In case you haven't heard, another gay sex scandal has hit the news cycle as Washington state Representative, Republican Richard Curtis, announced his resignation after the details of his sexual encounter with a male escort were aired.
During a segment on MSNBC, Dan Abrams, accused the representative of "hypocrisy" for voting against "legislation for gay rights." Of course, we heard the same whining after the Senator Larry Craig and Mark Foley incidents.
With so many liberals crying hypocrisy, it's obvious the charge has much less to do with reason than it does with desperation.
Cody Castagna, a self-described male-escort and pornstar, claimed Washington Representative Rick Curtis was a sexual "freak". Abrams warned the encounter between the legislator and the callboy could not be described on TV, "but let's just say it involved lingerie, rope and a stethoscope."
Another segment commentator, Laura Flanders, a British born mouth-piece for Air America--yes, apparently they still are on the air--accused Representative Curtis and closeted Republicans of being "chickens" for not standing up for "who they are."
"Being chicken that disqualifies you from holding office," said Flanders, so proud that someone was actually listening to what she had to say.
For this liberal loon, Larry Craig's bathroom tap dance, Mark Foley's love texts to teenage interns and Representative Curtis' fetish for female nightwear is "who they are" and therefore these legislators should vote for "gay rights" or else they're hypocrites.
Let's stop and consider how ridiculous this statement is.
When a chain smoker afflicted with cancer votes for anti-smoking legislation, he probably has good reason for at least attempting to shield the public from what he is already suffering. Why would Foley, Craig or the latest, Curtis, be so proud of their wayward behavior that they would want to pass legislation to validate it? Were these men showing hypocrisy and denial or just insight and concern?
On television, radio, print and now even in the public schools, the purveyors of perversion have forced sexual issues onto prime time airwaves like raw sewage into a city water reserve--completely bypassing the filters and waste treatment plant. Things that have always existed, bondage, sadism, public and group sex have steadily become matters for public consumption. It gets to the point were it all seems, common, normal and harmless.
My generation of Americans are numb to the "freak factor". Experts agree that kids who have been sexually abused are more promiscuous and often have an unhealthy sexual relationship. The sexual revolution, as exemplified through the gay agenda, has been molesting the American public for nearly three decades.
During the whole Abrams piece no one, besides old-school conservative, Pat Buchanan, even questioned if hiring a self-described male-escort for sex or cheating on one's wife was shameful.
For liberals, sex in public bathrooms and inter-office relations with interns is just being open and honest. Freak sex behavior is fine, as long as you tow the homosexual party line for the Eldorado of legitimacy: Marriage.
"When you're trying to tell people how to live their lives you'd better be sure you're walking the straight line." Warned Laura Flanders, who probably would be tolerant if her husband had been caught having sex in her black sequin dress. After all, no one is perfect.
And here is what is at the core of the syphilitic liberal brain.
Conservatives realize human beings are imperfect, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing the right thing. Of course, the term "right thing" leaves liberals confused and wondering if this is discrimination against those who can only use their left hand.
Most Americans have a sense of fairness about personal preferences, and this extends to sexual preference. The libertarian branch of conservatism considers sexuality a private matter intimately linked to the pursuit of happiness, or as liberals call it "Girls gone Wild, without the guilt trip."
"As long as you're not hurting anyone and it's between two consenting adults, the government should have no say in the matter," is what many people on both the right and left will say, but this gesture of civility is wasted on a pick-and-choose tolerance driven campaign for radical social change.
The dirty little secret is that the gay lifestyle is marginal and most Americans know it.
Go to San Francisco, the Mecca of the gay rights movement and you'll find a city where public sex is not only common, but encouraged by a city council that when convened, looks like stand-ins for the statuettes that represent the Seven Deadly Sins.
In a city where civil unions have been accepted for over a generation, the City by the Bay, San Francisco is anything but a gay paradise. It boasts the highest HIV infection rate in the country; so much for the pipe dream the official recognition of gay relationships would somehow encourage monogamy and stability.
Folsom Street hosts the homosexual version of a county fair where there are public displays of leather bondage and a wide-array of anal plugs for sale. You'll probably want to skip the bobbing for apples, horseback ride and the kiss the girl for $1 booth, but the fisting demonstration is proof of diversity.
Oh sure, supporters of homosexual marriage and gay rights will insist on love and commitment as the grounds for their "right to equality." This is window dressing for the pink Trojan Horse, but like the rear ends of the senior citizens wearing leather chaps at the fair, there's too much hanging out for the public not to notice the hideous truth.
While producing and filming adult gay films, I thought sex on film was edgy, counter-culture and most of all a black eye for prudish American hypocrisy. This was my way of acting out and showing how little respect I had for the public, friends and most of all family. I felt like a rebel, an outsider that truly enjoyed pretending I was indifferent to criticism, but I was just one person on the fringe.
Boy, look how much "progress" we have made. The marginal lifestyle I espoused is quickly being packaged as a human rights campaign. No homosexual rights advocate will ever denounce lewd public behavior, pornography or promiscuity. They are too busy trying to get the terms "mother" and "father" banned from school textbooks and insisting junior high school kids benefit from live demonstrations on how to properly put on a condom.
For a relatively small interest group, the gay lobbyist and their enablers in high places have come a long way, nevertheless, Americans reject the homosexual agenda and it's not just for conservatives anymore. Representative Curtis, who opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, was elected with over a 10 point lead in hopelessly liberal Washington State.
Oregon, New Jersey and New York, also liberal states have just said no to "gay rights". If given the chance to vote, the citizens of Massachusetts would repeal gay marriage, because they realize same-sex wedlock would be reduced to the status of Representative Barney Frank's roommate.
The keyword tolerance can trace it's Latin roots back to the verb for endurance, so how much will the American public take? We'll have the answer to that question, when no one dares to object to what should obviously be objectionable behavior.
"I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused." Representative Curtis said, after stepping down. It's nice to know someone has a sense of decency, or as liberals call it, hypocrisy.
Columnist Matt Sanchez is currently working on his first book, Gay Jihad: What the radical homosexual movement has in store for you and your family
|
Score:
John Hawkins | 07:00 AM |
(1)
Posted by hogground
2007-11-06 04:19:48
You're right, we would but democracy has been denied to us by our corrupt Democratic leadership who, even though we did what we had to do to have it put forth as a ballot question, has denied our lawful right to have it made as one.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-11-06 04:31:17
Posted by sluggo
2007-11-06 06:45:36
What the heck is an anal plug?
This brings up a question for me, why is sex, of any kind, a political issue?
It just plain shouldn't be.
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 07:23:58
I say that Larry Craig should stay and that not another Republican should resign until such behavior is reciprocated on the Democratic side. When we have the spectacle of a Democrat who murdered his secretary assuming the mantle of elder statesmen and another who was a grand wizard I think we have no fears of any further resignations.
We should simply say to the Democrats sure we will resign...after you!
Posted by PierreLegrand
2007-11-06 07:37:37
November 6, 2007 7:23 AM |
You're right it shouldn't be an issue but, because the left is making it so by trying to force the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.
Insisting on making it ok for homosexuals and lesbians to have same sex marriages.
I really don't give a rat's pootie what people do behind closed doors, but when they start shoving it in my face 24/7, I have a problem with it.
Posted by gfchicago
2007-11-06 07:40:48
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 08:02:39
Posted by gnqanq
2007-11-06 08:08:32
Matt’s cancer analogy is weak at best. Homosexuality is a sexual preference not a disease. The men he listed, Foley, Craig and Curtis, used the not only gay people for their own gain but used Republican Party under false pretense. Their sin is not homosexuality but being deceivers.
One of these days you might actually learn that legislating against homosexuality is not going to eliminate it.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 08:47:25
A personal ad for boorish people?
Posted by NorthernCanuck
2007-11-06 08:59:16
2.) There are a lot of things that people prefer to do that they shouldn't - drink, smoke, gamble, eat too much, have sex whenever and however they want, etc.
And if being deceptive disqualifies you for public office, there is not a single person in this land outside of the newly born that is qualified to hold it. Find me one, just one, politician who has never, ever lied. Heck, find a living person who has never lied even once in their lives.
Does it excuse what they do in their private life? No, but at least they seem to recognize it as wrong and they don't try to legitimize it by voting for measures that would seem to make what they do right.
Posted by aharris
2007-11-06 09:06:17
When can we expect Robert Byrd's resignation?
Posted by Tzimisce
2007-11-06 09:07:53
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 09:10:37
Posted by Malcolm_S
November 6, 2007 8:47 AM |
Legislating against hate and racism is not going to eliminate it.
When can we expect Robert Byrd's resignation?
Posted by Tzimisce
November 6, 2007 9:07 AM |
Let us see your input on this Malcolm. Remember, it is a lifestyle choice.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 09:23:07
November 6, 2007 9:23 AM
Homosexuality is not hate. Homosexuality is not racism. Homosexuality does no more harm than heterosexuality.
In re: Tzimisce's post. Why should I respond to a threadjack?
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 09:32:50
Says that champion threadjacker himself.
Youd said Curtis should resign because he is a hypocrite. Tzimisce simply asked when you would be calling for the resignation of all the hypocrites on the Democrat side (based upon YOUR definition of hypocrisy) like Robert Byrd (KKK-WV).
