|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:19 AM by undo
|
reply to post by rickyrrr
i said don't go there with me because you were apparently stereotyping me. you didn't read my posts all the way through, so you assumed i was just
like the stereotype that's been massaged to the point of absurdity on tv shows, movies, songs, and books.
i don't agree with withholding the marriage rights from gay people because i KNOW the government is not GOD and therefore it can't say what is and
isn't sacred. it has no blooming idea what is and isn't sacred. so the rest of your point was moot! what's there to argue about since i think
they should have the same rights under US law to begin with? otherwise, the law is not following its own precepts. you might as well be preaching to
the choir!
[edit on 12-11-2008 by undo]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:21 AM by niteboy82
|
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion. reply to post by rcwj75
Um. No.
Personally, I can't speak for BH but I can speak for myself, but I would think it would be pretty idiotic for one gay guy to go up against a bunch of
Christian extremists.
But what exactly is it that is stupid about the gay people protesting that want equal rights? This is not about people not seeing their ideas
their way. This is about the fact that I can be with someone for 50 years and still without the legal protections lose all my rights to show up in the
hospital to visit, to make necessary death/funeral arrangements, to receive after death benefits, or anything else that goes along with being legally
recognized in union. I am not quite clear on what you expect people in that situation to say, want, or feel? Do you want them to say, "ok, after 50
years of being together, he's dead now, we have no legal protections, I sure hope he had enough money in his name alone to prevent a pauper's grave
funeral."
 So sad. And we are supposed to be the superior country.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:30 AM by xDove007
|
We Dems are no longer the peaceful kind 
Shame on those who can't accept others opinions (like people can be shamed ).
Sad to see people will treat others who oppose their views this way. 
[edit on 12-11-2008 by xDove007]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:34 AM by sos37
|
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by rcwj75
I am quite sure this kind of stupid babble wouldn't come out of you if this was a lone gay at an ANTI-GAY protest...then all of a sudden it would be
the other way around...
You would be 100% WRONG.
If a gay man went into an anti-gay protest or a church in his most "attractive attire" and danced like a flamer and was attacked by the protesters
or congregation, I would ABSOLUTELY say the same thing.
He was an idiot for going in there in the first place.
I see. So you're saying that the first amendment applies only when you're not being an idiot, right? Only when you're not a single person standing
against a crowd of people who think otherwise?
You KNOW you're going to have to admit this old woman has the right to speak her mind and hold her cross, no matter where she stands in this country,
BH, unless you've decided the Constitution only applies to the people you agree with.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:40 AM by pavil
|
What I do find shocking is the response that a few of you have here. So now it's somehow acceptable, alright, justified whatever term you want for
people to use physical acts against another person just because they are "protesting in your space". You have basically said it's alright to
manhandle someone simply because they are there and you don't happen to agree with them.
It would be alright for a Black group to rough up a KKK guy or vice versa? How bout a Jew and Hamas meeting? You are condoning using violent means
to get your point across, that's wrong.
Look in the mirror, is this the image you want? Tell me honestly if you and your son or daughter were witnessing this, that you would tell them that
kind of behavior was acceptable to do to others? "Sure Son, it's ok to do that to someone you disagree with, heck you can even push them around and
take stuff from them".
I worry about where that train of thought leads.........................
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:40 AM by sos37
|
Originally posted by rickyrrr
Originally posted by sos37
Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by SonicInfinity
That video made me LOL! But seriously...that old woman was provoking a large angry crowd full of gay men. While I don't agree with them pulling away
things from her hands, it shouldn't be difficult to see how was simply there as a provocateur.
I guess there had to be one person defending the crowd. You must really see the little old lady as a huge threat if you're really defending their
actions.
Little old ladies would hold crosses in front of alleged witches that were burning at the stake. Would you be outraged if somebody tried to stop a
sweet little old lady from pushing her beliefs upon the life of another person if that person is an innocent victim who is been burned alive?
As much as I believe any form of violence is wrong against anybody, all the feeling sorry for her cause "awww it's a little old lady" is an unfair
advantage for that woman, If it was a young white guy who happened to have his head clean shaved holding the cross would this video be posted here?
