ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:37 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:19 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Oh, wow, I hadn't realized that it was time for Jim's Asshole Hour. Let's take it away.

The Man In Black wrote:
In many cases its not an "enforced" minority but a volentary one, gay culture taking it far beyond black culture,


Okay, first of, these are a people who simply are as they are, and are being persecuted by it. Nearly all will clearly let you know they didn't chose to be gay, they just were. Wrongo, buck, but let's keep going.

Quote:
I mean its one thing to say I am a human being and I have the right to be treated like one, another to say my sexual orientation makes me special, look I can dress in a skirt.


Your skirt wearing ways have no relevence here, Jimmy, dear.

Quote:
I like the stereotypes on both sides, gays are either all decadents or decent human beings, what about the part they play in their own segregation? Gay pride parades, the flagrent anti-strait culture in some gay communities, etc etc, all contribute to reinforcing the idea of the dominant group that these people are too mentally unstable to be given proper air time.


Because they want to show that they're alive? Because they don't want to be Gay indoors, and Straight otherwise? Because they don't want to be Gay on weekends and evenings, but straight 9-5 during working hours?

Anyone who has a history has a right to be prideful about their victories, and it's remarkably bigoted to say otherwise.

Oh, and it's not anti-straight by any means, Jim. But I won't hold you responsible for not knowing the truth.

Quote:
Oh, as to the whole issue, comparing gays to blacks or hispanics is rather insulting, I mean there's disapproval and there's actual prejudice, for the most part gays experience the former, the latter is reserved for the stuff of hate crimes and such.



Bullshit, Jim. Gays were portayed as pedophiles, rapists, and sick and deseased. They've been persecuted for the same as any other minority, but are only now reaching for acceptance. This isn't about Gay marridge, Jim. It's about marridge, period.

And I didn't say a thing about hispanics. In fact, my arguement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with rights. Don't make assumptions. It's ignorant. Going on.

Quote:
Lets get it right here; this is not some historic OMG PPL R EQAL moment in history, it is the change of a historically heterosexual institution to include people that we for the most part disapprove of.


Not 'we', Jim.

Quote:
Of course there will be a backlash - to put it in simple terms, if a court ordered you and your friends to let some asshole who's lifestyle you think is immoral or just stupid (lets say, lots of hard drugs, living off welfare, etc etc) into your "Non-Idiots" club, you'd be a little pissed right? Same thing here.


Right. Bitching at me for making a racial comparison, but compairing gays to drug users, welfare recipients, and idiots.

Give the man a cookie, folks. Then a helmut, and sit him in the corner so he doesn't hurt himself.

Quote:
Of course, I don't mind constitutional equal-protection arguements, which are in fact legitimate. As to the slippery slope, there is actually a tenent that the courts have approved where you can ban "immoral/decadent" behavior; most Americans (and judges) don't consider homosexuality decadent on the order of beastiality, per se, but they do at the very least 'disapprove' of it. If homosexuality were that, you'd outlaw it and that would be that.


Keep going...

Quote:
People do not want to outlaw homosexuality, thus putting it on par with heterosexuality, or at least in the same ballpark, and subject to the same benefits and protections under the constitution.


No, Jim. People are out to outlaw it, or at least they're out to limit the lives of the people who happen to like other men/ other women.

Quote:
So its all or nother, either convince teh voters to ban homosexuality like they've banned beastiality, or its a legitimate choice and you'll have equal-protection suits filed everywhere. As mentioned, Bush's constitutional ban on gay marriage has no chance whatsoever to pass, and given his opponent the lodge republicans won't be voting for Kerry anyway, so he can have his cake and eat it, too. Impress the Christian right, everyone else who doesn't approve has nowhere else to go.

-MiB


MiB... every so often, you debate with skill.

Others, you look like a fucking idiot. So I'll tell you what, I'm not going to make an immediate rebutal. I'm going to send a message to a man I respect and admire, a Gay male professional who has been in a healthy, loving relationship for 13 years, and an avid advocate for gay rights. I'm going to set up an account for him, and I'm going to let him make his arguements, and I'm going to let you tell him why he's wrong, kay?