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 09:36:32
November 6, 2007 9:36 AM |
Morning Stan.. This is going to be a good day.
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 09:41:04
November 6, 2007 9:36 AM
You really should have your eyes checked. Nowhere in my post did I say that Rep. Curtis should resign. You are making things up as usual to distract from the topics that you have no skill to debate.
Seeing as there is no proof that Sen. Byrd has performed any acts of homosexuality, his relevance to this thread is nil.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 09:42:59
Posted by dean
2007-11-06 09:50:33
First, it was not you who said Curtis should resign. I said that in haste and I apologize.
Second, as far as hypocrisy goes, here is how Byrd is relevant...
Yes, Rep. Curtis actions, as an individual, are hypocritical. To legislate against a lifestyle that you are actively participating in, is either due to political opportunism or self loathing.
Posted by Malcolm_S November 6, 2007 8:47 AM
Byrd is a racist, no question about that. Yet his legislation does not tie in whith his lifestyle choice. Byrd is a hypocrite, based upon YOUR definition. So when are you going to be consistant, Mal?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 09:50:48
Posted by Malcolm_S
November 6, 2007 9:32 AM |"
Speaking objectively, and not making any moral judgments, yes it does.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 09:51:13
Since when is gay marriage considered an entire "lifestyle"? And since when is it incumbent upon all gays to vote in favor of it?
You know what? I'm a Christian and I believe that drinking is wrong and I have never consumed a drop of alcohol in my life. But do also I vote to have alcohol banned? Of course not.
By your logic, I, as an individual, am hypocritical, because I vote against a lifestyle (total sobriety) that I actively participate in.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 09:57:34
IOW, you recognize the inherent hypocricy of learjet-flying, mega-mansion-dwelling, multi-millionaire John Edwards' "Two Americas" campaign? Good show, Malcolm.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-06 10:03:02
Posted by Terrible_Ted
2007-11-06 10:06:45
November 6, 2007 9:50 AM
Sen. Byrd acknowledged his past transgressions and has made steps to undo the damage. While he 'has been', 'will' and 'always will be' the weak argument of the Right for racism in the Democrat Party, the argument no longer holds true. Barak Obama himself credits Sen. Byrd for mentoring him when he came to the Senate.
I do not agree with Sen. Byrd's view of homosexuality and would encourage him not to legislate against it.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 10:11:02
You are mistaken, Ted. Sanchez did not work for the UN, so there was no child-raping done there.
Funny how liberals are so tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle, until a Conservative participates in it. Then your true self, hatred and loathing of homosexuals, comes out.
Ted, you are pathetic.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 10:12:14
Posted by Malcolm_S November 6, 2007 8:47 AM
Go to see you admite homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 10:12:56
Weak argument, Mal? Do you really think you can get away with overt racism so easily? All you have done is proven your own abject hypocrisy. How often do you and your ilk claim Republicans are racists and want to lynch blacks over simple political issues like "Hate Crimes Legislature" and "Public Assistance".
Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK. There is no way to tell how many blacks were tortured and murdered either by him or those he recruited. He continues to this day to use "The N-Word", or as liberals call it, "The Worst Offense to Mankind".
And if Byrd were a Republican, you'd admit all this. But sine he has the little d behind his name, you'll ignore it.
Look in the mirror, Malcolm. *THAT* is the face of hypocrisy!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 10:21:18
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 10:26:28
November 6, 2007 10:12 AM
First, it doesnt matter if homosexuality is a 'choice' or 'genetic', the fact that one consenting adult loves another is the point. The suppression of homosexuality focuses on the act, not the relationship.
Secondly, Don't twist my words into making statements that I believe in one thing or another.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 10:27:20
No, Mr. Sanchez, having sex in a public bathroom is not open & honest to liberals. Actually, it's quite the opposite. If "Tidy Bowel" Larry was honest with himself long ago, he wouldn't have to have anonymous sex in an airport bathroom. That's the point.
"Queen of Denial" Craig & Richard "The Dick" Curtis have no one, NO ONE, to blame but themselves.
If they purchased some of those butt plugs in San Fran, maybe they would still have their jobs.
And please, someone explain to me, how smoking cigarettes and the politics surrounding it, are the same as having homosexual sex and the relationships therein?
That's the easy one. After that, you can explain how homosexual porn is somehow more damaging to society than straight porn is. Or how a gay man ignores, or is unaware of, the vast education campaigns within the gay community regarding STDs, hard drugs and anonymous sex.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 10:27:32
Yeah, along with the crime of homosexuality amongst adults; an instant capital offense.
I'm sure you also favored the Taliban's policy of stoning women to death for being raped (yes, your heroes killed the victim in those cases), or for showing any flesh other than their hands and eyes, or for learning to read, or for being outside of the house without a male member of their family...
Man, Ted, you really need to find some new role-models if you're going to claim to be a liberal.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-06 10:29:59
Deflection and Ignorance.
Sorry you can't finish the fight you started, Mal.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 10:35:04
Look... 'choice' or 'genetic predisposition'? I don't care. What adults do? I don't care. What floats your boat? I don't care.
I so don't care I don't ask and I won't tell.
I so don't care that if "you" insist on telling I still won't care.
I so don't care that when "you" go on a rant about gender-bender based "hate" crimes I might point out they are statistically less then zero.
I so don't care that when "you" go on a rant about gender-bender based "hate" crimes against Matthew Shepard I might point out it wasn't.
I so don't care that when "you" go on a rant about gender-bender based "hate" crimes I might point out that I don't believe in preferential treatment.
Why?
I.Don't.Care.
Posted by DANEgerus
2007-11-06 10:39:30
Revisionist history may be your forte', Mal, but it is hard to do when the history is this current.
*YOU* brought up the aspect of hypocrisy. Tzimisce simply tried to find out if your definition of hypocrisy was consistant across political boundries. You have pointed out very clearly that it does not. You have simultaneously admitted your own hypocrisy and destroyed your own credibility on the subject.
We could not have done a better job ourselves.
Now that this has been settled, we can return to the topic; while you whine and complain and get ignored.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 10:51:12
Legislating against gay marriage has nothing to do with one's views on Homosexuality.
MS's example of sobriety and legistlation about prohibition is a good one.
You can screw men and not believe that Malcolm and Lester should have a marriage license.
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 10:52:08
November 6, 2007 10:06 AM |
It’s scary that you’re so intimately familiar with all the child sex slave locations around the world. Is your face the next one that Interpol is going to be unswirling.
Posted by batgeek
2007-11-06 10:53:15
The homosexual fairy tale that only closeted "straight men" are cruising for public sex.
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-06 10:54:23
November 6, 2007 10:45 AM |
project much??
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 10:54:29
November 6, 2007 10:51 AM
God you are stupid. The author, Matt Sanchez, brought up hypocrisy concerning Representative Curtis.
Are you getting tired of being incorrect yet?
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 10:55:32
Lashing out is childish, Mal.
Accept your defeat and loss of credibility and MoveOn.org!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 11:02:49
November 6, 2007 11:02 AM
Thought you were ignoring me. Try again... Okay start ignoring me.... NOW! :)
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-06 11:05:39
Hah!
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 11:09:11
November 6, 2007 10:39 AM
You don't care? Well, that just proves that you're a bigotted homophobe!!1!
(/moonbat)
Seriously though, great post, Dane, my thoughts precisely. Kudos.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-06 11:11:23
Posted by Malcolm_S
November 6, 2007 8:47 AM
1. no. There is no legislation to ban homosexuality.
2. Perhaps he, and many other homosexuals, relize that their desire for homosexual flings is taboo and wrong when you get down to it.....but are willing to continue their persuit b/c it turns them on to do something that isnt correct. You could be ruining it for them malcolm. Especialy when you brinwash them into thinking penis+penis=the same as penis+vagina. Dont be a fool.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 11:14:29
Hmm...I thought he was legislating against gay marriage, not against being gay. If that's the case, how exactly was he legislating against a lifestyle he was actively participating in? Had he married a man we didn't know about?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-11-06 11:20:01
I can't say I ever noticed that Washington state Republicans were a bunch of Jesus freaks. But you carry on with your fantasy, which I'm sure gives you a lot of pleasure.
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 11:23:00
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-06 11:25:46
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 11:27:37
Posted by Jon_Sandor
November 6, 2007 11:23 AM
no kidding.....the religious right....ooooooo In other words Christian Americans that dont want our Christian history stripped from the nation wherever it might show up(as it has for hundreds of yrs)
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 11:29:02
But you cannot screw men and say screwing men is wrong. Or, screw men and then say you do not screw men.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 11:31:23
And since they have no standards, save for the "Do anything to get back into power", it says a lot for their use of "LOGIC".
Thanks for the article, Matt.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 11:31:23
So if I get you right, you are suggesting that gay marriage is equivalent to screwing a gay prostitute?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-11-06 11:33:55
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 11:31 AM
Sure you can. That has nothing to do with legislation. People do and deny things all the time. They even do things they know are wrong.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 11:35:00
November 6, 2007 11:31 AM |
Why the hell not?
I can say heavy drinking is wrong as I pour myself another martini.