Even as it would be no less wrong, the answer is "no" as this video has been put here because of the perceived effect it will have on the viewer. It
is pointing the finger at those violent misguided individuals who assaulted her and then implying "Look that's what gays do!" by asking the
supposedly innocent question "Is this going on in other places as well?" Which is in fact an accusatory question to an entire group of people.
What if I show a video of a republican screaming "kill that N" about obama, and then asked "Wow, is this what republicans are like?" it would be
the same sort of strategy: Point the finger at one reckless individual and then plant the seed to hate the entire group.
-rrr
It all boils down to the same thing - freedom of speech, unless they are clearly inciting a riot. I fail to see how a little old lady carrying a cross
at a gay rights rally is inciting a riot. She wasn't telling anyone to band together and form a witch hunt or a lynch mob.
Are the people in that video really so insecure with their beliefs that they are shaken to their core by the sight of a little old lady with a cross
in hand?
Those people really did themselves an injustice by the way they acted.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:40 AM by undo
|
reply to post by sos37
well said! i think people just need to get a grip on what the first amendment is and then use their common sense (if they got it). i'm not saying
that people who disagree on any topic are stupid or senile but the law of the jungle tends to teach us young how best to state our opinions. if you
believe that your well being and longevity should be trumped by the issue at hand, and that it is THAT important, then by all means, but i fail to see
how the issue of gay marriage in a country with the laws this one has, could be so pressing that an old woman would risk her life and limb to do what
she did.
i mean, she's a brave soul. but is it bravery borne out of necessity or senility.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:40 AM by rcwj75
|
Originally posted by niteboy82
But what exactly is it that is stupid about the gay people protesting that want equal rights? This is not about people not seeing their ideas
their way. This is about the fact that I can be with someone for 50 years and still without the legal protections lose all my rights to show up in the
hospital to visit, to make necessary death/funeral arrangements, to receive after death benefits, or anything else that goes along with being legally
recognized in union. I am not quite clear on what you expect people in that situation to say, want, or feel? Do you want them to say, "ok, after 50
years of being together, he's dead now, we have no legal protections, I sure hope he had enough money in his name alone to prevent a pauper's grave
funeral."
So sad. And we are supposed to be the superior country.
Ok so why should everyone be accepting of your choice?? Not everyone should have to jump on the "its ok to be gay" bandwagon...why...because its
their RIGHT not to. Thats the major problem...if the minority is apposed they whine and cry that those people must be ignorant or racist or this that
and the other...why because they don't like you or your choices?
Its a two way street...its not ok for gays to bash straight people who don't like/agree with their choice...just like its not right for straights to
bash people who wanna be gay.
IMO...i don't care if they let gay couples marry...do it..have fun...I am not the one who has a the final say if its wrong...that day will come, then
you'll know for sure. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:43 AM by TheRedneck
|
reply to post by sos37
Those people really did themselves an injustice by the way they acted.
I'd say they did their whole movement and anyone who stands with them an injustice.
Starred.
TheRedneck
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:48 AM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Originally posted by sos37
I see. So you're saying that the first amendment applies only when you're not being an idiot, right? Only when you're not a single person standing
against a crowd of people who think otherwise?
I said no such thing...
The lady has a right to speak her mind, of course. My First Amendment comment was to another poster who said I better also stand by that lady's right
( as I stand by gay's CONSTITUTIONAL rights) to speak her mind.
She's free to speak her mind, but it's not something I support her in because of the First Amendment, whose purpose is to protect speech from the
government. The First Amendment doesn't mean that you can go anywhere and say anything you want and not suffer consequences. It means Congress
can't make a law that prohibits free speech.
Her behavior isn't something that's protected by the first amendment. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the First Amendment.
Edit: And I see from your last post that you don't...
