Should we boycott gay businesses?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Believe me, I am all for targeted marketing. It gets results. I would not shotgun against all the gays. Just these militant gays. Help us all by finding out who they are and we can boycott just them.

However, people normally get lazy and fall to the easy generalities. Sorry, but it seems to be the way our brains are wired.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by intrepid

 

Hey, nice photos. Not all the old ways are great, so lets throw out all the old ways and start completely over. Fair enough? Off topic anyway.

You're headline of this thread is "Should we boycott gay businesses?"
I've already postet what i think about that

it seems like you are boiling in you're own oil now. What did you expect by making a thread like this ? Or for that matter if you did start a crusade like this in real life. Result will be the same : you can't expect of people to share all you're views. You devided people in groups. So instead of starting a rage speach against gay people, you actually made you're self into a target.
congrats

Originally posted by Jim Scott


LOL and hey, no fair starring your own stuff......

You can't and I can't. Since you didn't answer I'll help you out there.

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

wiki.answers.com...

Good ole Jeff was majorly responsible for this? Let's look at that for a second:

Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

Wow, pretty extreme. Btw, aren't we supposed to be throwing out the old?

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by intrepid

 

Hey, nice photos. Not all the old ways are great, so lets throw out all the old ways and start completely over. Fair enough? Off topic anyway.

I'd say YOU are off topic.





[edit on 2-12-2008 by intrepid]

If they are taking it upon theirselves to boycott straight buisnesses then yes I'll boycott anything gay,bunch of trouble makers

reply to post by intrepid

Hey, be nice. Is that any way to return a compliment?

reply to post by intrepid


Good ol Jeff was responsible for the line "separation of church and state," too. While we're at it, let's get rid of that. Ok?

Still, off topic.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Good ol Jeff was responsible for the line "separation of church and state," too. While we're at it, let's get rid of that. Ok?

That wouldn't be a good idea. If this had been applied in this case, the Mormon church funding Prop. 8 with money and manpower, we wouldn't be discussing this ridiculous premise.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Yeah, and the only difference is that one group have been victims of a fascist rule and the others have inflicted that rule on them.

I know which side I am on.

If it harms none, let people live their lives in freedom, equality and liberty.
But mess with peoples rights to equality and you get everything you deserve.

Trust me, Gay businesses survive on their own people. They don't need a bunch of homophobic fascists spending their money to keep them going.

The economy in general, on the other hand, will suffer if the Gay community boycott every business but their own.
Ever heard of "disposable income"? That's something the gay community have in abundance, and the Pro Prop8 folks don't have that resource.

You've alienated the wrong community at the wrong time. And once they realize that they could buy almost everything they need from a gay/gay friendly business and cut off all others, the local economy in areas where there is a high gay population will suffer.

Ok, but the victims have always been hetero's as they have seen their rights trampled on by the loud homosexual minority.
You have it backwards.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Jim Scott


LOL and hey, no fair starring your own stuff......

You can't and I can't. Since you didn't answer I'll help you out there.

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

wiki.answers.com...

Good ole Jeff was majorly responsible for this? Let's look at that for a second:

Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

Wow, pretty extreme. Btw, aren't we supposed to be throwing out the old?

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by intrepid

 

Hey, nice photos. Not all the old ways are great, so lets throw out all the old ways and start completely over. Fair enough? Off topic anyway.

I'd say YOU are off topic.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by intrepid]

No, you are....LOL and what about that thing about one line posts? Heyyy. PS: did I tell you I am a points whore?


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

reply to post by arbiture


great job man. The "boycott" is because homosexuals are boycotting as well. Its a targeted boycott, not one that is random. Nice potted plant IQ youve got there

Originally posted by bloodcircle

Originally posted by triplesod

P.s. I'm straight but "breeders" is an absolutely wonderful term for hetero's! Not only because it was picked up by one of America's best bands.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by triplesod]

I disagree, it's obviously not used in an endearing manner, thus it adopts the very same context as the N word. And I take it as such.

If people want tolerance and equality, then adopting the traits of the very people they consider to oppose them, is not going to get anyone anywhere.

Oh give over!

How the hell can you get upset about that? It seems to me you are just looking for things to upset you, so you can shout "EQUALITY!!!"

Heterosexual people breed, in fact, everybody has an inbuilt urge to breed, that is just a fact, so how can a fact be offensive?

Would you whine if gays called us "breathers"? or "eaters"?

C'mon now.


EDIT: To think that the term "breeders" has anything at all in common with the sickening word "'n-word's" is really quite disgusting and just shows how out of touch you really are!

[edit on 2-12-2008 by triplesod]

i had about a 4000 character rant, but i spared everyone and deleted it


should we boycott gay businesses?
dont know dont really care but


if boycotting gay businesses will make it so i dont have to hear about gays and the gay fight every single day anymore, sign me up, tell me where to boycott, and ill be on the picket lines


dont have anything against gays

dont care if they have rights or not

just care that im sick of hearing about em

say what u will about me, but im sure i speak for several others

we're really sick of hearing about the gay struggle and seeing all these gay people at all these gay rallies getting up in everyones faces and just acting completely stupid for the most part in the larger picture of things

yea theres good gays, there are gays who are normal people, but all this gay controversy is overshadowing it and making all gays look bad

so like i said, if boycotting will end this lunacy, then sign me up

Originally posted by Jim Scott

I mean this sincerely...you need help. Talk to someone.

Please, no more ad hominem attacks. Thanks, and lets stay on topic.

Honestly it was not an attack. You are rambling on about doing something before "they" "get to your doorstep" and likening the gay population to Nazis. I genuinely think you are irrationally obsessed with fear of the gay community or something deeper and would do well to sit down and talk to a professional and figure out why you feel so strongly about the issue.