Cheers :)
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 11:38:18
Where did Curtis say "screwing men is wrong", Vega? He voted against a bill that would have allowed a small minority of the population to redefine a centuries-old definition of marriage.
I fail to see your problem.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 11:38:33
On a personal note DV, as a father, are you of the opinion that just because you have done something wrong in the past that you will be unwilling to punish your child for it when she does the same thing?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-11-06 11:39:22
November 6, 2007 10:06 AM |
And you base that on what evidence? Stop using your boyfriends anal plug as a pacifier and rejoin the real world.
Posted by sluggo
2007-11-06 11:45:17
and most of the reason that homosexuals push so hard for government approval of their lifestyle is because.
a) it is very much a life-style choice. No one holds a gun to their head and forces them into the lifestyle. No one chains them and refuses to let them leave. They do have a choice to be inactive.
b) As a lifestyle its very unfulfilling and they crave outside approval for something they personally find self-destructive and disgusting. Get just about any gay man alone and a little drunk and 8 out of 10 will cry and admit that they hate the lifestyle and the lack of real intimacy they find, but that they aren't strong enough to leave. Most need to have someone who they perceive "cares" for them. Its not much different than the man who stays married to a woman who refuses to have sex with him, or a woman who keeps returning to a husband who beats her. They know the situation is going to destroy them, but the fear of being alone is even greater.
c) everyone craves "family" and homosexuals generally don't have cultural familles so they demand that government create faux families for them.
The homosexual agenda isn't complex, and it isn't hard to label wrong. the lobby behind it gets support from liberals not because they believe in it, but because it continues an assault on family and decency that they believe will help make communism the only choice for the Western world in the next generatoin and give them the power they crave. If conservatives started openly supporting gays than most liberal groups would dump them immediately as they have no interest in actually helping a people who in private they despise.
Posted by mvargus
2007-11-06 11:46:27
November 6, 2007 10:39 AM |
Great post. I will let others assault the trolls on this subject today.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 11:53:57
by that logic most parents can't tell their kids the following:
a) trying out drugs is wrong. (most parents have at least tried drugs)
b) breaking the law is wrong. (find me any person who doesn't ever break a single traffic law and still drives.)
c) sex before marriage is wrong. (rare today.)
d) underage drinking is wrong. (rare again.)
I'm sure other posters here can come up with 20-30 more. but the point is that you can do something you believe is wrong, and still tell others that you believe it is wrong. Sometimes you don't have a choice, sometimes you make mistakes. With the gay sex issue I think its part of my early post. The republican legislators who are vocally against the gay agenda, but get caught having or pursuing gay sex are part of that group who are weak.
They know its wrong.
They hate that they are tempted.
They which they could somehow stop the craving in themselves.
But they fail.
They personally fit the old saying "hate the sin, not the sinner." they hate what their weakness causes them to do, but in a way, the fact that they do have such cravings means they understand the alure it holds for others, and perhaps better than others can provide insight into how to find a true middle ground.
but liberals don't want to find a middle ground, so they end up fighting to block the agenda completely since deep down, they do not like what is being pushed by the homosexual lobby.
Posted by mvargus
2007-11-06 11:54:10
An interesting claim. Why not?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 11:55:59
good post and I agree with you DANE.
Sadly, the homosexual lobby does care and needs to make sure that people like you and I agree with their agenda.
I just wish they could understand that once their bedroom door is closed I just don't want to know what they do, who they do it with, or how they feel about it. Its not my business to know or care. The only people it should matter to are those that are in that bedroom.
Posted by mvargus
2007-11-06 11:58:07
Posted by Jon_Sandor
November 6, 2007 11:55 AM
b/c that would show you know what right and wrong are...even if you know from experience or example. Vega needs to watch the superslut episode of south park when man whore tells all the little girls that being a slut like paris hilton isnt correct...and he know from experience even though he still does it.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 12:00:37
Well, we know that liberals don't have a problem with politicians lying about sex so it can't be that. We also know that liberals don't have a problem with racists being the "Consciense of the Senate" so we know they don't have a problem with hypocrisy. Hmm...what could it be?
Wait, I think I know! Could it be the (R) that follows this guy's name?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-11-06 12:01:03
I was not aware that Richard Curtis had ever said that screwing men, specifically, was wrong.
Since when? We ALL have a part of our lives that we never tell anyone else about and will deny until the end of time if someone accuses us of it. My best friend used to have a serious porn habit. It wasn't a destructive habit, it didn't affect his job performance or anything (although it did make his girlfriend a little mad) yet every time we tried to call him on it he would deny his porn habit until he was blue in the face.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 12:05:31
Would this be the same 'religious right' that turned a 65-33 D advantage in the House in 1993 to a 62-36 R advantage in 1995? The same 'religious right' that kept the majority through 1998 - and then a 49-49 tie for the next three years?
Or the same 'religious right' that turned a 28-21 D majority in the Senate in 1993 to a 25-24 (actually a 27-23 working majority) R advantage in 1997?
That 'religious right'? Or are there other factors involved ... like millions of new, out-of-state, liberal-leaning voters moving into areas that were once solid red districts?
You talk about a 'thriving' GOP? Who? Dan Evans, the squish? Slade Gorton who suffered a very questionable defeat to Cantwell in 2000?
Dino Rossi who won twice in 2004? But didn't find enough ballots to count after Election Day?
Face it. The reason the GOP put up Craswell and Carlson was because Gary Locke served the GOP far better than he did your side.
It has nothing to do with the 'religious right' taking over the party, and more to do with changing demographics and the Dems being smarter with their fiscal policy.
Posted by jimg
2007-11-06 12:32:54
The reason Rep. Curtis resigned wasn't because of his actions - which D-V incorrectly labeled as illegal - but because he lied about the whole thing.
and above edit (actually a 27-22 working majority)
Posted by jimg
2007-11-06 12:36:13
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-11-06 12:54:00
Curtis isn't necessarily a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage while soliciting gay prostitutes. Depends how he defines marriage...
I do think Curtis would be hypocritical to vote against gay rights given the fact that he is a practicing homosexual. Gay rights means protection from discrimination, not freedom to have sex in the middle of the street or a bathroom stall. I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to engage in those types of behavior. I'm also pretty sure that the gay community is not advocating for that right.
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 13:00:19
No, civil rights means protection from discrimination.
There is no such thing as "gay" rights or "black" rights or "Muslim" rights. There are only civil rights.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 13:06:44
November 6, 2007 11:28 AM |
Malcontent, I have noticed something. You really are a moron. Homosexuallity is a disease. It is morally and physically wrong. It is not a lifestyle and should not be encouraged , but scorned and shamed. The homosexuals have hijacked the moral fiber of this nation to propel an agenda to make themselves accepted for thier deviance. If we accept them, we must also accept pediophiles, criminals, satan worshipers, murderers, thieves, illegals, and liberals. We would also have to tolerate animal husbandry, man/sheep marrage, man/boy marrage, man/little girl marrage.
I for one will not be forced to forsaking my principals for some queer. Curtis should resign for being queer, and should off himself to better the gene pool.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 13:07:13
-Ann Coulter
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 13:15:25
November 6, 2007 1:15 PM |
OUCH
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 13:21:31
Caught on, have you? :)
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 13:26:14
Posted by Armigerous
2007-11-06 13:26:15
Yep, that pretty much describes the average liberal. Must be rough going through life without a moral compass. Almost makes you feel sorry for the poor bastards...NOT!!!!!
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-11-06 13:26:35
November 6, 2007 11:54 AM |
Great post
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 13:33:36
November 6, 2007 1:26 PM |
What are you trying to say??? Please explain…. (That way the trolls don’t have to guess)
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 13:34:51
There is no such thing as a closeted straight man. Although outted gays cruise, closetted gays cruise much more and drive the sub-culture, they have little other option.
Since they are living a lie.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 13:34:53
If that was the case, gay people would be protected by civil rights legislation. Since that is not the case, at least on the federal level, using gay rights is appropriate...
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 13:37:53
November 6, 2007 1:34 PM |
Hey I admit it I am a huge lesbian… Most real men are...
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 13:37:55
Posted by ninerdog
November 6, 2007 1:34 PM |
Ok trolls, listen up. When you have no morals, you wander through life with no sense of direction and no sense of what is right or wrong. Therefore, you are pitiful souls that one could almost feel sorry for. That ok Niner? :)
Posted by NORSEMAN
2007-11-06 13:40:23
Posted by Terrible_Ted
2007-11-06 13:43:24
No, one is illegal. Plus, lying about either is still lying.
Yes, I know. It’s called hypocrisy.
“Pay-Per-Screw” Curtis also voted against discrimination of gays in the workplace and a domestic partnership law.
On a personal note DV, as a father, are you of the opinion that just because you have done something wrong in the past that you will be unwilling to punish your child for it when she does the same thing?
Posted by bjlillo
Not at all. We all make mistakes as human beings and try to learn from those mistakes. I do not fault Craig or Curtis for making a mistake. I fault them for continuously lying to themselves, their family and their constituents over something that is really no one’s business in the first place. If they were more honest from the beginning, no one would care. The lying and deception is what causes the scandal. Not whether it’s boy-boy or boy-girl. An admission and apology usually gives you another chance. Denying something that is sexually, painfully obvious (no penis intended) is political suicide.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 13:52:46
So he voted against giving gays special rights that no one else has. I still do not see the "Screwing Men is Wrong" here, Vega.
