Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 914151617181920 LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 398
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #361  
    Obviously the gay 'agenda' is to become welcomed and accepted into society, and the eliminate the stereotypes and negativity. I'd say its a noble agenda. They need their own version of MLK, imho.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #362  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Principly, would not multiple consentual partners be the equivalent?

    {Not that this tangent has bearing on the question at hand}
    No more so than multiple consentual hetero partners would be considered polygamy.... otherwise they'd empty out most of the campuses and bus the kids right to the pen.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #363  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    It was not that long ago that you did not hear about same sex marriage in the mainstream either. My point is that if we decide that same sex marriage is a right for homosexual partners, then it should be a right for any and all consenting adults (incest is the obvious exclusion due to obvious medical issues) whether they have one or 8 partners. If sexual orientation is the basis for the rights then sexual orientation rights should not exclude sets of sexual orientations. I do not think that sexual orientation is a class that should be elevated to that level, but if it is it should be as broad as rights based on race or national origin.
    Is your argument that since gay marriage will probably lead to a changes in laws protecting us regarding polygamy (and beastialy, necrophilia, pedophilia, all those *ilias), then gay marriage should remain outlawed?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    No more so than multiple consentual hetero partners would be considered polygamy.... otherwise they'd empty out most of the campuses and bus the kids right to the pen.
    Right you are. I knew you and I would get back on the same page eventually.
  5. #365  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Obviously the gay 'agenda' is to become welcomed and accepted into society, and the eliminate the stereotypes and negativity. I'd say its a noble agenda. They need their own version of MLK, imho.
    If the goal is to become accepted then I think they should lay off wearing thongs and bondage-style attire at the Pride parades. It doesn't exactly give Mr & Mrs Middle America warm fuzzies when they see it.
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #366  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Is your argument that since gay marriage will probably lead to a changes in laws protecting us regarding polygamy (and beastialy, necrophilia, pedophilia, all those *ilias), then gay marriage should remain outlawed?
    No, did you even read the post you responded to, those seem to be your words, are you aware of gays participating in those behaviors, if so I would urge you to suggest they seek counseling. I stated that if sexual orientation is going to be defined as a class, then it should include all sexual orientations between consenting adults (except incest).
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060706/...s/gay_marriage

    A most interesting story and a surprising one - a judge that believes the people have the right to say yes or no.

    Ben
    Judges are supposed consider only the facts and the law before them. The rest they should leave to the elected parts of the government.
  8. #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    If the goal is to become accepted then I think they should lay off wearing thongs and bondage-style attire at the Pride parades. It doesn't exactly give Mr & Mrs Middle America warm fuzzies when they see it.
    "THEY"
  9. #369  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    If the goal is to become accepted then I think they should lay off wearing thongs and bondage-style attire at the Pride parades. It doesn't exactly give Mr & Mrs Middle America warm fuzzies when they see it.
    You are correct. The fashions of the young rarely give warm fuzzies to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. "Bondage-style" attire is not specific to men or women, straight or gay.

    But I think that you have put your finger on something. At one extreme are those "in the closet;" for them social acceptance on any terms is preferable to what they see as the social rejection accorded them. At the other extreme are those who are "in your face." They are not willing to accomodate to the expectations of others in return for social acceptance. Of course, this difference is not limited to gays.
  10. #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    You are correct. The fashions of the young rarely give warm fuzzies to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. "Bondage-style" attire is not specific to men or women, straight or gay.

    But I think that you have put your finger on something. At one extreme are those "in the closet;" for them social acceptance on any terms is preferable to what they see as the social rejection accorded them. At the other extreme are those who are "in your face." They are not willing to accomodate to the expectations of others in return for social acceptance. Of course, this difference is not limited to gays.
    What did Denzel say in Glory? Suck up that gut, tuck in those lips, and make masta' happy.
  11. #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Of course, this difference is not limited to gays.
    You're right. But who else has international parades wherein this behavior is prevalent? It just seems to me that if a group wants acceptance then "they" would not want their members to be so openly deviant--in exhibitions specificallt intended to celebrate their lifestyle--to what is believed to be acceptable by that society.
  12. #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    What did Denzel say in Glory? Suck up that gut, tuck in those lips, and make masta' happy.
    I'm just wondering how the African-Americans in this forum, and elsewhere in the country, feel about thier struggle being co-opted by the Gay Rights community.
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm just wondering how the African-Americans in this forum, and elsewhere in the country, feel about thier struggle being co-opted by the Gay Rights community.
    That is why I keep saying I consider it racist to try to equate sexual preference to skin color.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #374  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    That is why I keep saying I consider it racist to try to equate sexual preference to skin color.
    I do not think that anyone intends to "equate" so much as compare and contrast. They are similar in that like race, age, and gender, as a matter of public policy, we have decided that we do not want government to be able to discriminate between citizens on the basis of them. They are status things; the individual has no control over them. One's gender, race, age, and at least arguably, sexual orientation simply are.