It is a suggestion based on reading your OP and the weak, scattered and nonsensical arguments you have attempted in support of it. It makes me think that there are deeper issues. I feel like debating you is kind of like picking on someone who is not well.

I will leave you with best wishes for finding a more balanced and peacful life. There is no shame in simply talking to a professional. I have done it myself in troubled times.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by detachedindividual


Suppose you had a constitutional right taken away. Consider something like the right to bear arms.... or something even more meaningless like the right to vote.

Now suppose that this right was not taken away from EVERYBODY but only from some group you happen to belong to, and not by choice, (like a religion), more like a group you belong to by a condition brought upon by your birth, such as being circumcised.

Let's suppose that the uncircumcised happen to believe that they are more morally righteous than you simply because they are a majority backed by a long history of ritual avoidance of circumcision.

How hard would you fight to keep that right? And how entitled would the uncircumcised be to fight you every step of the way to keep you down and to keep you from ever fighting to get back that right.

I bet you can't read this without telling yourself, that makes noooo sense at all. A world where that could happen has to be a crazy #ed up world.

Then how come to some people it makes sense to take a constitutional right away from gay people?

-rrr

reply to post by Jim Scott


Jim, you know what else is backed by thousands of years of history? the treatment of women like property. I assume (hope I am right) that you are not proposing that we begin treating women like property. So how come you get to pick and chose which parts of that history are good and which are not?

I'll tell you how: by using your own *subjective* sense of what is moral. Don't pretend that your position is merely an unbiased reflection of thousands of years of history.

-rrr

post by tator3


Your gay classmate is right, you do sound like a 'meathead' in much the same way as he talks "flagrent".


You seem to place a lot of worth in a lot of worth in machismo with the "wuss" comment and the idea that he couldn't do "push-ups". Is that how you measure people generally? With a 'wussiness' scale and an ability to do push-ups? You sad, sad man.
nah sorry, i'll try and clarify. Hes so flagrent that it gets not only me mad, but others as well. I do excersize often, but thats not the point. I value a MAN, gay or not, by his knowledge, athletic prowess, ability, if needed to defend the country, and value to society, in things I regard as "valuable" (sorry if spelled wrong).

I do, in fact, value women differently, for we are, in fact, different and have different strengths and weaknesses. I cannot write as well as many females. I can, however, press 300 lbs. When things need to get moved, the girls in the house or family or dorm talk to me. WE inherintly think differently. So! I value men differently, and dont really expect a woman to have to u know defend the country and use guns etc should we be in a situation like that (although admire every girl who wants to stick it out with us guys in a situation like that).


To me, the way you describe yourself is as "flagrent" as your gay classmates only in a different way and slightly more disturbing.


Does Martin really know how you treat other gay people?

I'm not personally keen on loud people in general, whether they're gay or straight (in a lot of cases, how am to tell anyway?) however your intolerance is bizarre. I don't feel the need to 'call out' screaming queens. Why do you? I'm wondering what that actually says about you. Is it just religious-based bigotry or something else.

Yes, here i am, calling out screamiing queens. I do not appreciate it. Your a male, not a queen. you are allowed to like a guy, you can even dress flag, but don't effect my life and call the whole classrooms attention to yourself. It's silly and annoying.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Jim Scott

I mean this sincerely...you need help. Talk to someone.

Please, no more ad hominem attacks. Thanks, and lets stay on topic.

Honestly it was not an attack. You are rambling on about doing something before "they" "get to your doorstep" and likening the gay population to Nazis. I genuinely think you are irrationally obsessed with fear of the gay community or something deeper and would do well to sit down and talk to a professional and figure out why you feel so strongly about the issue.

It is a suggestion based on reading your OP and the weak, scattered and nonsensical arguments you have attempted in support of it. It makes me think that there are deeper issues. I feel like debating you is kind of like picking on someone who is not well.

I will leave you with best wishes for finding a more balanced and peacful life. There is no shame in simply talking to a professional. I have done it myself in troubled times.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by maybereal11]

Well, you are consistent in your personal attacks. Thank you for your consistency.
On the other hand, you are confusing some of my statements with those of the other posters. I did not begin the Nazi comparison. Please review the posts. That being said, the Nazis were singling out businesses. So are the gays. That's about it for similarities. Sorry if that is offensive, but, like I said, I didn't bring up the Nazis.
Of course, there is no defense for someone suggesting you are imbalanced.

it seems like you are boiling in you're own oil now. What did you expect by making a thread like this ? you can't expect of people to share all you're views. You divided people in groups. So instead of starting a rage speech against gay people, you actually made yourself into a target.
congrats

1. Too many posts are off-topic. I am trying to keep them on topic.
2. I never expect everyone to share my views or your views.
3. I never started a rage speech. I suggested we return the same type of attention the gay people are sharing with us. Is that bad? If it is bad, then attack the gay people, not me. I didn't start it.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Good ol Jeff was responsible for the line "separation of church and state," too. While we're at it, let's get rid of that. Ok?

That wouldn't be a good idea. If this had been applied in this case, the Mormon church funding Prop. 8 with money and manpower, we wouldn't be discussing this ridiculous premise.

Well, you already are aware of the separation of church and state arguement about keeping the state out of the church, not the other way around. So, that doesn't apply to the Mormon church involvement. They are, under the separation of church and state doctrine espoused by T.J., quite appropriately involved. However, I digress and am leading you off topic. My apology.

reply to post by detachedindividual


a religious group not promoting something they see as wrong is not imposign their belief. Its like reducing criminal sentences. not along the same beliefs.