Just listen to yourselves... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 11-04-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

What does the right to vote have to do with getting married?

Sorry, I forgot to edit that prior to posting

Anyway, I know the need is strong to want to get off topic and divert attention away from an otherwise good post that will expose some ignorance, but let's try to stay on topic

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Yes, you know what you got with Bush. You got eight new states who now restrict all relationship rights to gay couples. No more legal right to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to be secure in the legal status of their children.

America put the minority population of homosexuality up for referendum, and the minority lost. What this country achieved between the wee hours of November 2 and 3 was the collective terrorizing of all homosexuals in america. For anyone here who knows gay people, ask them what they think of 11 states banning their union and some of the most virulent anti-gay legislators being elected to the senate. They are terrified right now, and rightfully so.

The legacy of the 2004 election, the one that gave the Republicans a larger majority among all branches of government is the oppression of homosexuals. You rode that to victory. Can you enjoy it and justify it? I see it as no better the realignment of the south to the Republican after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That's nothing to be proud of.

We don't know everything that Kerry would have done, but it wouldn't have been to surf on this. What we just did is the antithesis of what America stands for.

This is another reason why so many people feel Democrats know nothing but attack, attack, attack. As a black person I am always offended, and disturbed, at gays being associated with the civil rights struggle of true minorities. There are contractual remedies in place to allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody (although many people, including some gays, disapprove of homosexuals adopting). The main reason I voted to ban gay marriage is I feel businesses should not be forced to support relationships that cannot produce children.

Here is a liberal criticizing people (and a large section of people) for disapproving of certain actions of another group, and not wanting the government to sponsor those actions. I can only speak for myself, but I personally don't care what people do in their homes. But you cannot expect to be able to force acceptance of your BEHAVIOR on others.

That got a little off topic, but I think it helps show the mindset of alot of democrats, and why they all seem to see republicans as racist, bible-thumping evangelicalists. In their view, anyone can hold convictions as long as they agree with them, if anyone disagrees their views are obviously inferior.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

I think a lot of people are getting confused, or at least are misunderstanding others.

If everyone in the country but me was christian and voted Pat Roberston into president, then whatever - it's just that any law that his administration imposes had better not be one that attempts to control my actions based on their morals or beliefs.

That's what people aren't understanding here. There are a LOT of conservative ideas that I like, but one thing about conservatives I can't stand is their constant need to try and control how others live through moral law. It makes no sense and really does go against everything this country was built upon.

And I know some goon is just WAITING to harp on this post and reply with some junk like, "Yeah, you think you should be able to murder, huh?! or Rape/steal/whatever". No.

The reality is, Bush being president won't affect *me* personally, but may affect society due to his religious beliefs influencing his decisions - especially in the area of science (stem cell research). Same for gay marriage, etc.. It's like when a black/white couple couldn't get married, that was pretty stupid. We agree now, so how is it any different for same sex? It's not.

I think we can all agree (as conservatives, liberals, etc) at this point in time that it was a good idea to stop slavery and to stop racial segregation. So... why continue the same ignorant thinking with another group of people?

Prime example of people using their beliefs to control what others do. Sorry if you don't agree, but it's wrong.

This country was founded by men who were religious and believed in god, but the foundation of this country states that no religion shall be forced on anyone else, so why do it? Why is it okay to create laws based around beliefs that one person has, but others don't?

There are certain givens that should be law, such as murder, stealing, rape, etc, but then there are items (like stem cell reasearch) that, if it wasn't for religion, would have no problems at all trying to stay afloat in our society.

Believe in whatever you want - live your life the way you want, but don't take any trivial beliefs you have and try to apply them to all of society.

*That* is the problem that most people have, not "oh, Christians suck."

But you are making a moral assumption that murder, stealing, rape, and etc. (the etc. seems to leave in room for alot, but whatever) should be outlawed. That belief is as arbitrary as any Christian's. What arguement could you make for those being outlawed that doesn't involve morals being applied to society? It isn't rediculous, so just saying that is no real arguement.

Stompy · 11-04-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The main reason I voted to ban gay marriage is I feel businesses should not be forced to support relationships that cannot produce children.

Why does this matter? I'm assuming you're talking about providing health care and whatnot? What is the difference then between a married couple who refuses to have children vs two women who (obviously) can't have children?

Quote:

But you cannot expect to be able to force acceptance of your BEHAVIOR on others.

It's not like they're walking around having gay sex in public. Therefore, they are not forcing any acceptance of "behavior" on others. What behavior are you referring to?

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:02 AM

Quote:

20+ years of propaganda HAVE made liberal a dirty word.

