A notice to those who oppose or have a problem with the Gay Rights Movement

reply to post by oneclickaway


Yep. I can unequivocally state that every living being (should) eat, move and procreate - the last ideally. Anything that goes against this paradigm is unnatural and destructive. I'm not using opinion: I'm using fact. Show me a functional entity that subverts these laws and thrives as a species and I'll believe your 'higher' thinking. Face the truth - living beings eat, move and multiply. That's it. That is "by definition natural". Show me proof to the contrary of a successful species and I will listen to you. Otherwise, don't give me a lot of meaningless verbiage. Living beings must obey these 3 laws or be considered a defective and detrimental part of their species.

And yes, I have wondered "what the point of that is". The point is to go forth, be fruitful and MULTIPLY. That is the essence of the law. Any living thing that subverts this law is, by definition, not aligned with the law of Nature.

P.S. "Natural" is not necessarily synonymous with normal. Examine and understand the difference.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by jay.mo

 

OK, let's look at the document itself. It's called the U. S. Constitution, maybe you've heard of it:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

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.

Notice the word in bold type. It's an important one!

Edit to add: I believe, I just don't believe in your God!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

yep you got it wrong read it throughly the government cant stop you from freely believing in what you want to. so the question is what do you believe if you believe in nothing? believing in no god means you dont exsist.

Originally posted by jay.mo
yep you got it wrong read it throughly the government cant stop you from freely believing in what you want to.

EXACTLY! So the question remains.... What right do you have to impose your religion on me?

so the question is what do you believe if you believe in nothing? believing in no god means you dont exsist.

Again, I NEVER said I don't believe in 'nothing'. I just happen to believe in a much more complex, loving and caring God than you do. Not the jealous, self absorbed childish God you seem to be endorsing.

Thanks for the wonderful thread Jaxon!!
I like your style.. And the way you can peacefully handle these kinds of threads and people with such closed minds..

Gandhi, taught to peacefully confront the problematic people and let them show their true colors or character, and then publicize their actions. Its called Gandhi Tech. This method has helped all humans equally...

S&F from me!!
Keep up the good work!

[edit on 14-7-2009 by zysin5]

this is why I would say, hence the term Diversity in America. And that its good. theres non-believers, as well and so on.. People can learn from each other, if they'd just stop the hating.

reply to post by jay.mo

Originally posted by jay.mo
... believing in no god means you dont exsist.

...okay...thats got me interested...

How does not believeing in God mean you don't exist????

reply to post by passenger

The point is to go forth, be fruitful and MULTIPLY.

Well....let's, all of us, examine that little chestnut of platitude for a moment....

Seems, at first, that is simply a parroting of some old, dusty words from a bad translation of something that people thought was 'said' by some diety....a diety that is imaginary in the first place. But, never mind that argument, here's a question:

At what point does it become detrimental to the organism, and the group, as a whole, when there is unfettered "multipying"??? Further, what is to be done with those who are UNABLE to 'multiply'? For whatever reason, it is a well-known fact that sometimes adults of otherwise "fruitful" age cannot conceive --- the cannot "go forth" and procreate! What would you have society, at large, do with those slackers? Throw them away? Shun them? Make them outcasts, somehow de-humanize them???

That is the essence of the law. Any living thing that subverts this law is, by definition, not aligned with the law of Nature.

Says who? The 'diety' mentioned before??? HOW does anyone know this, for certain? You said, "Any living thing that subverts..." is "...not aligned with...Nature."

ANY living thing? Check out my paragraph up above...worship it!

reply to post by passenger

Yep. I can unequivocally state that every living being (should) eat, move and procreate - the last ideally. Anything that goes against this paradigm is unnatural and destructive. I'm not using opinion: I'm using fact. Show me a functional entity that subverts these laws and thrives as a species and I'll believe your 'higher' thinking. Face the truth - living beings eat, move and multiply. That's it. That is "by definition natural". Show me proof to the contrary of a successful species and I will listen to you. Otherwise, don't give me a lot of meaningless verbiage. Living beings must obey these 3 laws or be considered a defective and detrimental part of their species. And yes, I have wondered "what the point of that is". The point is to go forth, be fruitful and MULTIPLY. That is the essence of the law. Any living thing that subverts this law is, by definition, not aligned with the law of Nature. P.S. "Natural" is not necessarily synonymous with normal. Examine and understand the difference.