    In spite of the fact the Rule of Law holds that it is the responsibility of government to protect minorities from oppression, majorities have always used government to keep minorities in their place. However, in this time and place, we have decided to resist that. We cannot make homophobes or racists accept those who are different from theselves. However, we can say that we are going to resist their use of government against those different from them.

    History suggests that when they can no longer use government to justify, legitimize, and enforce the difference, the difference becomes less important. Once we decided that government and law could not arbitrarily discriminate between men and women, the other institutions of the society did so less. Business and academia now discriminate against women less than they did fifty years ago. Even the Church now discriminates less against women than it did when the law said that women could not vote. Once we decided that there could be no de jure segregation, de facto segregation diminished.

    As I said, it is arguable whether sexual orientation can be compared to age, race, and gender. The argument turns on two points. The first is whether or not the minority really is substantively inferior to the majority, that the discrimination is not arbitrary but necessary to public order. This argument applies to the list. The second is whether or not something belongs on the list. In this instance, the majority insists that membership in this minority is voluntary, not a state, subject to individual choice and control, and that therefore it does not belong on the list.

    Now gay people understand and accept that they have no more control over who they find sexually attractive than straight people do. They understand that it would be just as difficult for them to find the opposite sex sexually attractive as it would be for a straight person to find the same sex attractive. They know that it is unjust for government to discriminate against them for something that they cannot change as it would be for government to discriminate against them on the basis of their race or color.

    At least to this extent sexual orientation and race are similar, if not equal.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/12/2006 at 05:10 PM.
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #375  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I do not think that anyone intends to "equate" so much as compare and contrast. They are similar in that like race, age, and gender, as a matter of public policy, we have decided that we do not want government to be able to discriminate between citizens on the basis of them. They are status things; the individual has no control over them. One's gender, race, age, and at least arguably, sexual orientation simply are.

    In spite of the fact the Rule of Law holds that it is the responsibility of government to protect minorities from oppression, majorities have always used government to keep minorities in their place. However, in this time and place, we have decided to resist that. We cannot make homophobes or racists accept those who are different from theselves. However, we can say that we are going to resist their use of government against those different from them.

    History suggests that when they can no longer use government to punish the difference, the difference becomes less important. Once we decided that government and law could not arbitrarily discriminate between men and women, the other institutions of the society did so less. Business and academia now discriminate against women less than they did fifty years ago. Even the Church now discriminates less against women than it did when the law said that women could not vote.

    As I said, it is arguable whether sexual orientation can be compared to age, race, and gender. The argument turns on two points. The first is whether or not the minority really is substantively inferior to the majority, that the discrimination is not arbitrary but necessary to public order. This argument applies to the list. The second is whether or not something belongs on the list. In this instance, the majority insists that membership in this minority is voluntary, not a state, subject to individual choice and control, and that therefore it does not belong on the list.

    Now gay people understand and accept that they have no more control over who they find sexually attractive than straight people do. They understand that it would be just as difficult for them to find the opposite sex sexually attractive as it would be for a straight person to find the same sex attractive. They know that it is unjust for government to discriminate against them for something that they cannot change as it would be for government to discriminate against them on the basis of their race or color.

    At least to this extent sexual orientation and race are similar, if not equal.
    And, on the other hand there are many who will tell you that at one point they thought they were homosexual, acted on the feelings and now have no desire for members of the same sex and instead are attracted and in relations with members of the opposite sex. There are those who say they find both equally appealing and are in relationship with both. There is no evidence other than feelings. This is an issue that one side insists that the feelings are enough without proof and the other side wants hard and fast proof, very similar to creation with individuals on the opposite extremes. As I have continually said though, if sexual preference becomes a class in regards to discrimination, it should be for all consenting adults not just homosexual.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #376  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And, on the other hand there are many who will tell you that at one point they thought they were homosexual, acted on the feelings and now have no desire for members of the same sex and instead are attracted and in relations with members of the opposite sex. There are those who say they find both equally appealing and are in relationship with both. There is no evidence other than feelings. This is an issue that one side insists that the feelings are enough without proof and the other side wants hard and fast proof, very similar to creation with individuals on the opposite extremes. As I have continually said though, if sexual preference becomes a class in regards to discrimination, it should be for all consenting adults not just homosexual.
    Feelings. This is why the Gay and Lesbian community couldn't hold out against the Bis and why the GLB community coulnd't exclude the Trans. Its about "feelings".