And 10+ years of propaganda has been aimed at making "Christian" a dirty word.

Stompy · 11-04-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

But you are making a moral assumption that murder, stealing, rape, and etc. (the etc. seems to leave in room for alot, but whatever) should be outlawed. That belief is as arbitrary as any Christian's. What arguement could you make for those being outlawed that doesn't involve morals being applied to society? It isn't rediculous, so just saying that is no real arguement.

Show me a society our country that promotes any of those and then we'll talk

Those things are quite different from abortion, porn, alcohol and drugs, etc.

The meaning of that paragraph I wrote was: don't even bother comparing any of the much smaller items to something extreme like rape, murder, stealing, so on, because it just won't work.

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

This is another reason why so many people feel Democrats know nothing but attack, attack, attack. As a black person I am always offended, and disturbed, at gays being associated with the civil rights struggle of true minorities. There are contractual remedies in place to allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody (although many people, including some gays, disapprove of homosexuals adopting). The main reason I voted to ban gay marriage is I feel businesses should not be forced to support relationships that cannot produce children.

Here is a liberal criticizing people (and a large section of people) for disapproving of certain actions of another group, and not wanting the government to sponsor those actions. I can only speak for myself, but I personally don't care what people do in their homes. But you cannot expect to be able to force acceptance of your BEHAVIOR on others.

That got a little off topic, but I think it helps show the mindset of alot of democrats, and why they all seem to see republicans as racist, bible-thumping evangelicalists. In their view, anyone can hold convictions as long as they agree with them, if anyone disagrees their views are obviously inferior.

The Civil Rights Act goes beyond what happened to blacks. You don't own it exclusively. Is homosexuality not a true minority? Why do you not think they are? They constitute only 11 percent of the population and their right to do as others do are being restricted. There CAN be contractual remedies to supplant marriage, but 8 of the 11 states that had a hate amendment on their ballot had wording in it that not only forbid gay marriage but forbid the rights to "allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody".

Why should businesses not support relationships that cannot produce children? Some of these states amendments, first of all actually FORBID businesses from providing civil benefits for same sex partners. Also, what about an infertile couple? Can a business refuse to support that relationship too? That reasoning is whacky...

What is WRONG with their behavior? You complain about it but then say you don't care what they do in their bedroom? Wha? Gays aren't looking to take over the world, they just want some civil security, to visit their partner if they get sick, to retain custody of their children if their partner dies, to get to keep their damned house and savings if their partner dies!

scout · 11-04-2004, 10:07 AM

Interesting and very valid points. However, both sides are guilty of attempting to impose their moral and philosophical beliefs onto others. The left is just as guilty as the right in some respects.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Why does this matter? I'm assuming you're talking about providing health care and whatnot? What is the difference then between a married couple who refuses to have children vs two women who (obviously) can't have children?

Which I personally don't think they should gain heath benefits either, but they have the option to have children. Honestly, I don't think any spouse should gain benefits, only children.

Quote:

It's not like they're walking around having gay sex in public. Therefore, they are not forcing any acceptance of "behavior" on others. What behavior are you referring to?

They are forcing people to accept same-sex relationships. They want that behaviour to be protected over other behaviours people might find objectionable. Just because sex is involved doesn't mean that it's any different than any other behavior. No other behavior set gains any special protection.

ShaniFaye · 11-04-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

As a black person I am always offended, and disturbed, at gays being associated with the civil rights struggle of true minorities.

The main reason I voted to ban gay marriage is I feel businesses should not be forced to support relationships that cannot produce children..

I do not understand these two statements at all

and what do you consider a "true" minority?

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Show me a society our country that promotes any of those and then we'll talk

Those things are quite different from abortion, porn, alcohol and drugs, etc.

The meaning of that paragraph I wrote was: don't even bother comparing any of the much smaller items to something extreme like rape, murder, stealing, so on, because it just won't work.

Many dictatorships practice these things regularly. Some would argue that America practices those principles (outside of the rape).

And some people find homosexual behavior to be "extreme" some find drugs to be "extreme", some think abortion IS murder. Simply because you have chosen those to be of small concequence and others to be extreme does not mean you are correct.

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Interesting and very valid points. However, both sides are guilty of attempting to impose their moral and philosophical beliefs onto others. The left is just as guilty as the right in some respects.

True, but the difference as I see it being.

One side is for giving people more rights

The other is for taking them away.

Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Our constitution is a list of rights that everyone is given, the only amendment which took away american rights was repealed only a few years later.

Stompy · 11-04-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

They are forcing people to accept same-sex relationships. They want that behaviour to be protected over other behaviours people might find objectionable.

Do tell me how that's different from the civil rights blacks people.