“Pay-Per-Screw” Curtis? Ok, sorry folks, but that was clever!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 13:59:24
Samurai, having an unhealthy habit is no where the same as homosexual sex. It's not like junk food or playing video games for too long. It's being turned-on and being able to be sexually satisfied by someone of the same sex. It's a pretty big committment, not something you can fake or just pick up like a cocaine habit.
It's also something you cannot deny or hide or deny yourself. The Catholic priests and numerous Republicans have proven that again & again. You would not risk your career or your freedom for homosexual sex, unless you were sure.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 14:02:47
Still waiting on a response here from D_Vega. Why not?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 14:09:07
Posted by Tzimisce
2007-11-06 14:14:07
I'll admit, if I were Taliban member and I saw a battalion of Rosie O'Donnells marching towards my position I'd crap myself.
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-11-06 14:14:21
Another fine example of why liberalism is resurging. A few more like wyo, and we'll be set. There's no way the Dems could screw it up.
I'm gonna go find a gay guy right now, give him a hug & handshake, and say I fully support his right to be homosexual. And I don't think he's the same as a pedophile or murderer.
Like conservatives do.
And maybe you can explain to me how any gay person could affect the gene pool.
Hellllllo....?
Remember wyo, real men don't have a need to hate. Flagrant hatred is usually in order to compensate for something... hmmmm...
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 14:14:35
Are you speaking from personal knowledge, or do you not know what you are talking about?
Why would "outted" gays not cruise?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 14:17:55
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 2:14 PM |
There...fixed it for ya D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbVrDlVJhUQ
Posted by Pork_Soda
2007-11-06 14:21:33
Why not? Who are you to enforce your prejudices on others? On what basis do you reject the pedophiles?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 14:22:20
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 2:14 PM
Yet again, why must you fabricate this idea that his right to be homosexual is under fire?
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 14:24:19
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 1:52 PM"
So you cannot be guilty of something in your life and tell others its wrong? Ted Kenney killed somebody and I bet he is against murder. Vega, do you tell your kids not to do drugs even though you no doubt experimented with them as we all have?
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 14:31:04
November 6, 2007 2:14 PM
Please site this "right" in the bill of rights....
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 14:32:33
November 6, 2007 2:31 PM |
Ted Kennedy is guilty of water boarding Mary Jo to death.... He got up as was spouting on the floor today about water boarding.. That is being a hypocrite.
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 14:36:03
As long as it is engaged in by Republicans, and preferably in relation to sex. They have less than zero interest in hypocrisy when it happens on their own side.
You might say that they are hypocrites about hypocrisy.
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 14:36:32
Just insight and concern? Ya right! Come on, Matt!
I just checked in here. Now I gotta troll thru the comments.
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 14:38:44
November 6, 2007 2:14 PM |
I don't hate Vega, I simply am tired of the left pushing an agenda that degrades all of us. If the left would be bothered to teach morals, and right from wrong, we wouldn't have such a drug problems, high crime rates, and homos pushing for special priviledge.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that when a conservative sees someone do something wrong, like homosexual sex, they call them on it. If it is one of our representatives, we expect them to do the right thing and resign. It may have been hypocritical for Curtis to engage in deviant behavior, while voting against it, but it was severely hypocritical for him to represent those who know right from wrong. He should resign in disgrace, just a byrd, clinton, obama, edwardo and kennedy should.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 14:40:44
It's also something you cannot deny or hide or deny yourself. The Catholic priests and numerous Republicans have proven that again & again. You would not risk your career or your freedom for homosexual sex, unless you were sure.
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 2:02 PM
Vega, people are turned on sexually by all sorts of goofy things. All they have to do is masturbate and they are then "satisfied." The unnatural and unhealthy homosexual acts are indeed picked up like any other activity. You are curious, you try it, you get a rush from it or the taboo of it and you continue to seek that same activity and tell yourself you need it to get the same feeling. It is not natural and only serves as a selfish desire for pleasure, but you are free to do it in your privacy. A gay couple cannot accomplish the same things as a hetero couple by definition alone, thus they cannot be married.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 14:42:42
November 6, 2007 2:40 PM
Just so you know...there was no "vote" on the right to homosexual bahvior. The vote in question was the so called marriage same sex couples.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 14:47:43
I'm sure this means...something, but I simply cannot figure out what.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 14:49:23
And they are. Gays have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
It's nice to see you admit that you believe in special rights rather than equality.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 14:50:49
Posted by sluggo
November 6, 2007 6:45 AM |
Matt has no choice after one of his former "fans" recognized him.
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 14:51:32
November 6, 2007 2:49 PM |
Samuri,
A "principal" is an administrator, a principle is a belief. My thought was right, just typed in the incorrect word.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 14:53:26
Posted by mightysamurai
November 6, 2007 2:50 PM
You mean there is not a right to deviant sexual satisfaction?
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 14:54:12
So voting against an unconstitutional "anti-discrimination" bill is equivalent to saying that screwing guys should be illegal?
How's that anti-psychotic medication working out for you, D-Vega?
To you, perhaps. Others might disagree. Which was, of course, my point.
This sounds like a wonderful argument for NAMBLA.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 14:58:30
I know, but even then it doesn't make sense.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:03:21
November 6, 2007 2:51 PM |
Spoken by the proven liar and hypocrite that you are. Have not been around in a while. Were you in prison for knowingly hireling illegal aliens or were you fired for your incompetence in producing your bolts??? I am still waiting for your stolen pictures…. The FBI would be very interested in them.
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 15:04:45
And here we have the conservatives argument in a nutshell, everything that is wrong in this country is the left's fault.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:07:40
Obesity and second hand smoke are health hazards, but homo sex doesn't cause aids. gay marrage does not diminish real marrage.
Pull the other one.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 15:10:41
Just look at the post Vega is responding to and then tell me that their right to be homosexual isnt under fire.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:11:34
Of course, there was nothing in Wyo_os_con's post even resembling this, but you can go ahead and pretend there was if it makes you happy.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:12:38
You are right obesity and second hand smoke are health hazzard, homosexual sex doesnt cause aids, it may spread it just like heterosexual sex can but the act of having sex doesnt cause aids, surely you cant believe that. Also last time I checked my marriage was fine gays marrying in Mass and the high divorce rate in this country. Neither of those two things has any bearing on my marriage what so ever.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:15:06
I didn’t say outted gays do not cruise. I said the closeted ones drive the subculture, since they have little choice otherwise. An outted gay male can go to a bar, hook up online or on the street. There is nothing to hide. Back in the 60’s & 70’s, there was no distinction, as most gays had to live their lives in hiding.
I reject pedophiles as violent criminals who prey on the innocent. Children cannot make an adult decision about sex. It is rape. It’s only called something else to be more specific. Wholly different from homosexuality.
I was responding specifically to wyo calling it a disease, etc. If you are calling it a disease, you are definitely saying it’s not a right.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 15:15:28
I didn't see anything in Wyo_os_con's post advocating that homosexuality be outlawed.
One would think that, if he had meant it, he would have said it.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:16:48
We're not demanding Craig resign -- he says he's straight, he's one of yours and you're welcome to him. Trust us, the Democrats are thrilled this pervert Republican remains front and center in our congress. The only ones asking for his resignation seem to be the people who voted for him and now feel betrayed for some reason. Go figure.
Posted by psmarc93
2007-11-06 15:20:13
We're not demanding Craig resign -- he says he's straight, he's one of yours and you're welcome to him. Trust us, the Democrats are thrilled this pervert Republican remains front and center in our congress. The only ones asking for his resignation seem to be the people who voted for him and now feel betrayed for some reason. Go figure.
Posted by psmarc93
2007-11-06 15:20:30
Mighty, how can you sit there and say that he doesnt think that homosexuality should be outlawed. When he compares them to murderers, thieves and pedophiles (you know people we either lock up or kill.) and then says that this particular homosexual should "off" himself for the betterment of us all, you are either being stupid or supporting him, which is it?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:20:38
November 6, 2007 3:07 PM |
Where do you see that as the conservative argument?? If you knew how to read, it is straight talk. The left IS to blame for our morals being degraded, for tolerating drugs and deviant behavior. Those on the right that follow that path are also to blame, and should be punshied accordingly. byrd brain is a racist, yet accuses the right of race hatred, kennedy is a murderer, murtha is guilty of taking bribes, yet their deviance is tolerated by the left, so where am I wrong? you lefties just don't get it.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 15:20:57
And if Byrd were a Republican, you'd admit all this. But sine he has the little d behind his name, you'll ignore it."
Posted by StanW
November 6, 2007 10:21 AM |
Are you saying that it is impossible for Byrd to have "reformed" from his previous unchristian ways, like Matt Sanchez has done? How about all the other formerly bigoted segregationists, for example, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Governor Wallace, and on and on, who have "reformed"? Has Helms even "reformed? Here is a good column entitled "Jesse Helms, WhiteRacist", by David Broder. Go here for the column:
racematters.org/jessehelmswhiteracist.htm
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 15:23:30
Lets run with this logic, shall we?