Yes, natural may not necessarily equate with nature. It seems evident that men who accept only the surface matter of nature would find it perfectly natural to murder, maim, torture and condemn a vast proportion of it’s fellow man to be not worthy of existence, behaviour that is certainly not found in nature and the animal kingdom that the man seeks to hold as the ultimate normality, and behaviour to emulate. Animals kill to eat not to assuage their first grade egotistical views of superiority based on either inherent sickness of being or religious indoctrination. Animals in a herd that are forced to leave their weak, ill or disabled members to die do so not because of any distaste that they cannot procreate and are therefore useless but because they are striving to survive and if they have to stop they are in danger of the very predator who will pick off that weak member (for food). In a higher animal that needs not base it’s behaviour on a need to feed and survive, and who has a more complex brain, a consciousness and a conscience, that same survival mechanism is not needed or desired and becomes unnatural and destructive and defective.
Why would you believe that the point and the LAW was to ‘go forth, be fruitful and multiply’…as I thought you stated that you did not adhere to the beliefs of any religion. If a society is in any way civilised the notion of merely procreating is archaic and reprehensible in a world where the population is expanding far too fast. The procreators become the danger to continued existence. So maybe it is those that cannot see the need to protect and keep safe one’s fellow man who are worthy of expulsion for their anti social animalistic desire to breed like rabbits because their nature is one that is so selfish and has not the wit to see beyond the basics of a world presented to them.
In your simplistic and spiritually devoid worldview, you have condemned vast swathes of beings as unworthy; homosexuals, unfertile heterosexuals, those who choose not to have children, the blind, deaf, disabled, those suffering from diseases, the elderly. In favour of eugenics are you?

Originally posted by jay.mo

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by jay.mo

 

OK, let's look at the document itself. It's called the U. S. Constitution, maybe you've heard of it:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

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.

Notice the word in bold type. It's an important one!

Edit to add: I believe, I just don't believe in your God!

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

yep you got it wrong read it throughly the government cant stop you from freely believing in what you want to. so the question is what do you believe if you believe in nothing? believing in no god means you dont exsist.

I don't believe in god. So do I not exist? How exactly does that work? I'm pretty sure I exist because I had sex with my wife and made a child, we had the child, and now my wife is pregnant again. And we also have sex every single night, sometimes more than once.

I'm pretty sure I exist.


My wife is religious, when she dies is she going to go heaven while me and my kids (if they end up being atheist like me, but I am not gonna preach to them, I will let me choose what religion they want, or choose no religion if they want to be atheist) go to hell? Thats quite sad that we are gonna burn in hell, oh well.

LMAO. More bible babble nonsense!

But I don't exist. Yeah, okie dokie.

God religious people CRACK ME UP!



[edit on 14-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

Oh, great! The whole 'be fruitful and multiply' thing is back! Well folks, lets look at the statistical data...

1750- 791 million people on Earth

1800- 978 million people on Earth (87 million more in 50 years)

1850- 1,262,000,000 people on Earth (284 million more in 50 years)

1900- 1,650,000,000 people on Earth (388 million more in 50 years)

1950- 2,521,000,000 people on Earth (871 million more in 50 years)

1999- 5,978,000,000 people on Earth (3,457,000,000 more in 49 years!!!)

2008- 6,707,000,000 people on Earth (729 million more in just 9 years!)

2050 (projected)- 8,909,000,000 people on Earth (2,202,000,000 in just 42 years!)

Source.

This is with legal abortion, increased birth control usage, and yes, us pesky, non-procreating homosexuals. Do you really need us adding to that problem??? As it is, the day is coming soon when we will have to regulate procreation, lest we breed ourselves into extinction!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts



I agree with everything you said but why the hell would you want to fight for the right to have someone beable to take half your crap. Just live together and if it dont work out it's that much simpler to leave.