This same argument was used them: They are forcing people to accept equal rights for blacks.

So... no one found it objectionable to allow people these rights back then?

It's the same exact thing - intolerance. The only difference here is it's based on sexual preference, not color of skin.

Anyway, I don't want to get too off topic. The things you tried to list above (murder, stealing, rape), no one wants those, and it doesn't matter who you are. Those are things that directly affect other people regardless of religion.

Things like (and these are just examples, not getting into debates here) limiting stem cell research, abortion, drugs, alcohol... all those are things that are more or less feared by those who are religious purely for religious reasons (for the most part).

It's just like I said above - live your live how YOU want to live it, but don't force me to follow your morals. I'll accept and understand them, but don't FORCE me to comply.

Things like gay marriage: it's not forcing you to become gay. It's telling you to become tolerant and accepting.

Compare that to moral laws such as "you can't look at porn" or (a favorite here in Michigan): "you can't buy beer before noon on sunday". No matter how big or small the law, it's equally as ignorant.

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Many dictatorships practice these things regularly. Some would argue that America practices those principles (outside of the rape).

And some people find homosexual behavior to be "extreme" some find drugs to be "extreme", some think abortion IS murder. Simply because you have chosen those to be of small concequence and others to be extreme does not mean you are correct.

And interracial marriage was deemed "extreme" until the period between 1965 to 1969.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

The Civil Rights Act goes beyond what happened to blacks. You don't own it exclusively. Is homosexuality not a true minority? Why do you not think they are? They constitute only 11 percent of the population and their right to do as others do are being restricted. There CAN be contractual remedies to supplant marriage, but 8 of the 11 states that had a hate amendment on their ballot had wording in it that not only forbid gay marriage but forbid the rights to "allow transfer of property at death, allowing hospital visits, and even child custody".

Why should businesses not support relationships that cannot produce children? Some of these states amendments, first of all actually FORBID businesses from providing civil benefits for same sex partners. Also, what about an infertile couple? Can a business refuse to support that relationship too? That reasoning is whacky...

What is WRONG with their behavior? You complain about it but then say you don't care what they do in their bedroom? Wha? Gays aren't looking to take over the world, they just want some civil security, to visit their partner if they get sick, to retain custody of their children if their partner dies, to get to keep their damned house and savings if their partner dies!

The last three things in your post can all be handled through contracts between the two parties. I have no problem with individual contracts of that nature. And the law in Michigan forbids businesses from providing benefits for same sex partners IIRC, which I also don't mind (and why I voted for it). The part about only couples with children getting benefits is part of a personal belief I have about the secular reasoning for marriage. I didn't elaborate more because it would go too far off topic.

And homosexuals are not a true minority, they are a self-created minority. By this I mean it is their personal actions by which they define themselves. I watch football. Am I now a minority because I watch football? Should I not be allowed to work on sundays, monday nights, and the occasional thursday game? I also like to dress casually, so I could be in the "slacks and polo shirt" minority. Now my employer should allow me to wear my cutlural garb, correct?

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

True, but the difference as I see it being.

One side is for giving people more rights

The other is for taking them away.

Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Our constitution is a list of rights that everyone is given, the only amendment which took away american rights was repealed only a few years later.

What is a "right"? Doesn't the first amendment take away a businesses' right to hire based on religion? Doesn't the 14th amendment take away a restaraunt's right to not allow blacks or jews to eat at their establishment? The ability to not do something is the same as the right to be able to do something.

Wheat King · 11-04-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And 10+ years of propaganda has been aimed at making "Christian" a dirty word.

I agree alansmithee

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Do tell me how that's different from the civil rights blacks people.

This same argument was used them: They are forcing people to accept equal rights for blacks.

So... no one found it objectionable to allow people these rights back then?

It's the same exact thing - intolerance. The only difference here is it's based on sexual preference, not color of skin.

Anyway, I don't want to get too off topic. The things you tried to list above (murder, stealing, rape), no one wants those, and it doesn't matter who you are. Those are things that directly affect other people regardless of religion.

Things like (and these are just examples, not getting into debates here) limiting stem cell research, abortion, drugs, alcohol... all those are things that are more or less feared by those who are religious purely for religious reasons (for the most part).

It's just like I said above - live your live how YOU want to live it, but don't force me to follow your morals. I'll accept and understand them, but don't FORCE me to comply.

Things like gay marriage: it's not forcing you to become gay. It's telling you to become tolerant and accepting.

Compare that to moral laws such as "you can't look at porn" or (a favorite here in Michigan): "you can't buy beer before noon on sunday". No matter how big or small the law, it's equally as ignorant.