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Just to show it's possible...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
H-Kat wrote:
Oh, wow, I hadn't realized that it was time for Jim's Asshole Hour. Let's take it away.
The Man In Black wrote:
In many cases its not an "enforced" minority but a volentary one, gay culture taking it far beyond black culture,


Okay, first of, these are a people who simply are as they are, and are being persecuted by it. Nearly all will clearly let you know they didn't chose to be gay, they just were. Wrongo, buck, but let's keep going.


I think what Mibby was trying to say was that in many cases people who are gay make a big deal about it, and try to be special through it. I don't think he was commenting on the people's choice to be gay... just how they deal with it. In my own experience, I find it preferable to think of being bisexual as being kinda special and different, rather than thinking of being bisexual as, say, meaning I'm going straight to hell for something I can't help. So, I find myself making a bigger deal out of it than it really deserves, particularly in my case.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
I mean its one thing to say I am a human being and I have the right to be treated like one, another to say my sexual orientation makes me special, look I can dress in a skirt.


Your skirt wearing ways have no relevence here, Jimmy, dear.


The skirt comment is taken out of context, and I'm not reading through post after post of what appears to be bickering to find out the context, but I think Mibby is trying to say that making a big deal about your sexuality is an unnecessary extreme, though expecting to be treated fairly is of course perfectly reasonable.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
I like the stereotypes on both sides, gays are either all decadents or decent human beings, what about the part they play in their own segregation? Gay pride parades, the flagrent anti-strait culture in some gay communities, etc etc, all contribute to reinforcing the idea of the dominant group that these people are too mentally unstable to be given proper air time.


Because they want to show that they're alive? Because they don't want to be Gay indoors, and Straight otherwise? Because they don't want to be Gay on weekends and evenings, but straight 9-5 during working hours?

Anyone who has a history has a right to be prideful about their victories, and it's remarkably bigoted to say otherwise.

Oh, and it's not anti-straight by any means, Jim. But I won't hold you responsible for not knowing the truth.


I can't quite tell what Mibby was trying to say with the connection of the first two phrases and the rest of the quote, but it seems that he is trying to illustrate more of the separatist attitudes that many gay people take as a reaction to the years of repression. When he uses the term "anti-straight" he isn't referring to a militant condemnation of heterosexuality, but to the rather simple idea that we do not live in a world where it is really "safe" to be gay, and the only way many people can think of to change that is to be as openly and flamboyantly gay as possible. Many people think that only by making "gay culture" familiar to as many people as possible will people start to think of it as "normal" or "acceptable." The pride parades etc. reflect the attempts to celebrate and publicize the existence and acceptableness homosexuality.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Oh, as to the whole issue, comparing gays to blacks or hispanics is rather insulting, I mean there's disapproval and there's actual prejudice, for the most part gays experience the former, the latter is reserved for the stuff of hate crimes and such.


Bullshit, Jim. Gays were portayed as pedophiles, rapists, and sick and deseased. They've been persecuted for the same as any other minority, but are only now reaching for acceptance. This isn't about Gay marridge, Jim. It's about marridge, period.

And I didn't say a thing about hispanics. In fact, my arguement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with rights. Don't make assumptions. It's ignorant. Going on.


I think Mibby is saying that while it is true that homosexuals and bisexuals do suffer from the extreme actions of prejudiced people, the majority of what is endured today is rather mild in comparison to what has been suffered by racial minorities in the past. Although he is correct about this, he fails to mention that the homosexuals who were open about it were widely condemned and persecuted, often to far greater extremes than would be seen in response to someone who was of a racial minority. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality can be hidden, while race cannot. Fewer homosexuals were persecuted because almost none dared to be recognized as such, not because of a greater tolerance in society as a whole.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Lets get it right here; this is not some historic OMG PPL R EQAL moment in history, it is the change of a historically heterosexual institution to include people that we for the most part disapprove of.


Not 'we', Jim.


