Yet, they insist on inflicting their silly closed minded beliefs upon me, never realizing that, even though they may be the majority, they're fools."
YOU ALSO SAID; "I won't live by society's rules"

Foolish or not, the society has the right to make that decision.
Both of these statements show me that you feel no connection to society or the culture around you. I feel pity for those that feel this way and often wonder how we can all come together for good. How can we as a society engage people to become more involved not less? You are not alone in this feeling.

Your statements totally back up my point about the gays (arguments in general, not all gays) having no respect and just whining about a list of demmands with no care about the rammifications of what they ask for or respect twords those they seek acceptance from.
Respect is earned not given.

It's no wonder then that people that think like you are soo willing to throw the definition of marriage out the window...you dont recognise its right to exist in the first place.

When you say you wont live by societies rules, you have that right to make that choice, but then accept responsibillity for your choice and DONT BLAME society for your being "outside" of it. You made a CHOICE as to not go along with the societies ideas for what ever reason...so to say THEY are enforcing close minded (opinion) rules on you is mis-stating the case...You asked/took yourself to be outside from them, They did not force you in or out.

YOU SAID;
"Although I've never harmed anyone, ever, I've been made a criminal by your idiotic laws. Many, otherwise harmless, people have. Now, I guess gay people will be the new criminals? "

Im going to guess (damn, I'm breaking the never assume rule) That your referance to being made a criminal is based on the laws against POT. While i would likley agree with you on that legal situation, and would even work to lobby those laws get changed. I do NOT advocate violating the law because you feel the laws no good.

If you have a criminal backround, again YOU not society is to blame. Your actions have made you a criminal, not the law....Even if you and i agree that the law is improper, if we chose to violate it, then WE did it to ourselves, there is noone else to blame.

NO ONE is saying make gays illegal or to add or pass any new restrictions against them...what we are saying is basicly "we cant grant your request on this issue".

While I have debated this gay marriage issue on multiple threads here with people like UBER or JSO...
at least all of us SEEM to have some respect for each other and for the society in general when we try to reach some kind of consensus.

But with people like you, that really do not care about anyone other than themselves, i cant take any pity on you and in fact think you are a part of a growing problem.

Learn to play the game, or let the game play you...
or here's an idea, find a culture you can relate to and MOVE THERE if you dont like the one that was here long before you were born.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr

Then yeah, it's going to be a big deal, but only if the person can prove I ever said it in the first place. There are no laws against discrimination. There are only laws against making it obvious.


______________________

So, masked discrimination exists. And??

There are things that are so obvious that they don't warrant mentioning.

And yes there are laws against discrimination. There have been many successful prosecutions of discrimination, even though the act was vigorously denied.

_______________



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
JSOBECKY

Most of the examples i cited are at the FEDERAL level, and in fact most do NOT concern safety at all...
What does income base for taxing (economic discrimination) have to do with safety? or retirement bennifits (age based) have to do with safety?
As far as child labor laws, yes they were IN PART about safety, but also an effort to open up jobs to ADULTS in order to lower the unemployment rate during the depression.

The ACT of discrimiation is nessisary in order to set parameters...in order to tell one thing from another, and give defintion betwen things/ideas....
Its how and why this tool is used that becomes problematic. Yes this act can be misused, but this doesnt mean it should not exist.

Intolerance on this issue goes both ways...
majority too intolorant to become moreinclusive,
and the minority too intolorant of the majorities beliefs and cultural practices to see anything other than oppression.


Caz

You're stating thimgs that are so obvious, I wonder why you're going through the motions. I mean, we could say "Yes! Discrimination exists at the primal level because the strongest animals get to repoduce...it's natural selection!" But what is the point of stating the obvious?

My question to you is, are you using the fact that discrimination exists as a basis for denying gays anything?

________________



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
What? No commentary from the peanut gallery Jso?