There is a BIG difference. Being black is not a behavior set. If I apply for a job and am not hired because I'm black, that is unfair. My race is something I cannot do anything about. But if I show up for an interview with a backwards baseball hat, baggy jeans, a t-shirt and start of saying "YO YO YO WHAT"S UP DOG!" he can certainly not hire my ignorant ass. However if that's how I present myself after hours, he cannot fire me. Point being, black (or white or mexican or any other race for that matter) does not have an active choice associated with it, I can no more stop being black than I could take off my skin. However, men can stop having sex with men and women can stop having sex with women.

And as for nobody wanting murder, rape, or stealing-there are quite a few of killers, rapists, and thieves that would probably disagree. Why are you criticising their lifestyle choice?

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 10:36 AM

They. Have. Been. Expressly. Forbidden. To. Same. Sex. Couples.

Again, a couple who is infertile, or who chooses to not have children, they don't deserve benefits?
A homosexual couples personal actions are not a choice, they are born gay. It is hardwired in their brains to be gay. That makes them a natural minority. You watch football by choice, wear polo shirts by choice, you are an artificial minority, If I cut your leg off you become handicapped, you have become a natural minority.

What is the secular and religious reasoning for marriage? By secular I guess you mean natural, do you know that there are dozens of animals which practice homosexuality?
Did you know up until the Late Middle Ages (12th century), marriage was a personal affair? No church involved whatsoever, no prayer just the community (as witnesses). Father transfers his daughter and a dowry to ownership by the husband, they ate a meal together then went the husbands merry way.
Not quite the pomp and circumstance we have injected to it since. You can thank a fervently evangelical Catholic church at the time for everything beyond the simple transfer of ownership.

ShaniFaye · 11-04-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

They. Have. Been. Expressly. Forbidden. To. Same. Sex. Couples.

Again, a couple who is infertile, or who chooses to not have children, they don't deserve benefits?
A homosexual couples personal actions are not a choice, they are born gay. It is hardwired in their brains to be gay. That makes them a natural minority. You watch football by choice, wear polo shirts by choice, you are an artificial minority, If I cut your leg off you become handicapped, you have become a natural minority.

What is the secular and religious reasoning for marriage? By secular I guess you mean natural, do you know that there are dozens of animals which practice homosexuality?
Did you know up until the Late Middle Ages (12th century), marriage was a personal affair? No church involved whatsoever, no prayer just the community (as witnesses). Father transfers his daughter and a dowry to ownership by the husband, they ate a meal together then went the husbands merry way.
Not quite the pomp and circumstance we have injected to it since. You can thank a fervently evangelical Catholic church at the time for everything beyond the simple transfer of ownership.

I guessing here...but its probably because a lot of people believe that the purpose for marriage is procreation....like the catholics...thats why they dont advocate birth control

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 10:43 AM

Exactly, it all stems:

Genesis 38:9 "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother."

Then God killed him. That is the basis for no birth control in the Catholic church.

Seer666 · 11-04-2004, 11:14 AM

Well, I haven't read all the posts here. Not enough time right now, I still how ever, want to throw in my 2 cents. I wouldn't be me other wise. I've often described myself as a conservative with anarchist tendencies. That said, I am a conservative, and even being such, Bush scares me, and that he won again scares me even more. He is just as much of a religious nut case as the suicide bombers in the Middle East. But he's one of ours, so it's ok I guess. That this man would go so far as disgrace the fucking CONSITUTION with his narrow minded, ill-founded hate makes my stomach churn. He won because of two reasons. He has the backing of the Christian fundamentalists, and a good portion of the liberals have bought into the fear propaganda being forced feed to this nation every damn day. I find myself at a massive moral dilemma these days. I took an oath to defend the constitution, against all enemies, "both foreign and domestic", but how do I defend it when what seems to be it's enemy is running the show? I just don't know anymore. Seems this country won't be happy until it's put a gun to its head and done OBL's job for him.

Stompy · 11-04-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

There is a BIG difference. Being black is not a behavior set. If I apply for a job and am not hired because I'm black, that is unfair. My race is something I cannot do anything about. But if I show up for an interview with a backwards baseball hat, baggy jeans, a t-shirt and start of saying "YO YO YO WHAT"S UP DOG!" he can certainly not hire my ignorant ass. However if that's how I present myself after hours, he cannot fire me. Point being, black (or white or mexican or any other race for that matter) does not have an active choice associated with it, I can no more stop being black than I could take off my skin. However, men can stop having sex with men and women can stop having sex with women.

That's based off of your assumption that people CHOOSE to be gay. People don't just up and decide, "Shit, today is tuesday, I think I'll be GAY today!"