    "I don't care what my anatomy looks like, I feel like a woman!"
  17. #377  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And, on the other hand there are many who will tell you that at one point they thought they were homosexual, acted on the feelings and now have no desire for members of the same sex and instead are attracted and in relations with members of the opposite sex. There are those who say they find both equally appealing and are in relationship with both. There is no evidence other than feelings. This is an issue that one side insists that the feelings are enough without proof and the other side wants hard and fast proof, very similar to creation with individuals on the opposite extremes. As I have continually said though, if sexual preference becomes a class in regards to discrimination, it should be for all consenting adults not just homosexual.
    Perhaps there are "many." More likely there are some or a few. I have heard them on TV. They are in mortal fear of ostracism, ex-communication, and damnation.
  18. #378  
    Well, if nothing else, this thread shows that buzz words really do work. It really makes me sad. I'll just address the last few items.

    1. We are not looking for "acceptance". I could care less if you accept me or not - especially if you're just judging me on my sexual orientation. Heck, some of my best friends are straight. But you should not be able to fire me, deny me housing, and the government should not be able to deny me benefits based on sexual orientation. What gays/lesbians do want is to be able to lead a normal life without fear of retaliation. As much as that can be permitted under law.

    2. There is no gay agenda. In fact, gay people argue about this stuff as much and with as much passion as folks here do. Some want marriage. Some don't. Many don't care either way. Kind of like most of America on most topics. (We used to get a toaster oven at the monthly meeting, though, if we converted someone. That pretty much ended when microwaves became popular. They were too heavy and not easy to accessorize with.)

    3. We are not co-opting the black movement or equating skin color wtih sexual orientation. Civil rights are civil rights and apply to people equally. None of my black or black and gay friends feel that anything is being or has been co-opted. Both groups are working toward different goals.

    4. What other parades are based on behavior? Memorial Day parades (behavior in war) and folks dress up in uniforms for those. Mother's Day parades (behavior in being a mother) and folks dress up for those. St. Patrick's Day (people get stinking drunk) and march around in green anything. Pet parades where people show off how well their pets behave. Pride parades actually mean something to the community. And that meaning isn't necessarily finding acceptance from the straight community. In fact, it really isn't about the straight community at all. So please stay home if you're offended.

    5. With the estimated number of gay/lesbians being 10%-20% (either of those numbers are probably on the high side), they are in the minority in the United States.

    Most gays/lesbians are just regular folks who work for a living, pay the bills, and hopefully find a little happiness. The stuff that gets shown on TV or gets discussed on TV represents a small segment of the gay/lesbian population. An example would be that not every straight mother drowns her five kids. But it's a heck of a lot more interesting on the news than "mother of 5 doesn't kill anyone today!" and it gets higher ratings and more money. So that's what the news tends to go with.

    What you see, hear, and react to is only a small representative portion of the population.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  19. #379  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm just wondering how the African-Americans in this forum, and elsewhere in the country, feel about thier struggle being co-opted by the Gay Rights community.
    Discrimination, biggotry, and hatred is everyone's struggle.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #380  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Well, if nothing else, this thread shows that buzz words really do work. It really makes me sad. I'll just address the last few items.

    1. We are not looking for "acceptance". I could care less if you accept me or not - especially if you're just judging me on my sexual orientation. Heck, some of my best friends are straight. But you should not be able to fire me, deny me housing, and the government should not be able to deny me benefits based on sexual orientation. What gays/lesbians do want is to be able to lead a normal life without fear of retaliation. As much as that can be permitted under law.

    2. There is no gay agenda. In fact, gay people argue about this stuff as much and with as much passion as folks here do. Some want marriage. Some don't. Many don't care either way. Kind of like most of America on most topics. (We used to get a toaster oven at the monthly meeting, though, if we converted someone. That pretty much ended when microwaves became popular. They were too heavy and not easy to accessorize with.)

    3. We are not co-opting the black movement or equating skin color wtih sexual orientation. Civil rights are civil rights and apply to people equally. None of my black or black and gay friends feel that anything is being or has been co-opted. Both groups are working toward different goals.

    4. What other parades are based on behavior? Memorial Day parades (behavior in war) and folks dress up in uniforms for those. Mother's Day parades (behavior in being a mother) and folks dress up for those. St. Patrick's Day (people get stinking drunk) and march around in green anything. Pet parades where people show off how well their pets behave. Pride parades actually mean something to the community. And that meaning isn't necessarily finding acceptance from the straight community. In fact, it really isn't about the straight community at all. So please stay home if you're offended.

    5. With the estimated number of gay/lesbians being 10%-20% (either of those numbers are probably on the high side), they are in the minority in the United States.

    Most gays/lesbians are just regular folks who work for a living, pay the bills, and hopefully find a little happiness. The stuff that gets shown on TV or gets discussed on TV represents a small segment of the gay/lesbian population. An example would be that not every straight mother drowns her five kids. But it's a heck of a lot more interesting on the news than "mother of 5 doesn't kill anyone today!" and it gets higher ratings and more money. So that's what the news tends to go with.

    What you see, hear, and react to is only a small representative portion of the population.
    Brent, I applaud you for speaking up and also for speaking so frankly. This is just what the discussion needed. TribalEnvy I thank you speaking up a little earlier as well.

Posting Permissions