IDP is not opposed to gay marriage because his marriage is not affected by gay marriage. Therefore:
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:23:56
Mighty it is truely amazing how daft you are. When he said that the moral fiber of this country has detoriated and it is all the lefts fault what do you think that he is saying?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:24:33
November 6, 2007 3:20 PM |
NO you dont get it, that is what we have been trying to tell you, you dont like it feel free to leave the country and relocate yourself to a country with more of your ideals.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:27:39
And why would I care to seriously respond to an admitted liar and criminal like you?
BTW, you do know that George Wallace was a Democrat, don't you?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 15:28:18
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 3:15 PM
No, your response was intentionally misleading....."hug him for his RIGHT to be gay." Again, trying to further this notion that there is some legislation to end the "right to be gay." You could have responded to his "disease" comment a little more directly.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 15:29:45
November 6, 2007 3:15 PM |
Correction, homo sex does not cause aids, but the fact that 90% of the cases are in homos says that homosexual behavior is a public health hazard and should be regulated just as they would smoking, obesity, trans fat, etc. But the left does not see an advantage to consistency. They want to legalize marijuana, so that the drugs are tolerated, next it will be cocain. it is inevitable, let them change on moral, and the rest will fall like dominos.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 15:29:48
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
Mr. Curtis, Mr. Foley and Mr. Craig were, to a one, hypcorites - espousing anti-gay tenets and promoting anti-gay legislation while participating in gay acts. Now, it's entirely possible/plausible they are not themselves 100% gay, but they've engaged in homosexual acts, gaining pleasure from those acts, and THAT is where the "hypocrisy" charge comes in.
That charge, by the way, destroys any credibility they possess, period. They've labored against homosexuals, but they want to be homosexuals on the sly...which inoculates their words against their deeds. Utterly.
Posted by Lester_Craven
2007-11-06 15:30:07
A pedophile might disagree. They would argue that children can make adult decisions about sex and that it is not rape. They would argue that their desire to have sex with children is simply a "sexual preference" and that you are simply discriminating against their "lifestyle".
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:30:39
Closeted gays also go to bars and hook up online or on the street. Where do you get your knowledge from? Do you know any gays, closeted or otherwise?
Sure. But you think this because you have accepted the norms of your culture, at least in this respect. Why not throw off those bourgeoisie constraints, as you have done woth so many other things?
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 15:30:49
Mighty your logic is seriously flawed, I would suggest a logic's course but it might be over your head. Let me put it in simple terms for you.
When others dont have healtcare it affects me because I have to make up the difference, that money has to come from somewhere so I get charged more. Last time I checked when someone else gets married it doesnt cost me a dime.
Lets tackle poverty, when people are poor and downtroden then the crime rate usually goes up again effecting me. Last time I checked there were no crime sprees based on who people were marrying.
Try using adult logic and not simple answers, I know you think the world is black and white however as adults we have learned that it usually is grey.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:31:36
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 3:27 PM
Ummm, excuse me....your the one that wants to invent new laws that favor one person over another. There are numerous euro countires that would be just fine for your "anything goes" attitute. DOnt change my country, go find another and move.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 15:35:15
"Fear and hatred" must be liberalese for "morality".
No one said you had.
I'm sorry, but are you actually criticizing us for wanting to get rid of a corrupt politician?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:35:17
Do you lie much? Give me a break 90% of aids cases are due to homosexuals? You really need to get some information on this disease before you make utterly stupid statements like that. Wait I am talking to a conservative so that should not suprise me, get educated on Aids and then maybe we can have a discussion.
However lets use your logic. 90% of DUI cases involve alcohol so we should make alcohol illegal. Since it is the biggest drug shouldnt it be illegal allready?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:38:28
Actually this is MY country that you are trying to change. See how easy the conservative answers are, I changed my mind lets use conservative logic and its simplton answers.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:40:51
Posted by ninerdog
November 6, 2007 1:37 PM |
I knew there was something "different" about you, chickendog! The truth comes out! That's OK, I am not prejudiced against lesbians. I uphold one of Jefferson's principles, that is, what my neighbor does should not concern me, as long as he/she does not harm me.
Posted by ninerdog
November 6, 2007 3:04 PM |
Yup, I just snuck back over the border after being deported!
Stolen pictures! You are afraid to put your money where you big mouth is, so you come up with the lame excuse that my 400+ pictures are stolen, you chickendog. Here chick, chick , chick!
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 15:41:13
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 3:31 PM
To most couple, marriage is more than just money. There are things that money cannot buy. Your disire to soil my marriage by calling two gay guys relationship the same as mine cost me plenty. By DEFINITION their marriage isnt the same. It take one penis and one vagina to make a marriage....they dont even have to love eachother, like eachother, or even have kids. Their possiblities and abilities will always be greater than a homo couple by DEFINITION.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 15:41:30
Posted by D-Vega
November 6, 2007 1:52 PM |"
Did Ann nail that or what?
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 15:43:38
November 6, 2007 3:27 PM |
way to make a real comback there boy.
Whatsa matta ipm, at aloss for your degraded morals? no repsonse for your side screwing things up so badly? your part of the problem, not part of the solution, your parents did you a disservice by not teaching you properly, or was it the liberal school you went to that passed you without making sure you had any intellect?
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 15:44:09
I am not soiling your marriage YOU are, I could care less who you married or when it happened. Doesnt matter to me if it is healthy or not, dont care if you have kids or not. You seem to put alot of stock in what OTHER people think of you, that must be hard to live with.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:44:37
Sure I would (he’s 21 months now so it’s a little early.) But if I am preaching to him about the dangers of drugs, and then slipping into my bedroom to smoke crack, I am doing both of us a disservice. I am also doing a disservice by NOT telling them what drugs I have or haven’t done. It’s dishonest.
We guide our children so they can learn from our mistakes. We don’t lie to them thinking they would be better off. You don’t tell them pre-marital sex is wrong and leave it at that. You explain why they should not have pre-marital sex, or try drugs, or break laws. You explain what mistakes you or your friends made and what you learned from that.
That’s honesty. It’s not hypocrisy.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 15:44:47
Thank God for idtiots like you wyo, it reminds me everyday why I am thankful for my liberal upbringing and critical thought that was taught to me by my teachers. Thank heaven we have the Dems around to offset such idiotic behavior, stay in Wyoming then at least I know which state not to visit.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:48:06
Posted by StanW
November 6, 2007 3:28 PM |
Yes, of course I do! Most of the segregationists in the last 100+ years were democrats. A few, like Strom Thurmond, switched parties. I believe that Senator Thurmond and Governor Wallace actually did reform in their errant ways. I believe that Jesse Helms was a segregationist til his death. I don't know about Senator Byrd.
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 15:51:00
It's actually quite easy, considering that he never actually said that homosexuality should be outlawed.
If you disagree, feel free to point out where he used some variation on the phrase, "Homosexuality should be outlawed".
I call the Democrats murderers, thieves, and deviants too. But you don't see me calling for them to be locked up.
I think he is taking specific problems and blaming them on the left. I don't remember him saying "everything is the left's fault".
Why don't you take your own advice, IDP? Plenty of European countries that more closely resemble your viewpoint. Why don't you move there?
How would you know? You can barely form a coherent statement as it is.
Then stop voting for legislation that compels you to pay for other people's healthcare. It really is that simple.
So poor people are naturally criminal? Is that what you're saying?
But if I don't use simple answers, how will you be able to understand me? I know you have such a horrible time with multi-syllable works.
Right, because everything is relative. There's no such thing as right or wrong, just different shades of grey. Does this make pedophilia a "lifestyle choice" like homosexuality?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:51:04
Civil rights legislation protects people based on race, religion, gender, etc.
It does not provide protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Samaurai, I am assuming that you would not mind if a homosexual who excelled in the work place and kept his or her private matters out of the office was fired because of their sexual orientation??
Of course you would. In fact, you'd probably be elated by it.
"It's nice to see you admit that you believe in special rights rather than equality."
So you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act?
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 15:53:06
But you sure jump to his defense. Must be that "little d" after his name.
Authorities closing in on you yet, Fiza? Enjoy your time in jail.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 15:55:30
Because I love the country I live in, you seem to be the one who has a problem with it.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:56:34
November 6, 2007 3:38 PM |
Yup, we tried that, then the lefties came up with organized crime ie Al Capone.
You just don't understand the analogy, if you want to regulate health, then you must regulate deviate behavior. If you allow two sheeples of the same sex to marry then you must by definition allow all other marrage. even if the behavior is a public health hazard. homosexual behavior raises health costs by spreading aids, therfore it is as dangerous as second hand smoke, and should be outlawed as a public health hazard. Therfore the question of same sex marrage is mute because it is a public helath hazard.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 15:56:34
November 6, 2007 3:41 PM |
I told you to do it. Still don't have them. You are a coward. Everyone here knows that. Your a liar. Everyone here know this also. You have admitted to being part of the problem with illegal's coming to this country. You have admitted to being party to DUI at your work. (If someone dies I will give the police your posts as evidence that you knew about it and allowed it) I still do not have an answer about the owner knowing about you allowing people to drink then drive home from his shop.