You are attracted to women - you are not attracted to men. Do you concsiously CHOOSE that, or is that just the way things are for you? Same thing for them.

You may feel absolutely no attraction to a man whatsoever, but in the same sense, they don't feel that way about their oppposite sex!

It's all tolerance and understanding.

Quote:

And as for nobody wanting murder, rape, or stealing-there are quite a few of killers, rapists, and thieves that would probably disagree. Why are you criticising their lifestyle choice?

Why are we stuck on this still? Hahaha

It's NOT THE SAME!! Not even REMOTELY close to the points I am trying to make! Someone gay who is married has NO EFFECT on your life! Someone who walks up to your mother and shoots her in the face or forces her to have sex against her will does affect you. If you can give me a reason how it affects you that two men are married, I'll let it be.

If I have a good time with myself watching porn while smoking a joint, does that affect you?

These are the things I'm trying to get at. Personal choices, personal responsibility, amongst other things (stem cell research falling into neither category).

I know you're trying to make a point, but you're choosing the wrong examples.

scout · 11-04-2004, 11:18 AM

Ok let's all have a big wonderful group hug. One side is as guilty as the other on different issues. The extremist minorities from both sides leave such a terrible taste in the mouths of the other that we can't ever seem to meet in the middle anymore. The people that are actually in the middle are busy defending the extreme idiots and their views are automatically lumped in with the extremist. It seems to be a "all or nothing" mentalilty, so we get nothing but gridlock. This is America folks, lets attempt to find that middle ground so everyone can live the dream of life, liberty and happiness.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

They. Have. Been. Expressly. Forbidden. To. Same. Sex. Couples.

Again, a couple who is infertile, or who chooses to not have children, they don't deserve benefits?
A homosexual couples personal actions are not a choice, they are born gay. It is hardwired in their brains to be gay. That makes them a natural minority. You watch football by choice, wear polo shirts by choice, you are an artificial minority, If I cut your leg off you become handicapped, you have become a natural minority.

What is the secular and religious reasoning for marriage? By secular I guess you mean natural, do you know that there are dozens of animals which practice homosexuality?
Did you know up until the Late Middle Ages (12th century), marriage was a personal affair? No church involved whatsoever, no prayer just the community (as witnesses). Father transfers his daughter and a dowry to ownership by the husband, they ate a meal together then went the husbands merry way.
Not quite the pomp and circumstance we have injected to it since. You can thank a fervently evangelical Catholic church at the time for everything beyond the simple transfer of ownership.

It isn't a scientific proof that homosexuals are born that way. But let's assume that's true, they still have a choice to act on those feelings. The act is a choice. I start having sex with guys. Yay, i'm gay! I don't want to have sex with guys anymore. Now I'm not gay.

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 11:31 AM

See, that's your problem, you still think it's a choice.

Can you tell me you could possibly find a guy hot, and that you would want to have sex with him?

Do you even know a homosexual and know the kind of rejection and hate that they have had to put up with since puberty?
Please, for the sake of america, go meet a gay man or woman.

Anyone know a member of this board who is homosexual who can come on here and at least attest that it isn't a choice?

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

That's based off of your assumption that people CHOOSE to be gay. People don't just up and decide, "Shit, today is tuesday, I think I'll be GAY today!"

You are attracted to women - you are not attracted to men. Do you concsiously CHOOSE that, or is that just the way things are for you? Same thing for them.

You may feel absolutely no attraction to a man whatsoever, but in the same sense, they don't feel that way about their oppposite sex!

It's all tolerance and understanding.

I am attracted to women. But getting married and having sex are CHOICES I make. And it isn't even proven that gays are hardwired to be attracted to women.

Quote:

Why are we stuck on this still? Hahaha

It's NOT THE SAME!! Not even REMOTELY close to the points I am trying to make! Someone gay who is married has NO EFFECT on your life! Someone who walks up to your mother and shoots her in the face or forces her to have sex against her will does affect you. If you can give me a reason how it affects you that two men are married, I'll let it be.

If I have a good time with myself watching porn while smoking a joint, does that affect you?

These are the things I'm trying to get at. Personal choices, personal responsibility, amongst other things (stem cell research falling into neither category).

I know you're trying to make a point, but you're choosing the wrong examples.

Living in a society, other peoples' actions do have an affect on you. If you are smoking a joint and watching porn, someone had to provide that stuff(unless you are making porn solo and have a hydroponic lab in the basement

). Being that one is illegal and the other is often associated with illegal acts or behavior that is found usually unacceptable (i'm talking more the degredation of women), society is paying a cost to allow you to have porn and weed. It might not be as direct, but they still affect other people. By purposly choosing exaggerated examples, I am trying to show that there is no absolute, and all limitations are merely a discussion of degree and none more inherently correct than the other.

