Should we boycott gay businesses?

Originally posted by Jim Scott

You could hardly equate homosexuals with nazis, in fact homosexuals were murdered in the holcaust.

I am not equating them. The gays have pointed to businesses that did not support their Prop 8 resistance. In that way, there is a similarity. However, the leaders of the Nazis hated the Jews. Of course, Christians don't hate anyone, by definition although sometimes not by practice on an individual exception basis, as with any belief system. More Christians were killed in the holocaust than Jews or homosexuals. This is off-topic.

And, it never will reach your doorstep. I'm pretty sure if you just simply allow gay people to coexist

. Well, since the gays are using forces against businesses and individuals, why not substitute the word Nazi for the word gay in your quote. Then you will see why it is good to resist. This is off-topic.

Sorry, but just how is gay marriage unconstitutional?

The law permitting marriage between like sexes is not found in the Constitution. This is off-topic.

And, how are our social mores being changed?

Social mores for thousands of years prevented marriage between like sexes. This would change the mores to permit marriage between like sexes. This is off-topic.

How are children being reeducated?

Our children are already being taught to accept domestic partnerships in our schools. If marriage is permitted between like sexes, they will be taught acceptance of this, too. This is off-topic.

And, can you explain to me just what is Sexual Affinity Disorder? I googled it and can't find a thing. This is off-topic.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by chickenshoes]

Sorry , but all those things you claim as off topic on my part, you brought up. I was just calling you on them. If you didn't want them discussed, maybe you shouldn't have brought them up.

And, if you're going to throw around names to what are seeming like made up diseases on your part, I think you should probably explain what you're talking about.

When I google the term, it brings up no information, so obviously you either just made that up, or you have some information that the rest of us don't. So, do share

[edit on 12/2/2008 by chickenshoes]

Not wait until they get to your doorstep?...And you are the only one left?
I will try and be polite despite your likening the gay community to Nazis.
You are not being oppressed by the gay community. They are not rampaging through your streets and on the verge of busting into your house and making you do gay acts.

Actually, you may have missed the news on the tens of thousands of gay rights activists nationwide pushing and shoving their agenda into the face of the opposition. It was really big news. Had I a house in that neighborhood, maybe..... I like the American way. Have the fight as far from home as possible, like Iraq before it gets here. So, I am not waiting for it to get in my house. LOL

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

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

Also -- Your bit about history. Yes for thousands of years there have been laws against homosexuality. That doesn't make it right. There were also laws for thousands of years encouraging slavery, women as property, people burned at the stake for different religious views, speaking out against the church, the old testament says you should be stoned to death for wearing clothes made of different fabrics ... History is to be learned from..not repeated.

Off topic. However, a comment: none of these laws concerned sexual immorality or sexual perversion. Again, off topic.

All of your cut and paste definitions of Morality and perversion were based in circular logic ....Morality is acting "right"..."Right" is doing what is the "Norm"..the "Norm is what is "Expected" On and On it goes..These definitions are better discovered through introspection than websters dictionary.

Actually, Random House College Dictionary, which is up to date enough to have the four letter f*** and all of its associated words.
What you are proposing is disregarding laws and customs that are the foundations of civilization and starting off on a "new" road. Perhaps that "new" road has already been trodden for thousands of years before the laws and customs were developed, and they found that your "new" thinking didn't work way back then. So why throw away thousands of years of accepted rules for behavior in sexual relationships because a very small segment of society wants to do it their way? Again, off the topic.

reply to post by chickenshoes

Off topic again.
You're getting me in trouble.
Here's your reply:

Def. of sexual: of or pertaining to sex, occurring between or involving the two sexes.
Def. of affinity: a natural liking or attraction
Def. of disorder: lack of order or regular arrangement, irregularity, breach of order, derangement of physical or mental health, disturbance.

Sounds fitting, and I like that it spells s*a*d. Kinda reverses g*a*y.
You don't mind, do you? I like to coin a new term. Perhaps it will catch on.

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

Oh lawd I wouldn't even know how to address this paranoid rant in a few paragraphs. Might I suggest Prozac as it will calm one's nerves and have one stop ranting like a lunatic. Several remind me of the of the racists here in the south that find less and less listeners until he is all by himself with nobody listening but, still ranting.

If there were any gay businesses knowingly owned here they would already be boycotted by churches or burned to the ground. That is why the clubs locally hire police because a church group will come out and try to destroy the building every so often.

Why did these individuals slap their business name down anyway over a political issue? This heralds back to the day when my brother got handwritten notices on his divorce from his ex father in laws business stationary. His lawyer basically confronted that business and asked them why this corporation were interfering with his divorce.

There is a two sided coin to just leaving gays alone. That would be these closeted married bisexual men could come forward and have their wives and children tested for venereal disease or at least be aware of the world around them to make intelligent choices. That is what what was discovered in Spartanburg SC that there was a network of bisexual married men that slept together and the one interviewed was HIV+ as well as other STD's.

It was chosen not to pursue nor reveal which married men this guy slept with unprotected because the issue was delicate because most were well respected churchified men in the community. The man claimed to have had unprotected sex with 1000's. All this type of legislation does is push this type of health issue further underground for nothing larger than self righteous hypocrisy.

That is why I said before that this type of thing only affects gays that are open and truthful of themselves and honest. What these churchified people want is lies and hypocrisy. This will solve more problems with divorce than any self dignified preacher counselor because there can be discussion within relationships instead of hiding.