Maybe oneday soon we will realize that we are all idiots. we are all humans and even if you disagree with a persons lifestyle that does not give you the right to dictate how that person should live. I'll tell you flat out I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle but I will fight to the death to ensure that you and every one else that is gay can live it equally

Originally posted by weedwhacker
At what point does it become detrimental to the organism, and the group, as a whole, when there is unfettered "multipying"??? Further, what is to be done with those who are UNABLE to 'multiply'? For whatever reason, it is a well-known fact that sometimes adults of otherwise "fruitful" age cannot conceive --- the cannot "go forth" and procreate! What would you have society, at large, do with those slackers? Throw them away? Shun them? Make them

Sure, I agree: unfettered multiplying is also detrimental to a species. That's why nature builds in some mitigating factors to reproduction: age, infirmities, predators, etc. Also included are genetic deficiencies that naturally segregate out those with abnormalities. But, as I said in one of my previous posts, I don't think that as higher order beings we should cull out the blind or lame anymore than we should cull out gays. But that does NOT mean that we should take the position that being blind is just as "normal" as being sighted. It is not. Being gay is also not "normal" in the same sense. Those are both deficiencies in the genetic structure that, by chance or circumstance, nature has instilled.

Again, I don't shun my gay friends and relatives just as I don't shun those with diabetes or glaucoma. But I would never pretend that having any of the aforementioned afflictions was "normal" or desirable.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Says who? The 'diety' mentioned before??? HOW does anyone know this, for certain? You said, "Any living thing that subverts..." is "...not aligned with...Nature."

I don't necessarily believe in that deity, but there is an element of truth in that statement. (As an aside, just because one doesn't believe in the Bible as the literal word of God doesn't mean that one can't find elements of truth in it.)

Again, I challenge you to find me a group of living things that does not follow the 3 simple rules of nature and is able to thrive. You eat, move and multiply or your species dies. It's that simple. Any member of that species that does not do those things is a detriment to the continuation of the species and in that sense is not "normal".

reply to post by passenger

So, if tomorrow you are struck down with a terrible illness (god forbid), or paralysed in a car accident or go blind...or just suddenly become infertile....YOU..this wonderful specimen of perfected nature and normality (sarcasm) will be rendered utterly useless by your own argument and a total drain on society and it's resources....a waste of space...a waste of air....and you will expect someone oh so compasionate to care for you in your uselessness. And you I suppose will sit there in your undoubted wisdom and muse how totally abnormal, unatural and defective you are...just because you cannot reproduce as you have been brainwashed to do.
I do despair that people with these attitudes have never developed.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
It seems evident that men who accept only the surface matter of nature would find it perfectly natural to murder, maim, torture and condemn a vast proportion of it’s fellow man to be not worthy of existence, behaviour that is certainly not found in nature and the animal kingdom that the man seeks to hold as the ultimate normality, and behaviour to emulate.

Well, I think you should do some research on the current studies about behavior amongst chimpanzees, orcas, dolphins, ants and some other species. To varying degrees and aspects, these species (and many others you may find) do murder, maim and torture other members of their own species. Very often, the abuse is targeted toward members of the pack, herd, etc. that are perceived as weak or deficient. Sometimes it appears to be just random aggressive behavior. Humans do not have a monopoly on cruelty to their own kind. I will grant you that we should know better and behave appropriately, but that line will lead us into the second point...

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Animals kill to eat not to assuage their first grade egotistical views of superiority.... Animals in a herd that are forced to leave their weak, ill or disabled members to die do so not because of any distaste that they cannot procreate... In a higher animal... who has a more complex brain, a consciousness and a conscience, that same survival mechanism is not needed or desired and becomes unnatural and destructive and defective.

Ahhhhh, but that's the crux of the problem - isn't it? We humans are of two natures: the animal and the higher thinking being. Reconciling them is always the problem. Unlike a common dog, we recognize that we cannot just defecate and procreate whenever and wherever we want. We understand that we cannot just jump upon the passing member of our species and mate with them - with or without their consent. We understand that you cannot just attack someone because they made you mad or peed on your favorite pole. But the animal part inside us says different. It is very basic and to the point: eat, attack, mate, flee, fight etc. But our human mind contradicts that and causes conflict within ourselves.

This next bit is tricky...