Booboo · 11-04-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And homosexuals are not a true minority, they are a self-created minority. By this I mean it is their personal actions by which they define themselves. I watch football. Am I now a minority because I watch football? Should I not be allowed to work on sundays, monday nights, and the occasional thursday game? I also like to dress casually, so I could be in the "slacks and polo shirt" minority. Now my employer should allow me to wear my cutlural garb, correct?

I really dont understand how someone in this day and age can beleive that people simply CHOOSE to be gay. They dont just decide "I want to be gay today". They feel attracted to other men, thats just how it is. Leave them alone and let them do as they please.

Out of curiosity, do you know or are you friends with any gay people? Because I know a few, infact, I have a cousin that is gay. Its not easy for him as it is, and thinking that people will try to take away his rights, because he is wired differently, just gets me extremely angry. It can be easy for some people to THINK that people decide to become gay, seeing as they werent like that as kids usually. But the reason they dont act like that from the get go, is because they are raised to feel like Men are attracted to Women and thats just how it is. But when they realize this attraction thing people are talking about just isn't happening or doesn't feel real, thats when they might "come out of the closet" so to speak.

alansmithee · 11-04-2004, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

See, that's your problem, you still think it's a choice.

Can you tell me you could possibly find a guy hot, and that you would want to have sex with him?

Do you even know a homosexual and know the kind of rejection and hate that they have had to put up with since puberty?
Please, for the sake of america, go meet a gay man or woman.

Anyone know a member of this board who is homosexual who can come on here and at least attest that it isn't a choice?

I have known gay people. I worked with one before, and he was a great guy. Hell, my grandfather was gay. But there is no proof that it isn't a choice. Just saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

Superbelt · 11-04-2004, 11:41 AM

I guess Matthew Sheppard was just testing the bigots to see if they would actually drag him behind a pickup truck.

Some F-ing choice.

Booboo · 11-04-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I have known gay people. I worked with one before, and he was a great guy. Hell, my grandfather was gay. But there is no proof that it isn't a choice. Just saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

And just because its not proven to be a choice or not, does not give us the right to tell them they cannot express their feelings for eachother, choice or not. And I fail to see how a gay couple getting married could dramatically or even insignificantly effect your life. Are you offended when you see a gay couple together? (I am really just trying to understand your stance on this)

ARTelevision · 11-04-2004, 11:49 AM

There are other threads where this very specific issue is discussed.
This thread doesn't need to devolve into a pro/anti-gay thread.

aliali · 11-04-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Just because it's a landslide doesn't make it right. The returns on the issues against gays wasn't just to restrict gay marriage, it was to restrict any and all rights to gay couples. 8 new states now restrict all legal rights that a gay couple could have by being a couple. No civil unions, no visitation rights in the hospital, no common property with partner inheritance rights, no rights to children in the birth parent dies.

BTW, Marriage, for straight people isn't in the constitution either.
And that argument "think gay marriage is some sort of right, tell me where you think it is in the constitution" was used to keep interracial couples from legally marrying until the late 1960's as well.

I guess we are talking about different things when we talk about rights. I think of rights as those guaranteed by the consitution or given by legislation or made law by ballot initiative. If something isn't in the constititution and is defeated at the ballot box, you haven't lost a right just because the proper order of this government decides not to confer it upon you.

The right to marry who you want isn't in the constitution and, if defeated through an appropriate election, isn't your right. You are correct that this argument was often made to allow a state to ban interracial couples from marrying. Here's the thing. The argument was correct, the state policy was wrong. The court was wrong to change the state law. The state should have done it.

States and congress make dumb laws all the time. That doesn't change what the constitution does and doesn't say.

I don't assume that anyone here is an anti-gun nut. My experience is that most people who have broad views of the right to marry, have sex, use contraception, and other privacy issues take a very expansive view of the appropriate constuction of the constitution on those issues, but often take a very restrictive view of the right to bear arms.

I still don't know where the right to gay marriage is found in the constitution.

If it is a right and the constitution says so, what is the argument for why polygamy and marriage between cousins is not a right?

Locobot · 11-04-2004, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

I've got to voice my concern over some of the comments I've consistently read in many of these threads. The scapegoating of evangelical Christians because the candidate of a person's choice wasn't elected is getting out of hand. Some of the things posted are downright hateful and wouldn't be tolerated if they were directed at any other group.