Posted by ninerdog
2007-11-06 15:56:36
Speaking of simpleton answers...
IDP, how is he trying to "change" the country? Isn't he the one advocating that we NOT change?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:56:52
You would have to prove that. Drugs, Crime and Homosexuality (obviously) is not a leftist trait. Let me know if you need some examples.
You mean they call them FOR it.
Engaging in homosexual sex is not grounds for resignation. You see, that’s what the point is. He should resign because it was a prostitute, male or female. Craig should resign because it was lewd behavior in a public restroom, male or female. The reason why these men broke the laws is because they could not face their true sexuality because of the politics involved. That’s the point, wyo.
And you do hate if you consider homosexuality the same as pedophilia, rape, murder, etc. You do hate if you think a homosexual should off themself.
Would Mr. Sanchez be included in this pool? Do you think Mr. Sanchez is diseased and should off himself?
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 15:57:31
No offense, but if you really think that you can raise a child without lying to them at some point, you are a fool.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 15:58:56
Heterosexual sex also spreads AIDS as well as herpes, syphillis and other diseases, therefore it should be outlawed as well correct?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 15:59:15
I see your mind reading abilities have not improved since our last encounter, crsrds.
This isn't about Civil Rights, and you know it. Gays have all the same rights everyone else does. This is about giving a small minority of the population certain rights that no one else has. Surely since your side of the aisle argues Equal Protection under the law for everything else, you see where this could lead?
Or maybe you think you can push it through for this issue and it will never come up again?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 16:01:11
Oh, and BTW, nice use of the word "jihad" there...nice 'n savory. Gay linked to jihad, linked to radical. Classy shiz there, Matt. Ever worry about terrorists much? Or do you not make a homosexual/terrorist distinction? Just wondering, you mothers are always so off the rails it's hard to keep up with your insanity.
Posted by Lester_Craven
2007-11-06 16:04:12
What certian rights are those STan?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:04:31
Posted by StanW
November 6, 2007 3:55 PM |
Nope, I don't live in Maricopa county! Even Sheriff Arpaio only arrests the illegal employees in those road blocks, but he lets the employers go. So if you live in Maricopa county, it is still OK to pick up day laborers at your local Circle K or 7-11.
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 16:04:57
No offense taken, samurai. I was not talking in general, like Santa Claus, or sex when he is five years old. I meant when my teenage son is first explained the birds & bees or drugs, I will be as honest as possible.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:05:07
Not true. Civil rights have precisely nothing to do with race, religion, gender, or any other class.
civil rights, plural noun.
the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
I probably would mind. But as I'm not in charge of the business, I can't do a thing about it.
Yes I would, because it's completely redundant. The Equal Protection Clause already protects against discrimination.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:05:54
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 3:56 PM"
Have a problem with what you intend to change it to.....yes.
"I am not soiling your marriage YOU are, I could care less who you married or when it happened. Doesnt matter to me if it is healthy or not, dont care if you have kids or not. You seem to put alot of stock in what OTHER people think of you, that must be hard to live with.
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 3:44 PM"
Apparently you do have a problem with (my) marriage or you wouldnt have the desire to change its defanition. I do place a lot of stock in (my) hetero marriage because its the building block of humanity since the beginning. Call a spade a spade. Dont play pretend with me. And yes, i want other people to know that marriage, even mine, is the authentic man and women version.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:06:12
November 6, 2007 3:56 PM |
If you loved your country , you wouldn't be an idiot liberal. You would be one of the first ones to critisize reid, pelosi, clinton, byrd, craig, curtis, and the others that degrade this country. Nope your just amoron, with no morals, and no original thoughts.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 16:07:13
If your argument is confined to marriage, then you might actually have a point.
My assertion is centered around "gay rights". I don't think marriage is a "gay right." I have no problems with gay people getting married, but that is irrelevant. Civil rights legislation was enacted to protect those who were being unduly discriminated against. Protections are not provided for those who practice a non-hetero sexual orientation. There is no denying that gay people are discriminated against in and out of the work place. If you do not believe that they should be protected from discrimination based upon nothing more than their sexual orientation, then you probably believe that women, African Americans, and people of differing religions shouldn't be protected either...
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 16:09:43
You claim to "love" this country, yet you are doing everything you can to change it.
Perhaps you are in an abusive relationship with your country?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:11:17
I’m not sure you understand what homosexuality is. You do know it’s having sex with the same sex, right? That a man has to stick his penis into another man while retaining an erection and eventual orgasm? You do know that this cannot be tried and continued because of the taboo nature of it or “picked up” like playing Xbox Live. It’s not simply being “turned on.” It’s is a realization that you are attracted to the same sex.
We don’t get married solely for procreation. Lots of straight marriages never have kids. The point is, government should not be involved at all. Let the gays marry or call it whatever you like. But they should be able to make that commitment to each other.
If wyo is stating that gayness is a kin to murder and pedophilia, than yes, he is saying that he would infringe upon an adult’s choice to have sex with another adult.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:13:26
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 16:13:28
Well that is a difference that we have because I could care less what others think of my marriage, doesnt effect mine in the least, I am sorry that you have to have others approval.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:14:04
Like I said, crsrds, your mind-reading skills stink. You know nothing about me or how I feel and who shoudl or should not be protected. You'll have to do better than tell me what I think.
And since I have read articles about people sueing for wrongful termination due to sexual orientation, I'd say that there *IS* some denying that gays are being discriminated in the workplace, unless you can prove otherwise.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 16:15:17
November 6, 2007 4:04 PM |
Terribly sorry, dear boy, but I'm afraid no one cares what you think.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:16:41
I see, so all liberals dont love their country is that what you are saying?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:18:39
November 6, 2007 4:13 PM
Read my other comments b4 your smart ass comments. All the evidence is on my side for homosexual activities. ALl you have is feeling. Funny you say you want the govt out of it yet you desire them to recognize it.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:18:51
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:18 PM | "
Yep. That's about right.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 16:22:05
So you have a list of the "rights" that other Americans have but gays do not? Would you care to list them for us?
Actually they were enacted to ensure political and social equality, but you don't care about that.
Nor for those who "practice" a hetero sexual orientation, but you don't care about that either.
No, I don't.
The government should not be telling private businesses who they can and cannot hire or fire.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:23:05
Stan, you just proved that discrimination due to sexual orientation is happening. If people are suing because of that it means that they percieved discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:23:36
November 6, 2007 3:57 PM |
You are correct. Craig and Curtis should resign because of thier decietfulness of their actions, not because of the action itself. except that the actions were illegal under other laws.
homo sex is deviant behavior from what society considers normal, just a murder, pediophilia, and other such behavior. Up until the last 20 - 30 years, homosexual behavior was illegal in most states, that changed reluctantly because of the efforts of the left. The beggining of the end of morality in this country. If homosexuality is tolerated, why isn't murder, pediophila, and other types of behavior not considered normal by the majority of society?
As far as Mr Snachez, that is for him to decide, I have lost a lot of respect for him as a human, though not as an American.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 16:24:07
I’m sure you would support the legal regulation of blowjobs, etc. Good luck getting elected.
No, not all. You are wrong here. Opposite sex people marry now, and yet you still cannot marry your daughter or mother.
As does sharing needles and any kind of sex. Wrong here again.
There you go, mightsamurai. OUTLAW GAY SEX. Good luck with that. Maybe you can start with Republicans and then hope, one day, to try and stop the gay Dems.
No more unhealthy than the 50% of straight marriages that fail.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:24:20
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. "
Your view seems to conflict with the law of this country...
"I probably would mind. But as I'm not in charge of the business, I can't do a thing about it."
I saw many references on this thread to right vs. wrong. If something is wrong, should we simply disregard it or do something about it? We live in a free country and businesses have the right to hire whoever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based upon factors that are completely irrelevant to one's performance of their job.
"Yes I would, because it's completely redundant. The Equal Protection Clause already protects against discrimination."
Well, if it did, there wouldn't have been a need for legislation. Considering that it was not successful where the Civil Rights Act has been successful, I believe the legislation was necessary...
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 16:25:23
Stupid is as stupid does
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:25:29
November 6, 2007 4:14 PM
In case you havent noticed there are men and women. THey have and deserve their own relationship given they can accomplish(at their desire) things that homosexual couples cannot until everybody has both a penis and a vagina. You might not mind being lumped into the same group just becuase you call it love, but i and most americans do. Get over it.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:25:55
Posted by ninerdog
November 6, 2007 3:56 PM |
DUI at work! What the f*&% are you talking about? Where did I say that employees drink on the job? Maybe a small minority do, but obviously, the owners would fire anyone who was caught drinking on the job. We have no control over what an employee does after work or on lunch break as long as he does not come in drunk. You must live in some kind of dreamworld! You mean that white collar workers never drink alcohol during lunch or after work? Ever heard of, what is it, a two or three martini lunch? Do you hang around bars and restaurants and call the police when someone drives away after drinking? Do you have the bartenders arrested for sering anyone a drink who drives away after?
Maybe admitted lesbians like you don't drink. Good for you! Alcohol is a drug and I don't advocate drinking either.
PS, I don't want to get too nosey here, but since you are an admitted lesbian, are you "married"? Do you advocate same sex marriage?