There has never been an "OMG PPL R EQAL" moment in history. Ever. There have, however, been institutionalized changes in the way people are supposed to legally be treated, which have led to some changes in the ways people actually are treated. There are two different kinds of marriage. One is legally binding, and says to the government "We wish to be viewed as a single economic unit, and to have the appropriate allowances made due to that view." The other is societal, and says to anyone who will listen, "Hey, we're life partners, and we want to be considered by (the divine and) anyone who will listen out of the general realm of people who are even remotely available for romantic or sexual interactions with someone other than our partner." One of those, we as voters have the power to decide the legality of for homosexuals. The other is a social contract, and is under the discretion of society and/or the members of the religious faith(s) (and presumably also under the discretion of the divine, though it might be more relevant to say "perceived discretion" instead).

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Of course there will be a backlash - to put it in simple terms, if a court ordered you and your friends to let some asshole who's lifestyle you think is immoral or just stupid (lets say, lots of hard drugs, living off welfare, etc etc) into your "Non-Idiots" club, you'd be a little pissed right? Same thing here.


Right. Bitching at me for making a racial comparison, but compairing gays to drug users, welfare recipients, and idiots.

Give the man a cookie, folks. Then a helmut, and sit him in the corner so he doesn't hurt himself.


I think Mibby was trying to say that it makes sense for people to be upset about the potential legalization of homosexual marriage because they don't approve, and that he was trying to cite examples of situations people frequently don't approve of in an attempt to make his commentary something people could relate to, rather than in an attempt to compare homosexuals to drug-addicts or people on welfare. In short, he was comparing the situations, not the people.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Of course, I don't mind constitutional equal-protection arguements, which are in fact legitimate. As to the slippery slope, there is actually a tenent that the courts have approved where you can ban "immoral/decadent" behavior; most Americans (and judges) don't consider homosexuality decadent on the order of beastiality, per se, but they do at the very least 'disapprove' of it. If homosexuality were that, you'd outlaw it and that would be that.


Keep going...

The Man In Black wrote:
People do not want to outlaw homosexuality, thus putting it on par with heterosexuality, or at least in the same ballpark, and subject to the same benefits and protections under the constitution.


No, Jim. People are out to outlaw it, or at least they're out to limit the lives of the people who happen to like other men/ other women.


I think Mibby was trying to say that he doesn't see a societal trend to have homosexuality outlawed in the same way that many "extreme" sexual acts are. He does, however, see that the majority of people disapprove of homosexuality, but that because they are not trying to outlaw it, he thinks it should be considered in the same class as heterosexuality and treated accordingly. Whether or not that is the opinion of the majority could be determined through survey results, but it is certainly true that people's opinions fall into a range, and some do wish to outlaw homosexuality for whatever reason, while others are fully supportive of it.

H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
So its all or nother, either convince teh voters to ban homosexuality like they've banned beastiality, or its a legitimate choice and you'll have equal-protection suits filed everywhere. As mentioned, Bush's constitutional ban on gay marriage has no chance whatsoever to pass, and given his opponent the lodge republicans won't be voting for Kerry anyway, so he can have his cake and eat it, too. Impress the Christian right, everyone else who doesn't approve has nowhere else to go.

-MiB


MiB... every so often, you debate with skill.

Others, you look like a fucking idiot. So I'll tell you what, I'm not going to make an immediate rebutal. I'm going to send a message to a man I respect and admire, a Gay male professional who has been in a healthy, loving relationship for 13 years, and an avid advocate for gay rights. I'm going to set up an account for him, and I'm going to let him make his arguements, and I'm going to let you tell him why he's wrong, kay?

-Kitty


Regardless of whether or not Mibby feels that homosexuality is wrong, the majority of his statements are about perceived trends in society rather than the morality of the subject, and about his projections for people's behavior.

I posted on this board not because I wish to participate in the debate in this thread, but because I'm tired of seeing people bicker and call each other names, then speak of themselves as using logic to debate. I see it on other boards a great deal, and I see it in #en a great deal. While it is entirely possible that logic was involved in people's conclusions, I see people express themselves so sarcastically and agressively that any point they had is buried in a hail of insults or color commentary. Personally, I enjoy debating, and I might someday want to participate here, but people (and I do count myself) will need a huge amount more self control, and much better language skills before I'd even consider it, because at the moment the majority of the "debates" I've encountered in this group (by which I mean Kyhmers or #en regulars) have been largely comprised of arguments which fall just short of incoherent, followed by gross over-reactions and absurdly unrelated insults. In short, grow up and learn to argue like adults.