Christians each possess a single vote. Their vote is worth no more or no less than any other. Some whine that Christians legislate morality... yet grievously complain when they simply cast a vote in opposition. Who desires to dominate the other?

You are no better than a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise.

You are no smarter.

Your vote is not cast with more care or more wisdom.

You are just... different. Liberal tolerance is so often only extended to fellow liberals and the enemies of conservative philosophy.

What you say is true, Evangelicals deserve representation in government as much as anyone. The flip side of the coin is that 40-50 million Evangelicals did vote to install one of their own in GWBush. Bush owes them a great political debt and he will push the Evangelical agenda. These things are given. It remains to be seen if the Evangelical agenda will be wholey accepted by the American public. Centrist Republicans made the choice to be represented by Evangelicals and have no ground for criticizing that agenda.

aliali · 11-04-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I also wonder why, just because I don't vote republican, am against Bush and against most every bit of his platform, that I am immediately assumed to be an anti-gun nut.

Odd, but an expected stereotype.

I hope you don't think I assumed you to be an anti-gun nut. I haven't made any such assumption. It was just a question about how broadly you think we should be construing all of the these rights we are talking about. I like the gay people I know more than guns. I just disagree with the people who tell me gay marriage is a right and having guns is not.

trickyy · 11-04-2004, 12:18 PM

ii'd also like to point out that bush likely got more of the non-fundamentalist christian votes. not everyone in church thinks the universe was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old; in fact most people don't. kerry just wasn't attractive enough to pull them away from bush. his positions were extremely nuanced and open to misinterpretation.

so liberals do need to reach out to these people. to begin, dispense with the postmodern relativism and show some backbone. bush is respected for his convictions. he believes in his actions very deeply, and his confidence is apparently attractive...surprisingly enough to make people overlook his failures. meanwhile kerry came off as a soulless politician. maybe he could do a better job as president, but people didn't see any heart until his concession speech.

important question (insulting, yes), as congress will be farther right in 2 years unless something changes...

Ustwo · 11-04-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

so liberals do need to reach out to these people. to begin, dispense with the postmodern relativism and show some backbone. bush is respected for his convictions. he believes in his actions very deeply, and his confidence is apparently attractive...surprisingly enough to make people overlook his failures. meanwhile kerry came off as a soulless politician. maybe he could do a better job as president, but people didn't see any heart until his concession speech.

important question (insulting, yes), as congress will be farther right in 2 years unless something changes...

I posted this a couple of months ago and was called a Karl Rove cocksucker and a troll by some of the esteemed board posters. I don't think they get it yet.

Edit: On a side note, I love that picture. I hope it gets play next election, as calling a majority of the American voters dumb is a great way to help ones cause

Manx · 11-04-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

so liberals do need to reach out to these people.

It's not really the anti-evolutionists that are a concern. There is not really any desired legislation concerning evolution vs. creationism (although if you take a look at some states, which are placing Intelligent Design on equal ground with evolution, there is a concern for the future of our public schools). Rather, the resounding support for the anti-gay marriage resolutions and how they motivated people more likely to vote for Bush is where liberals are concerned.

How exactly do you propose the liberals "reach out" to those people?

This suggestion, that liberals need to reach out to these people, sounds like nothing more than "liberals need to just accept things as conservatives and fundamentalist christians want them to be".

Reach out = renounce your liberal ways.

cthulu23 · 11-04-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I posted this a couple of months ago and was called a Karl Rove cocksucker and a troll by some of the esteemed board posters. I don't think they get it yet.

Haven't you realized yet that it isn't the message but the delivery that's the problem? Haven't you "got it" yet? Of course, if all you see is "evil, unfair liberals" aligned against you wherever you go, you probably never will get it.

trickyy · 11-04-2004, 12:53 PM

i was just pointing out that not all of bush's support came from the dreaded fundamentalists. christians with more of an open mind also voted for him. i understand evolution is not a political issue.

there is another thread about what democrats need to do to attract more people, so i won't go into too much detail. but i think that liberals need to show that they too have strong values that can be backed up bibilically if necessary. republicans don't own god, but many of them can speak about god in a genuine manner. some are simply putting up a facade, but i don't think bush is. talking about religion and faith in the blandest way possible isn't very helpful to liberals, especially when universal concepts of altruism and stewardship shouldn't offend anyone.