Originally posted by oneclickaway
The procreators become the danger to continued existence... In favour of eugenics are you?

Not in favor of eugenics at all. If you hadn't noticed, I'm in favor of reproduction. Just not in favor of pretending that people with an abnormality are "normal". In favor of forced sterilization and abortions to preserve the perfect population balance are you? Stop the procreators? Ummmm, if someone had stopped your procreators then you wouldn't be here would you????? But you don't favor procreators? Were your parents a "danger" to the continued existence of the human race when they had you?

Originally posted by oneclickaway
In your simplistic and spiritually devoid worldview, you have condemned vast swathes of beings as unworthy...

Never said "unworthy" (whatever that means) - just not normal and not to be celebrated.

Originally posted by passenger
I will grant you that we should know better and behave appropriately,... We humans are of two natures: the animal and the higher thinking being. Reconciling them is always the problem.

Yes, we are a higher thinking being and we should know better...

Never said "unworthy" (whatever that means) - just not normal and not to be celebrated.

And not to be given the same rights. No celebration is needed, we are quite capable of throwing our own celebrations. Just give us the same rights that are enjoyed by every other American, even the heterosexuals that cannot or chose not to procreate. Higher thinking is always prefered over animal instict.

reply to post by passenger

Not in favor of eugenics at all. If you hadn't noticed, I'm in favor of reproduction. Just not in favor of pretending that people with an abnormality are "normal". In favor of forced sterilization and abortions to preserve the perfect population balance are you? Stop the procreators? Ummmm, if someone had stopped your procreators then you wouldn't be here would you????? But you don't favor procreators? Were your parents a "danger" to the continued existence of the human race when they had you?

Did I say stop the procreators? I am questioning why anyone who had risen even vaguely above the nature of an animal, or who wasn’t religiously brainwashed, in a world close to over population, would see the only reason for valid and valuable existence to be the ability to procreate. There are over 6 billion in the world so human existence is hardly in danger by having people who don’t just breed and see that as the height of human achievement….now is it? In fact when has it ever been in danger?

Ahhhhh, but that's the crux of the problem - isn't it? We humans are of two natures: the animal and the higher thinking being. Reconciling them is always the problem. Unlike a common dog, we recognize that we cannot just defecate and procreate whenever and wherever we want. We understand that we cannot just jump upon the passing member of our species and mate with them - with or without their consent. We understand that you cannot just attack someone because they made you mad or peed on your favorite pole. But the animal part inside us says different. It is very basic and to the point: eat, attack, mate, flee, fight etc. But our human mind contradicts that and causes conflict within ourselves.

You are on your own with that one….I cannot see that in most there is an ongoing and perpetual conflict with an animalistic self. Self control and some degree of self mastery will override the animalistic side in most. I suppose fear of difference is an ingrained response in anyone who is happy to remain on that primitive level…but not everyone functions on that level…except perhaps under extreme stress in a rare moment. Although maybe I am being frighteningly optimistic as that may well be the case with the so called ‘normal’ and those that proclaim religious superiority.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
And not to be given the same rights. Just give us the same rights that are enjoyed by every other American, even the heterosexuals that cannot or chose not to procreate

Well, the issue comes into that of definitions then. I am all in favor of Civil Unions but NOT "Gay Marriage". There is a distinction there - and a fine one I admit - but it is there. A true marriage is an established institution that has deeper meanings than just a social contract. It is a long standing, tried-and-true method of establishing stability in society and (although not explicitly stated) a civilized means of supporting the continuation of the species.

Now as far as general rights go, as a Libertarian, I believe that gays should never be discriminated against in any way by the government. That means not banning homosexuals from the military, government jobs or benefits and the like; merely because an individual is gay. However, I do not feel that that protection extends to the private sector where such activity may conflict with the conscious of another person, e.g. a religious person should have the right to deny a gay person employment in their private business.

This is where the problems overlap, as many private entities are being forced (or will be) to accept a gay "marriage" or lifestyle as a governmentally protected status. I believe that the answer is to have Civil Unions fully in effect and recognized by all federal, state and local institutions but NOT being enforceable upon any private individual or entity that refutes them.



.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Higher thinking is always prefered over animal instict.