-_-'


And, for the record, I think marriage is silly in general, but I can understand why people want to do it, and can think of no particularly important reasons not to let them, regardless of sexuality. Should people care to know more about my views, they can read my livejournal, where they are contained in a public post.

^-^'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
A few tidbits of debate, since I'm tired from debating on another forum.

MiB, please don't assume that because a gay culture movement exists, that all gays are a member of it. Personally, it seems too oversensationalized to me. Rather than saying, "I'm gay, now look at me dance around in bright colors wearing a skirt" at a gay pride event, I take the "I'm bisexual, and you know, I should have the same rights as you do." approach. For me, I've never been either proud nor ashamed of my sexuality. It just... is. Now, should my rights be infringed upon, you can be sure I'm not going to stand by.

... gah. I'm really out of it.

Anyway, I think the idea of civil marriage is a silly one. Marriage should be a religious/spiritual commitment regarding love, not a tax deduction. And for the whole "It promotes procreation" argument, well, life has been procreating for the last 4 billion years or so. I don't think a lack of governmental meddling is going to stop that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Sankou impy.

H-kat: Please grow up. Please stop basing all 'debates' on emotional outbursts. Please use some actual observation rather than immediately assuming any arguement I put down is some childish mishmash that'll make you feel superior. You may need the esteem booster, but I am not going to participate in the intellectual equivalent of bashing my head on a wall. Thats all for this thread.

Edit: To respond to the above, teh probllem isn't that, because the majority of gays arn't part of the so-called gay movement, its just taht teh gay movement is the only represented by these people, thus teh majority of people seem to base their ideas of gay people on this movement.

Sooo...the net effect of teh gay movement isn't to mainstream teh gayness, but to self-segregate that particular brand of gay people. Most gay people I know would not ever think of doing something so outlandish - just normal people who happen to munch carpet or dig buttsex.

-MiB

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:26 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
The "gay movement" isnt trying to segregate themselves from straight people. The gay movement is not trying to obtain different rights to straight people, they just want the same damn legal standard and equality. What about the feminist movement? By holding women-only meetings and embracing the power of being a woman and all that crap, are they doing nothing but trying to alienate themselves from men? Yeah, I guess it IS a form of "This is Us", but the actual aim of womens lib is to get equality. Well, it used to be at any rate.

And your a fine one to talk about emotional outbursts. From what Ive read of your posts, you seem to think personal slander and petty insult matches are par for the course of debating, so dont try to play the "Iam being detached and logical and you are not" card.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:38 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
The Man In Black wrote:
Sankou impy.

H-kat: Please grow up. Please stop basing all 'debates' on emotional outbursts. Please use some actual observation rather than immediately assuming any arguement I put down is some childish mishmash that'll make you feel superior. You may need the esteem booster, but I am not going to participate in the intellectual equivalent of bashing my head on a wall. Thats all for this thread.

Edit: To respond to the above, teh probllem isn't that, because the majority of gays arn't part of the so-called gay movement, its just taht teh gay movement is the only represented by these people, thus teh majority of people seem to base their ideas of gay people on this movement.

Sooo...the net effect of teh gay movement isn't to mainstream teh gayness, but to self-segregate that particular brand of gay people. Most gay people I know would not ever think of doing something so outlandish - just normal people who happen to munch carpet or dig buttsex.

-MiB

-MiB


MiB - Big words and rampant dismissals do not a intelactual make. If you want to get an idea across, if you want to dismiss a notion of another person, if you want to be right...

Hold the same ideals to yourself.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Okay, lets look at this from your perspective.

Part 1 of Mibby's post: OMG he compares being force to accept gay marriage with being forced to hang out with bad people! HE MUST HATE GAYS! Even though he never mentions his own opinion on the matter.