Posted by fiza
2007-11-06 16:26:31
THANK you!!!
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:27:07
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:25 PM | "
Is that all you got?
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 16:27:23
Thats all I need, its kind of like you bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:29:54
Oh, I don't know.
I’d vote for a guy that supported a blowjob quota. :)
*GASP*
How dare you discriminate against those who wish to marry their mother or their sister?! BIGOT!!!
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:31:07
Name one thing that a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual one cant?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:32:21
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:33:42
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:29 PM | "
Oh, I'm cut to the quick.
Not.
You got nothing, asshole.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 16:33:45
November 6, 2007 4:24 PM |
Vega, you are correct again, we should start with the republicans. That is why we want craig and curtis to resign. They are deviants, and should not bb representing the public trust. No if the demoncrites would clean thier house, this country could get on to the business of running the country.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 16:35:37
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:32 PM
Create and give birth to a child using both of their DNA. Your butt and steves wee wee cannot do that.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:35:41
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:32 PM | "
Make a baby, asshole.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 16:36:06
Like I said, thats all I need.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:36:16
November 6, 2007 4:24 PM |
Vega, you are correct again, we should start with the republicans. That is why we want craig and curtis to resign. They are deviants, and should not bb representing the public trust. No if the demoncrites would clean thier house, this country could get on to the business of running the country.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 16:36:28
And be seen by the public? That would go against the whole “in the closet” thing.
My knowledge is based on having gay friends (one who is a very close friend) and growing up in one of the gayest cities on the planet, NYC.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:36:42
And your view seems to conflict with basic English.
civil rights, plural noun
the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
And what do you propose we "do" about it? For all business owners to attend re-education camps, aka "sensitivity training"? Make a quota requiring all businesses to employ a certain number of gays/blacks/women/etc.? Jail any business owner that doesn't abide by "anti-discrimination" regulations?
Isn't this starting to sound suspiciously like Fascism?
So in other words, you're opposed to freedom and property rights.
Good to know.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:37:44
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:36 PM | "
Yep, an asshole.
A reactionary asshole.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 16:37:48
Wrong answer, women can be inseminated with sperm no problem. So lesbian couples can make a baby, however you are right, the gents would have a hard time with that.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:38:22
November 6, 2007 4:33 PM
Who are you to say that a child is such until 18? WHo are you to say that a 13yr old doenst know if they want sex or not? ALl we have to do is leave it up to you liberals and anything is possible. You cannot pick the line past whats natural and draw it to your liking.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:39:03
Not for gay people. You keep missing that point, don't you.
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 16:39:34
1) Reproduce all on their own
2) Get married
3) Automatically understand which one is the wife and which one is the husband
4) Check the "married" block on their federal return
5) Hold hands while walking down the street and have people think it's normal
6) Be able to say "I just don't understand women/men" in an argument...and MEAN it
Posted by jasamc
2007-11-06 16:40:19
OK, Vega. I've posted this before, but will again, just for you.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, both of legal age, consenting, and not related by blood. Proponents of gay marriage want to change one and only one part of this definition, that part being the "man and woman" part.
Conservatives are simply asking, "Once a change to the definition is made, what is to stop another group next month, next year, or next decade; from demanding that another part of the definition change?" Can you say with any certainity that NAMBLA or some other paedophilia group will not demand recognition and insist that the "adult" part of marriage be eliminated. I mean, after all, people married young a long time ago. Why even Mohammed married a 9-year-old-girl. Why not?
THAT is our point. Today, it is "man and woman". Tomorrow ir is "adult", or "consenting", or even "human".
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 16:42:26
So what you are saying is that it really isnt important that we fight the right vs wrong battle, except when you find it politically convienient.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:42:27
Just like I could care less what a gay guy might say.
And a gay person may say that it's not a mental disorder or a choice.
What's your point?
According to you. Just like how, according to me, homosexuality is a choice and a sin.
Why are you automatically right while I am automatically wrong?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:43:55
And what line is that?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:45:03
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:38 PM
You retard....the question was what can one couple do that the other cant. UNtil you find a women that produces spirm they lesbian COUPLE cannot make a baby of their own. Nobody wants to know whos or what spirm you can squirt in there.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:45:47
Except the lesbian couple isn’t really making a baby, are they? One lesbian is making a baby with an anonymous sperm donor.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:46:08
Mighty,
Why are you right and I am automatically wrong?
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:47:02
Aw man, wyo. You are making this too easy.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:47:24
November 6, 2007 4:39 PM |
And who is that says murder is wrong? why because God said so? /moonbat, why can a sheep not make a decision? ipm does, why cant I have 6 wives? why cant I rob you and break into your home? who is to say that is wrong?
The lefts argument does not hold water.
Posted by wyo_os_con
2007-11-06 16:48:00
Oh, so you have that list of rights that gay people are being denied?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:48:33
Sure they are Mighty, the act of "making" a baby is simply that sperm reaches the egg and then fertilizes it, that is all it takes to "make" a baby.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:49:30
There’s an outing machine against Republicans? Why would they need any help in getting outted?
Let’s see… Larry “Potty Mouth” Craig gets outted. How? Oh yes, he was busted in a sting operation (he broke the law) that netted over 40 people.
Richard “The Lyin’ Hearted” Curtis gets outted. How? Oh yes, he refused to pay the balance on his cock-tab ($800, illegal.) Yeah, there’s an outing machine. It’s called the Republicans Can’t Admit They’re Gay Because They Are Republicans & Republicans Hate Gays Machine.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 16:50:22
You're blurring the line here between bestiality/pedophilia and homosexual love. We can clearly see why bestiality is wrong. It is essentially rape; an animal cannot consent because it cannot communicate to humans its intentions. Same thing with pedophilia. Even IF a young boy or girl consents, they are NOT OLD ENOUGH to be able to decide what is right or wrong for them, and it can also seriously damage their development as humans. We know incest is wrong because it can create genetic defects.
Homosexuality, however, is wrong because some people say it is. It's founded in the traditions of our culture. But there are parts of our culture who think otherwise, and I think their rights should be protected by the majority. It's one of the functions of democracy.
That said, I don't know if "same-sex marriage" is a great idea. I think civil unions should be sufficient. I don't know how you feel about civil unions, but I think it's a good compromise. The sanctity of marriage is saved, and a same-sex couple can enjoy the legal status equivalent of being married; visiting rights, health care, adoption, etc. Thoughts?
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 16:50:53
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:45 PM
You tell me. Your the one that wants it redrawn to include all sorts of things that werent there b4. The point is that you claim homosexual whatever is fine b/c you say it is, but sex with a 6yr old or a dog isnt b/c you say it isnt. All of those are not natural...until you liberals get a cause going and decide they need not be left out.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:52:31
As opposed to you, who thinks that it’s important to protect individual rights, except when it conflicts with the desires of one of the liberal sacred cows (in this case, gays).
Biblical prophecy.
“And yea He doth spake, the Man who Panics shall always be in error, while the Noble and Mighty Samurai shall always be true.”
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 16:53:54
And you arent doing that? You are saying homosexual whatever is wrong because you say it is.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:55:13
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:49 PM
If that was it than every women would come complete with their own little bag of spirm. Give it up dude. You lost. Dont ask such a simple question next time....your a liberal, come on.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 16:56:21
You're equivocating here, tblrk. You're talking about sex with a 6 year old, and sex with a dog, but the point is about marriage. I assume, from your writings, that you think gay sex is wrong; do you believe it should be illegal? Just curious here (no pun intended)
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 16:56:54
Same sex couples can already have all of this. Simple legal documents exist that can give me all these things. Too bad that isn't what they want.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 16:58:24
Posted by scalt
2007-11-06 16:58:34
No you missed the correct verse.
"and it was shown unto them, those that Panic shall be held up in highest esteem, while those that choose the way of the sword shall be denied his grace."
:)
I did like yours by the way.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 16:59:09
The right's insistence on bringing up pedophilia at every oppty when discussing homosexuality, shows how weak the right's argument really is.
We have has limitations on hetero relationships for many years. There is no reason why cannot have those same restrictions on gay relationships. The bestiality, murder, rape, incest, pedophilia argument is a distraction. A weak one at that.
The entire discussion jumping to Robert Byrd and Gay Marraige and Birth is a distraction too.
The topic is Richard "The Bitchard" Curtis' call boy romance and whether there is any hypocrisy on the left or right on the matter. Once again, as in the Larry "Captain Knees" Craig case, it's clear what has happened here.
Posted by D-Vega
2007-11-06 17:01:19
You can "clearly" see that bestiality is wrong, yet we can't "clearly" see that homosexuality is wrong?
How does that work, exactly?
Says who? Animals are perfectly capable of communicating with humans. When my dog wants food he comes up and puts his head on my lap. When my sister's cat wants attentions she jumps up and rubs against my face.
And who gets to decide they aren't old enough? You?
And another thing. Why are the same people who think we shouldn't punish teenage minors for having sex always the ones claiming that pedophilia can't be compared to homosexuality because children can't consent to sex?
So can allowing retarded people or people with Down's Syndrome to breed. Should we forcibly sterilize them?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 17:02:49
tblrk,
please that is exactly what "making" a baby is. Can you deny that, is there any way to make a baby without sperm fertilizing the egg? The act of sex itself really doesnt have to play any part in "making" a baby. People for quite awhile now have been able to get pregnant without having sex.