I guess my last post cleared up all your misunderstandings.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
[Edited on 14-4-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
How can we as a society engage people to become more involved not less? You are not alone in this feeling.

How, you ask??? Stop telling me what I can and can't do with my own body. Stop trying to force me to be as paranoid and fearful as you are. Simple, eh? I pity the idiots that live their entire life trying to control destiny and other people's lives. Little do they realize, it's always going to be a losing battle. You sound like one of those idiots.
You're not a society of free people. You're the #ing Borg! "Resistance is futile! Join our way of thinking, or we'll destroy you!"
That's why I'd rather have nothing to do with you. It's not my problem. It's yours. Your idiotic society rules based on 100% USDA bull#, is what gave me that attitude.

BTW, I don't subscribe to religious fallacies of any kind, so I'd have no reason to read the Satanic bible.


[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
What? No commentary from the peanut gallery Jso?

I guess my last post cleared up all your misunderstandings.


_____________

No, it's just that you're twisting your words. You know, but won't admit, that you do not hold the Church of the Gay Union as as a valid church. Therefore you are intolerant.

Sort of like calling someone a hypocrite because they're divorced, KJ, when they want to talk about marriage. Sort of like telling them that you think it's funny that they are trying to talk about marriage even though they screwed everything up in their own marriage (your assesment, not their admittance, even tho you don't know a thing about them). Sort of like taking a cheap shot, something I had thought was not your style.

Get my drift, KJ?

____________



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

_____________

No, it's just that you're twisting your words. You know, but won't admit, that you do not hold the Church of the Gay Union as a valid church. Therefore you are intolerant.

Um, ok I looked chief, and I have found no such thing as the Church of the Gay Union, so obviously it would be "hocus pocus" because it would be established to get around the rules. If it DOES exist, then how about you show it to me rather than throwing it out again and again. Not knowing is not intolerant. You confuse the issue.


Sort of like calling someone a hypocrite because they're divorced, KJ, when they want to talk about marriage.

Was that you? You still mad about that? Nevertheless, you confuse the issue again. I don't recall calling them a hypocrite, so you should probably get a quote since it's plainly on the site and within your reach.

Sort of like telling them that you think it's funny that they are trying to talk about marriage even though they screwed everything up in their own marriage (your assessment, not their admittance, even though you don't know a thing about them).

It was funny, was it not? Although you are twisting it to suit your purpose like you so like to do. I said that it was funny that someone who was divorced was talking about MANDITORY MARRIAGE. The whole idea was ridiculous to me and didn't even warrant serious thought. The weirdness of it all was exacerbated by the fact that it came from someone who did not live up to his vows (which by the way is an honest assessment, but I am sure you'll take it badly).

Sort of like taking a cheap shot, something I had thought was not your style.

Get my drift, KJ?

Cheap shot eh? I don't consider it a cheap shot. Perhaps an easy and obvious one, but not cheap. You set yourself up (if it was you). Consider this. Do you think people would not find humor in saying that military service should be mandatory for all people, only the person who said it was punitively discharged from the military for failure to live up to the commitment he made?

But yeah, I get your drift. Assumption is the mother of all #ups friend.

____________



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by jsobecky

But yeah, I get your drift. Assumption is the mother of all #ups friend.

____________



My mistake with that whole MandAtory marriage thing was using hyperbole and sarcasm to try to promote discussion of an argument (procreation) used by some to deny gays the right to marry.

By the replies I got, I obviously drastically overestimated the intelligence of the majority of the audience, especially you, who was trying to inject some excitement into his own sucky, dead-end marriage by pandering to a gum-cracking teenybop.

Same as the Church of the Gay Union thing. I don't know if such a church exists. But it could exist, or someone could create it. That's way over your head, though. You obviously cannot grasp an argument at a conceptual level. That's why they use different colored jelly beans for racial sensitivity training, for cognitively challenged dimwits like you. Dumbing down, it's called.

And I'm not your friend, punk.

________________

______________



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join