Part 2 of Mibby's post: Legal arguement as to why gay marriage is protected equally, and why slippery slope isn't applicable. Again, no personal opinion mentioned.

Yet your post was construed with personal insults, badly thought out responses, and for one not taking into account that I never actually gave my opinion in those posts, nor made it apparent (observations do not an opinion make etc,) but you assumed that if I didn't brand anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage a nazibigotevilmurdererchildmolestorrapist, then I must hate gay marriage?

You also failed to take into account that, assuming that part 1 of my post is anti-gay (clearly not, observations of how a certain class of people think etc) part 2 makes no sense at all. If I'm anti gay marriage why do I argue that, rather than some legal sidestep-fu (for example, that a gay man is protected equally under the law - he can marry any woman he wants to)?

So, what am I to conclude, except that you're itching for a fight, and anyone who doesn't say "OMG H-KAT R TEH RITE" is subject to a long list of "You're stupid" responses?

Oh, and as a side note, you're an idiot, I think gays should be allowed to marry.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just to show it's possible...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Imp-Chan wrote:
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Oh, as to the whole issue, comparing gays to blacks or hispanics is rather insulting, I mean there's disapproval and there's actual prejudice, for the most part gays experience the former, the latter is reserved for the stuff of hate crimes and such.


Bullshit, Jim. Gays were portayed as pedophiles, rapists, and sick and deseased. They've been persecuted for the same as any other minority, but are only now reaching for acceptance. This isn't about Gay marridge, Jim. It's about marridge, period.

And I didn't say a thing about hispanics. In fact, my arguement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with rights. Don't make assumptions. It's ignorant. Going on.


I think Mibby is saying that while it is true that homosexuals and bisexuals do suffer from the extreme actions of prejudiced people, the majority of what is endured today is rather mild in comparison to what has been suffered by racial minorities in the past. Although he is correct about this, he fails to mention that the homosexuals who were open about it were widely condemned and persecuted, often to far greater extremes than would be seen in response to someone who was of a racial minority. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality can be hidden, while race cannot. Fewer homosexuals were persecuted because almost none dared to be recognized as such, not because of a greater tolerance in society as a whole.

^-^'


You mean, like all the gays that are beaten to death each year for wanting love?

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:26 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Skjie - As much as I respect Imp-Chan's opinions, you hit it on the head.

MiB - enough.

You don't make clear arguements. You don't adopt visible standpoints untill under duress, and then you dismiss any emotional responces for simply being emotional.

The idea of a debate is to sway the thoughts and ideals of the people by appealing to their emotions, prior knowledges and experiences by declairing your own, against whatever opposes your stance.

I make my stances clear, and Defend them with the same head-on emotion based arguements which allow me to guage a person's faith in their arguements.

I'll give that you seldom sway, MiB, but you become as petty, if not more, and rip apart arguements, trying to deride a person's perceptions rather than influence greater thought into issues. And then you'll dismiss any rebutal.

You don't set the rules, Jim. No one does, and it's ignorant to ridicule or dismiss because someone isn't playing right.

Now, I've happily washed my hands of this. Here's a question that Skjie, MiB, and Imp-Chan have gotten me thinking about out - Should abuses brought upon Gays and Lesbians be reported as prolifically as race related ones?

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
I live in Vancouver. There is a big gay population here. Almost every month there is a story in teh paper about someone getting killed for being gay. Don't tell me there is no prejudice there. And Vancouver is a relitively laidback place.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:28 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
LOL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:33 am 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:17 am
Posts: 2
I think poeple should let gay people get marriage and then leave issues alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
QueenSerenity wrote:
I think poeple should let gay people get marriage and then leave issues alone


I think you should beware posting in the Debate club on your first day.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:16 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
QueenSerenity wrote:
I think people should let gay people get marriage and then leave issues alone.

Thank you for your opinion. And so eloquently stated as well. I love how you used previous experience as a basis for your knowledge. It really emphasized the important parts of your discussion. Your citations were equally relevant and properly catalogued. The formatting and grammar were superb. I give this thesis an A+. You should talk to Icy. The two of you would get along well and have much to talk about.