[edit on 12-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:49 AM by sos37
|
reply to post by undo
Oh I totally agree that it wasn't the smartest thing she did by walking into the lion's den with steak in her pockets. But you cannot argue your way
around the first amendment. Those that would even make a case to try to do so by saying she should have been there in the first place don't have a
leg to stand on. I'm frankly surprised by a couple of members of this board whom I thought had more common sense than that. No court of
constitutional law would side with their argument since consitutional rights are indesolvable.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:50 AM by niteboy82
|
Originally posted by rcwj75
Ok so why should everyone be accepting of your choice?? Not everyone should have to jump on the "its ok to be gay" bandwagon...why...because its
their RIGHT not to. Thats the major problem...if the minority is apposed they whine and cry that those people must be ignorant or racist or this that
and the other...why because they don't like you or your choices?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion. Because in order for gay people to make choices, the choices must be provided. Currently the choice is for it to stay the way it is. That's it.
There are no checkboxes here to make your selection. Its just this. Its your right to hate me to hell and back if you want. Its your right to get to
pray to a porcupine to smite me if you want. You don't have to promote it, you don't have to be any part of it. You just have to let me live my life
the way I see fit equally without legislating it, and yes, a lot of people are getting extremely tired of a majority making decisions on a
minority's personal rights as a human being in this country. As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member. Its a two way street...its not ok for gays to bash straight people who don't like/agree with their choice...just like its not right for
straights to bash people who wanna be gay.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion. People should be good to each other. And as you said, at the end of it all, its not our call.  As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:50 AM by Darthorious
|
Lesson learned, she'll remember to ware the necklace and bring a bullhorn next time.
It's kind of crazy in a sense. A good lawyer could argue that their freedom of religion is being infringed upon.
Nearly everyone that says no to this is saying no because their religion says it's a sin. Therefore trying to push their own religious beliefs upon
the masses of people who want gay marriage. By doing this they are in direct violation of the constitution.
It would be the same as saying the KKK is illegal so they can not exist and if they do they could face jail time. Solly based on what religion
teaches. Granite this is a pretty big stretch and there's more to it than that but at a base level I can't really see a difference.
No I do not support the KKK nor do I like what they stand for.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 11:52 AM by pavil
|
Originally posted by undo
THAT important, then by all means, but i fail to see how the issue of gay marriage in a country with the laws this one has, could be so pressing that
an old woman would risk her life and limb to do what she did.
Why should she have had the expectation of risking life and limb? I just don't get how it should be assumed that would happen when you go out to
protest? Should the marchers against Prop 8 that are marching expect to get spit on, beaten up and have their signs taken away from them?
Simply astounding.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:02 PM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Originally posted by undo
i think people just need to get a grip on what the first amendment is
I agree. Why don't you and sos tell us how the First Amendment applies in this situation.
Please.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And, by the way, I am by no means defending what the gay people did to her. I'm not saying what they did was right or defensible. But I'd really
like to know how you guys think the First Amendment applies to this situation.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:04 PM by undo
|
reply to post by pavil
well because of her advancing age, just being in a big crowd of roudy people is dangerous, much less a hostile one that ends up shoving you around
with their stomachs. if she falls, she's likely to break a bone, usually hip bones get broken in elderly women when they fall. many die from it.
my grandmother died from it because it's a huge shock to the system.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:07 PM by undo
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
she was peaceably assembling at a public assembly. that's the way the cookie crumbles. the lesson for people here to learn is, if you go, take
friends and video cameras. don't let the little old ladies be upfront in the mass of the crowd, and use your common sense.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by undo]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:09 PM by pavil
|
reply to post by undo
You are missing my larger point. Should a younger person acting the same way be expected to risk life and limb simply by protesting next to/ right
with that crowd? You are setting a horrible precedence if you think that is acceptable.
Sorry to hear about your grandmother.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:09 PM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Originally posted by undo
she was peaceably assembling at a public assembly.
And what law did Congress make that prohibited that? Read the entire thing.
" Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-11-2008 @ 12:15 PM by undo
|
reply to post by pavil
no one should. i was merely pointing out that her actions seemed to suggest that she wasn't using her common sense in the situation. kinda like
deliberately swimming out in the water to preach to a guy on a raft floating in shark infested waters. you should probably get a boat if you're
gonna do it... ya know. the point being, that if you must, at least be sensible about it. take your health into consideration, determine what is
most important and then go with your gut. if you think you will stop people from being gay by carrying a cross around, then go for it, although i'm
guessing that isn't going to do much of anything. it's just a symbol of public execution not a holy relic. jesus is alive, not a dead guy on a wood
pole.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