11-04-2004, 11:14 AM	#62 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	Well, I haven't read all the posts here. Not enough time right now, I still how ever, want to throw in my 2 cents. I wouldn't be me other wise. I've often described myself as a conservative with anarchist tendencies. That said, I am a conservative, and even being such, Bush scares me, and that he won again scares me even more. He is just as much of a religious nut case as the suicide bombers in the Middle East. But he's one of ours, so it's ok I guess. That this man would go so far as disgrace the fucking CONSITUTION with his narrow minded, ill-founded hate makes my stomach churn. He won because of two reasons. He has the backing of the Christian fundamentalists, and a good portion of the liberals have bought into the fear propaganda being forced feed to this nation every damn day. I find myself at a massive moral dilemma these days. I took an oath to defend the constitution, against all enemies, "both foreign and domestic", but how do I defend it when what seems to be it's enemy is running the show? I just don't know anymore. Seems this country won't be happy until it's put a gun to its head and done OBL's job for him. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

11-04-2004, 11:49 AM	#72 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	There are other threads where this very specific issue is discussed. This thread doesn't need to devolve into a pro/anti-gay thread. __________________ create evolution

11-04-2004, 12:18 PM	#76 (permalink)
trickyy ►	ii'd also like to point out that bush likely got more of the non-fundamentalist christian votes. not everyone in church thinks the universe was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old; in fact most people don't. kerry just wasn't attractive enough to pull them away from bush. his positions were extremely nuanced and open to misinterpretation. so liberals do need to reach out to these people. to begin, dispense with the postmodern relativism and show some backbone. bush is respected for his convictions. he believes in his actions very deeply, and his confidence is apparently attractive...surprisingly enough to make people overlook his failures. meanwhile kerry came off as a soulless politician. maybe he could do a better job as president, but people didn't see any heart until his concession speech. important question (insulting, yes), as congress will be farther right in 2 years unless something changes... Last edited by trickyy; 11-04-2004 at 12:23 PM..

11-04-2004, 10:07 AM	#48 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Interesting and very valid points. However, both sides are guilty of attempting to impose their moral and philosophical beliefs onto others. The left is just as guilty as the right in some respects.

11-04-2004, 10:36 AM	#59 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	They. Have. Been. Expressly. Forbidden. To. Same. Sex. Couples. Again, a couple who is infertile, or who chooses to not have children, they don't deserve benefits? A homosexual couples personal actions are not a choice, they are born gay. It is hardwired in their brains to be gay. That makes them a natural minority. You watch football by choice, wear polo shirts by choice, you are an artificial minority, If I cut your leg off you become handicapped, you have become a natural minority. What is the secular and religious reasoning for marriage? By secular I guess you mean natural, do you know that there are dozens of animals which practice homosexuality? Did you know up until the Late Middle Ages (12th century), marriage was a personal affair? No church involved whatsoever, no prayer just the community (as witnesses). Father transfers his daughter and a dowry to ownership by the husband, they ate a meal together then went the husbands merry way. Not quite the pomp and circumstance we have injected to it since. You can thank a fervently evangelical Catholic church at the time for everything beyond the simple transfer of ownership.

11-04-2004, 10:43 AM	#61 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Exactly, it all stems: Genesis 38:9 "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother." Then God killed him. That is the basis for no birth control in the Catholic church.

11-04-2004, 11:18 AM	#64 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Ok let's all have a big wonderful group hug. One side is as guilty as the other on different issues. The extremist minorities from both sides leave such a terrible taste in the mouths of the other that we can't ever seem to meet in the middle anymore. The people that are actually in the middle are busy defending the extreme idiots and their views are automatically lumped in with the extremist. It seems to be a "all or nothing" mentalilty, so we get nothing but gridlock. This is America folks, lets attempt to find that middle ground so everyone can live the dream of life, liberty and happiness.

11-04-2004, 11:31 AM	#66 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	See, that's your problem, you still think it's a choice. Can you tell me you could possibly find a guy hot, and that you would want to have sex with him? Do you even know a homosexual and know the kind of rejection and hate that they have had to put up with since puberty? Please, for the sake of america, go meet a gay man or woman. Anyone know a member of this board who is homosexual who can come on here and at least attest that it isn't a choice?

11-04-2004, 11:41 AM	#70 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I guess Matthew Sheppard was just testing the bigots to see if they would actually drag him behind a pickup truck. Some F-ing choice.

11-04-2004, 12:53 PM	#80 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i was just pointing out that not all of bush's support came from the dreaded fundamentalists. christians with more of an open mind also voted for him. i understand evolution is not a political issue. there is another thread about what democrats need to do to attract more people, so i won't go into too much detail. but i think that liberals need to show that they too have strong values that can be backed up bibilically if necessary. republicans don't own god, but many of them can speak about god in a genuine manner. some are simply putting up a facade, but i don't think bush is. talking about religion and faith in the blandest way possible isn't very helpful to liberals, especially when universal concepts of altruism and stewardship shouldn't offend anyone.