Come back when you can stoop to our level. Or put yourself up for adoption so one of our residents can help you to achieve your potential.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:45 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:04 pm
Posts: 67
Location: I sailed away for a year and a day to the land where teh bong trees grow?!
its all wonderful if they love each other its fine

_________________
Buildings can be rebuilt; no matter what the size, the void in the sky is not just the absence of buildings, but the loss of faith in human conscience. I hold out that this to can be rebuilt, because without it we have nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 5:36 pm 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 5:16 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Nowhere important
Gay marriage. Wow. I picked a pretty subject to introduce myself on. Hi.

I don't, and I can't, claim to single-handedly understand an issue that the best politicians and religious figureheads, and heck, a whole lot of ordinary people have such trouble with, on their little merry-go-round. And it is dizzying. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with the government - that's an old, old, old standard - but can people break religion's rules on that defense?

Of course, I firmly believe that you should marry who you love. I'm not very knowledgable about outside factors, but I do know that I don't know a single gay person, and I also don't know a single hetersexual marriage where either participant is truly happy (or, at least, not very well). I really liked the 12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry - because, you know, without gay marriages, the world is just perfect. This isn't an argument, just a mere observation about how some people talk about the world like it's a place they've been, but they found it despicable and lowering, so they returned to their deserved place on the clouds. I have many religious friends who would argue with me about gay marriage, and who are all beautiful, wonderful people (even though they find my aethism incredibly dissappointing, and I've recieved several invitations to go to church more often) so I try to walk the negotiable edge on this point, but it is challening when the other party won't negotiate.

It's my personal opinion that in a couple of decades, bigotry against gays would have dissippated somewhat like racism. Still a problem, still not gone, but I've seen black hands entangled within white hands, and my heart has been warmed.

Also, I would not exist if not for my parent's mutually gay friend - and they did disco before it was cool, man (not that it ever was).

_________________
Don't Google your life away. ~ me

Hey, you killed the sacrifice! ~ E

I do believe in magic. ~ Peter Pan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 6:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
esilanna wrote:
but I do know that I don't know a single gay person


Hi, nice to meet you. ::offers hand:: ((okay, technically I'm bi, but still))

Just a few pointers, try to keep the level of thread necromancy down... it's okay once in awhile, but you shouldn't do it ALL the time, cause that's just annoying. Oh, and you should probably post something in the introductions thread in Unrelated. Preferably porn, if you want to get a DNI. ^_^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 12:20 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
Come here and meet me and about half me friends. As Skjie said, Vancouver has a very large gay/bi population.

Anyway, on the issue on hand, I really think that we should seperate everyone based opn differences and put them all on different planets so they all get along and end all conflict. A bunch of robots can move people to the planets where they belong. Everyone will be happy. See, I solve problems.

Um yeah....

I believe in universal human rights, which include the right to marry whom you please as long as both parties are willing. I don't think that anyone has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else. I don't think everyone should stop discussing ideas, I think that people should be unable to impose what they believe onto other people. I don't care what lifestyle choices you make, as long as you don't impose them on me or anyone else. Sure, you can talk about it, but saying "I don't like this (people, event, idea), so it's now illegal." grants them an official "Chris the great idiot award".
Now on the other side, we see that not imposing the idea of not imposing ideas in in fact contractdicting itself. Which in a way nullifies my arguement. So please ignore this little paragragh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 12:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Chris THe Great wrote:
Come here and meet me and about half me friends. As Skjie said, Vancouver has a very large gay/bi population.


Yeah, and I've been setup with half them. >.<

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 7:47 am 
Offline
Serial Fangirl
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Posts: 3836
Cenwood wrote:
12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married


there are 28 reasons going around livejournal, including those 12. worth the read as its worded better too.
Quote:
28 Reasons Against Gay Marriage

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don?t know what comes next, we should never change our laws.

13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties.

15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.

17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.

21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions.

23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.

24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row.

25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.

26. The country can't afford to provide benefits for married gay couples. That's why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.

27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would shoot through the roof.)

28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit.


err.. yeah.
as for my opinion... i think i'll save that for later, when i feel less incoherent.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group