I ask the females of this group do you really want to go back to old ways and be married to gay men that hide their true self? If your husband is bisexual would you rather not know or for him to have the option of being open about it in the first place so you can make wise decisions?







[edit on 2/12/2008 by toochaos4u]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Perhaps that "new" road has already been trodden for thousands of years before the laws and customs were developed, and they found that your "new" thinking didn't work way back then. So why throw away thousands of years of accepted rules for behavior in sexual relationships because a very small segment of society wants to do it their way?

Let's look at the old ways:







You've got me convinced. The old ways are better.

It's beautiful the amount of intolerance and bigotry the pro-gay side is showing.

Rather hypocritical to boot.

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.

reply to post by toochaos4u

Like most of us on ATS, I presume, we were all over 20 when the AIDS epidemic began. I, for one, wish the original 250 were quarantined. A lot of lives would have been saved. However, at the time, it was not politically correct to quarantine the gays. Therefore, it spread forth to the land and the land was cursed for their sakes. (cool religion stuff, no?) Again, off topic.



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

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Hey, nice photos. Not all the old ways are great, so lets throw out all the old ways and start completely over. Fair enough?

Cool, let's go with something new. The current Pledge of Allegiance has been in place since 1954, I'm sure you took it:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I don't think we need a definition of justice. Let's look at "liberty":

Onelook dictionary:

"noun: freedom of choice ("Liberty of opinion")
▸ noun: personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

The pledge didn't say, "Liberty and justice for some". Or, "Liberty and justice for straight people". It said, "FOR ALL"

reply to post by intrepid


Well, did you see the quote about the size of the AIDS virus?

The ad, published 4/22/92 in The Washington Times, was written by C.M. Roland (Editor of "Rubber Chemistry Land Technology"). It shows three circles and describes the relative sizes: sperm=about 50 microns, standard latex holes=5 microns, and AIDS virus=0.1 microns.

My son was taught this at Cal Poly Pomona in microbiology, 14 year ago. So why isn't the word getting out to the public?

The math above shows that fifty AIDS virus could go through the condom hole shoulder to shoulder. Therefore, one is not a problem. And, it only takes one. Plus, you know how messy sex can get. The virus in also in the mess around the condom, right? So, what's the use?
Sorry, off topic. Just for you.

reply to post by intrepid


Can I add one more photo? This one is more modern.

"Brotherhood and Justice" indeed. Below is an example of Iranian justice - four men hanged because they are homosexuals.



Thank goodness it hasn't happened here in the U.S.A.... oh wait....

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by toochaos4u

 

Like most of us on ATS, I presume, we were all over 20 when the AIDS epidemic began. I, for one, wish the original 250 were quarantined. A lot of lives would have been saved. However, at the time, it was not politically correct to quarantine the gays. Therefore, it spread forth to the land and the land was cursed for their sakes. (cool religion stuff, no?) Again, off topic.



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

Actually I was a teenager way back when in a religious school that condoned killing of gays. I'm not sure it would have been politically correct to quarantine anyone. I will say for a long time nobody knew what they were dealing with so to quarantine would have been years still with no answer.

The curse to the land is not teaching all the correct means to protect one's self. That's why education of bisexuality is so important as issues can be discussed in the open instead of hiding behind churches that care not for the safety of people other than spreading a moral code that most people really don't follow.

When my niece is told by her mother at 13 that her vagina is a monkey sex education is suffering big time.

Onelook dictionary:

"noun: freedom of choice ("Liberty of opinion")
▸ noun: personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

The pledge didn't say, "Liberty and justice for some". Or, "Liberty and justice for straight people". It said, "FOR ALL"

Ok, liberty:
Def. of liberty: (1) freedom from despotic government or rule.
Def. of despotic: of despot: a ruler having absolute power; autocrat, any tyrant or oppressor.
Constitution:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Other than the simple one line beginning, this is the only reference to liberty in the Constitution. Ironically, it came as an amendment. Asterisks mine.
Could we infer then that the liberty of which you speak has not been established by any law, including the Constitution?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Nice photo, a little off topic, since gays haven't been hanging heterosexuals first. When they do, check back with me. LOL

reply to post by Jim Scott


Constitution you say? Who wrote that?

Actually I was a teenager way back when in a religious school that condoned killing of gays.

Ok, that's definitely not Christian. Jesus said to love one another.

I'm not sure it would have been politically correct to quarantine anyone.

Actually, the rules were already on the books for decades because of the TB epidemics. CDC should have followed the law.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Constitution you say? Who wrote that?

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

The problem I see with this thread is exactly what is wrong with the world imo. People need to band together and realize that there are bigger problems going on. We need to stand up and unite as one and get over the fighting each other for our differences. WE all bleed the same, love the same, etc. and we need to wake up and embrace this fact or we are never going to survive.

reply to post by Jim Scott


That is how it always starts. It starts with someone who just doesn't like anyone who is different. Eventually it will get to that point if nothing stops it.

Everyone has the right to boycott any company. That is what you want us to say. Yes, it's true. But which gay owned business? Remember, this is the action of few homosexuals who boycott companies who are for Prop 8.

Originally posted by lazarus801
The problem I see with this thread is exactly what is wrong with the world imo. People need to band together and realize that there are bigger problems going on. We need to stand up and unite as one and get over the fighting each other for our differences. WE all bleed the same, love the same, etc. and we need to wake up and embrace this fact or we are never going to survive.

I'm with you. I have better things to do than go around boycotting and violently protesting and name-calling. I would like folks to be more civilized in their protesting, too. But they started it.