Yeah, unless you are confronted by a knife-wielding, masked guy in an alleyway at 3 am. Then its fight or flight baby!. Higher thinking and civilized discourse is likely to get you into a world of hurt.

Originally posted by passenger
.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Higher thinking is always prefered over animal instict.

Yeah, unless you are confronted by a knife-wielding, masked guy in an alleyway at 3 am. Then its fight or flight baby!. Higher thinking and civilized discourse is likely to get you into a world of hurt.

Maybe the would-be victim just hasn't reached high enough thinking yet. I have seen martial arts masters violently repel people very calmly and barely even touching them.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by passenger
I believe that the answer is to have Civil Unions fully in effect and recognized by all federal, state and local institutions but NOT being enforceable upon any private individual or entity that refutes them.

Call 'em civil unions, call 'em 'walks through the tulips' for all I care, as long as it's the exact same thing from the goverments view for everybody, gay or straight. And as long as that private individual or entity can treat any civil union that way (i.e. a Christian business owner can refute the union of a Jewish employee) then you can have that one too! EQUALITY means it's the same for everyone!!!

Yeah, unless you are confronted by a knife-wielding, masked guy in an alleyway at 3 am. Then its fight or flight baby!. Higher thinking and civilized discourse is likely to get you into a world of hurt.

Nobody said the animal side does not come in handy from time to time.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

I just wanna talk about San Francisco... San Francisco is a GREAT city! And contrary to popular belief, it isnt the "city of gay people" lol. Sure there is gay people here, but they don't make up the whole city.

gay people make up about 15 percent of all the people in the city (I admit I made this percentage up, but it is something like that) . They are a MINORITY here. San Francisco is mostly straight people. They have the "Castro District" which is where all the gay guys hang out, and they have the parade thing one time a year. And of course there are some gay clubs and bars through out the city, just like any other city. If you are straight you just don't go to those places, its simple.

San Francisco is a GREAT family town in my opionon. I'm even thinking of moving over there with my daughter and wife, because unlike some bigots, I WANT my daughter exposed to different type of people. I don't want her to be some bigoted person or anything. And if she asks me questions, I'll answer them. And I'm not one of these types of people who thinks my daughter will turn gay because she sees gay people at a young age. That is just absurd to think that. I have a gay uncle who I used to hang around quite a bit when I was around 10 or so (and to you bigots, no he didn't molest me). And I'm not gay.

And you want to talk about girls? well San Francisco has LOTS of GORGEOUS girls! And the girls here cool and mellowed out type girls and they aren't stuck up at all for the most part. There is also colleges here and near here, so theres plenty of sexy college girls too. Theres plenty of girls in San Fran!

I have no problem with gay people, but I don't get why people think san francisco is like a "gay" town. Because it isnt. We are just more the accepting type of people here in San Francisco, and gay people don't bother most of us.

I would say San Fran is more of a EVERYBODY type of place. It isn't a gay place, it isn't a straight place.... etc etc. We have ALL kinds of people here and thats what makes its BEAUTIFUL! I LOVE diversity.

Oh and we basically have legal marijauana.....

I have lived back and forth between oakland and san fran for 26 years, and I can safely say no man has ever hit one me or anything, not one single time... none of these things straight people seem to think gay people do have ever happened to me. lol.

. San Francisco is really no different than like New York City, its just smaller. But thats the ONLY difference. New York is a very diverse city, and so is San Francisco. Thats what makes these cities AWESOME THOUGH! I love diversity, who would want to live in a world where everyone is the same? Not me.

And I got news for straight people, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO THE CASTRO! And NO ONE is forcing you to watch the parade.

I have no problem with gay people, but I admit I don't like seeing them kissing and stuff, but I also don't like seeing straight people kiss either, its gross. I won't kiss my wife in public either. And when it comes to the gay parade thing, I just don't go to the city that day. No big deal.

Gays don't bother me whatsoever.

Anyways my point is, San Francisco is a BEAUTIFUL multi-cultural city. We also have some cool cities close ty too.... Berkeley is a pretty mellowed out city, its pretty cool. Theres Oakland too, which isn't that nice, theres some nice areas. The main reason I live in oakland is cause rents cheap.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]