Posted by idpanicman
2007-11-06 17:03:15
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:55 PM
Who is redrawing what? I dont wish to change anything, and I have the right to think of homosexual sex as whatever i choose. If you want to be gay than fine....just dont be changing my marriage to fit your act that isnt the same...not even in the same ball park.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 17:03:49
November 6, 2007 5:03 PM
How simple are you child? Take two couples, one hetero and one homo, and send them off into the woods. Which one can come back pregnant? The answer is only fucking one of the couples can come back bearing a child. I cant imagine the twisted little world you live in. You really should think of moving to a euro country b/c your idea of how things should be is beyond 90% of the world. Good luck twit.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 17:09:04
please that is exactly what "making" a baby is. Can you deny that, is there any way to make a baby without sperm fertilizing the egg? The act of sex itself really doesnt have to play any part in "making" a baby. People for quite awhile now have been able to get pregnant without having sex.
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 5:03 PM
Yeah, who cares about the last couple thousand yrs of human history....all i have to do now is go to the dr and get a turkey baseted.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 17:13:13
No... You just can't discriminate against another person based upon factors that don't effect job performance, factors that are personal, factors that a person does not control. How do you equate that with fascism?
If we live in a country where everyone is entitled to political and social freedom and equality and it is blatantly apparent that many are denied this right, should nothing be done? Or should we devote our efforts to ensure that this country grants and protects those important rights that each person deserves???
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 17:14:33
Again, according to you.
The members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association would claim the opposite. Indeed, their stated purpose is to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships".
Why is their lifestyle automatically wrong while the gay lifestyle is permissible? After all, psychologists used to think that homosexuality was a mental disorder and that gays were damaging themselves and each other by engaging in homosexual relationships.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 17:17:28
Posted by D-Vega November 6, 2007 5:01 PM
Vega, there is no way you can make that claim. There is a move under foot right now to give middle school kids birth control with a perscription or parental consent. They are old enough to consent to sex, they must be old enough to be responsible to have sex safely. Why is "Old enough to consent ot marriage" such a leap?
Would we have been having a discussion about gay marriage 25 years ago? What type of "Marriage" will we be discussing 25 years from now?
It is not a weak or diversionary argument, no matter how often you claim it is. It is our reason for opposing allowing a small minority of people to redefine a centuries old definition of marriage.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 17:19:21
You have yet to answer my post, or prove that there is any discrimination of gays in the workplace.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 17:22:34
Posted by StanW November 6, 2007 5:19 PM
Sorry, should be WITHOUT a prescription or parental consent.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-06 17:24:15
Why not? Is the business not my personal property? Do I not have a right to hire whoever I choose?
What if I choose not to hire a mentally disabled person to work in my restaurant? Am I “discriminating” against him?
How can I not equate it with Fascism? State control and the abridgement of personal freedoms for the purpose of eliminating discrimination is still state control and the abridgement of personal freedoms.
On the contrary, if people are being denied their civil rights, something should definitely be done.
Now, feel free to list for me those rights that gays are being denied.
You mean like the right to use our own personal property in whatever way we see fit and not have the government nosing around in our business?
Yes, we should certainly devote our efforts to that. Sadly, you seem to disagree.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 17:27:08
Does that differeniation make sense to any of you out there?
Posted by hogground
2007-11-06 17:27:40
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 17:31:35
If a gay person is subject to discrimination solely because he or she is gay, is that person enjoying the same social equality that you and I are granted??
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 17:32:12
Posted by idpanicman
November 6, 2007 4:38 PM |"
An amazingly stupid answer.
Your assholeidness knows no bounds.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 17:32:49
Really?
Then how do you explain prison punks and other otherwise hetro-sexuals who choose to commit homosexual acts.
Look, I disagree with those who compare homosexuals to pedophiles, murderers, etc. A more apt comparison would be to compare those who suffer from homosexuality to those who suffer from chronic depression, bi-polar disoarder and the like. All of them are relatively mild mental disorders that hamper one or more basic life function.
And as I have said before, I don't hate homosexuals...if I feel any special emotion for them, that would be pity.
Actually, who is more caring about the plight of homosexuals? People like me who are willing to admit that it's a mental illness or those who push the idea that it's a perfectly normal and acceptable state of being? Those who push for normalization of homosexuality and reject calling it a disorder are in effect squashing any hope of it every being treated. Those people are in effect condemning countless people to unhappy lives, suffering with an untreated mental illness. Personally, I think that is pretty damned cruel when you get right down to it. Can you imagine anyone arguing that (for example) depression was just a natural state of being and that there should be no effort to study what causes it and treat those who sufer from it? That's exactly what you guys are doing in the case of homosexuality.
"Trench Raider"
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 17:33:31
Why would Foley, Craig or the latest, Curtis, be so proud of their wayward behavior that they would want to pass legislation to validate it?
This is the wrong question entirely. It's not the wayward behavior [or lewd behavior] that Liberals want to have Americans accept. It's equality for homosexuals that we want Americans and legislators to accept.
This is not about sex at all. It's about human rights and equality.
Where the hypocrisy comes into play is that very clearly Foley, Craig and Curtis are homosexuals [or at least bisexuals]. Yet they attempt to hide this fact and then legislate against it.
Their true sexual nature comes out in such a wayward way because they work so hard to suppress it. And then, in turn, they work so hard denying themselves that they deny rights to all gays. However, if there was true equality for gays with everyone else they would never need to hide.
So it is not the behavior that is the issue. It is being gay and being allowed to have equal legal rights.
Foley, Craig and Curtis are not being honest with themselves....or with us.
We want them to be able to get husbands for themselves legitimately.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 17:35:27
Didn't see it.
My cousin was fired for being a lesbian. She sued, she settled, and now she has a couple hundred thousand dollars in her bank account. Does that suffice? Or do I have to log on to Lexis to find you a vast amount of court cases in which discrimination based upon sexual orientation was alleged?
Actually, just Google it yourself, Lexis is too expensive.
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 17:43:26
By that standard, nobody has social equality. I've been discriminated against because of my age, because of my gender, because of my marital status, and because of my religion on several occasions. But I'm not so self-absorbed as to pretend that this means I have lost my civil rights.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 17:43:41
Have you lost a job or threatened by violence due to any of the above?
No one is saying that it is illegal to call a gay person a fag when they pass you. If it makes you happy, go ahead. When it effects ones safety and economic status is a different story...
Posted by crsrds33
2007-11-06 17:48:29
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 17:51:28
People like me who are willing to admit that it's a mental illness
It is hard to dignify this naive and ignorant view. It is straight out of a 1950’s textbook for homosexuals. It also justifies the bad treatment and negative stereotypes of homosexuals everywhere.
News alert friend, homosexuality is not a mental illness nor a disease. The psychoanalytic establishment left this theory in the trash where it belongs four decades ago.
It is views like this that keep homoxexuals from equality. Consider updating your view to reflect reality.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 18:09:14
I think you've just explained the whole problem with the liberal agenda in a moonbat nutshell. They aren't really capable of coming up with logical or rational reasons to support the agenda. It just "FEELS RIGHT" to them.
And lets face it. Humans are emotional by nature. the most common argument you'll hear a gay man shout is "I can't help myself, its the only way I can feel good." when challenged as to why they have sex with men.
they claim that they are attracted to men. - Well, I'm attracted to the blond 3 cubicles down, but I understnad that she's not for me. However, there are others I can be attracted to. I'm just mature enough to look for the right person for me.
They claim that its somehow hardwired into them and they cna't do it with women at all. - well, I really only get excited if the woman is 18-23 or so, but I understand that I"m getting old and won't always score with them. However, there are older ladies who I might not be instantly attracted to who will make me "happy"
But for them, they don't want that sacrifice, that wait. They want instant gratification. that'w why we have gays trolling around in public toilets looking for sex. (which even happens in gay bars. I knew one that had to station female security in the men's restrooms to prevent patrons from using the bathroom for sex. - and yet gays try to claim that they do it because its the only place they can go.)
and the condemning of conservatives over this is a joke.
Do conservatives often vocally say that homosexuality is wrong? Yes
have conservatives fought to keep gay marriage from becoming a law? Yes
Have conservatives tried to put the genie back in the bottle and ban gay behaviour in the privacy of people's bedrooms? No, they haven't
do most conservatives walk up to someone and ask "are you gay or straight" and then treat the person differently if they are gay? Some do, but the majority don't. There is ecen a group of Gay Republicans who get along fairly well with the rest of the party.
In truth most conservatives are like DANE posted earlier.
We.just.don't.care.
Don't tell us who you are sleeping with
or how
or when
or if you change partners
Just don't put it on display in front of us
Respect us enough to show some common courtesy and don't act like barnyard animals in front of us.
In short. Be human and humble and private and we'll all be happy.
As for all the "benefits" of being married. Most have already become a non-issue, and the rest can be granted without having to create a new special class of marriage. And if liberals really cared for homosexuals they'd work towards that. But their goal is the destruction of marriage, rather than to help homosexuals. So the war will continue.
Posted by mvargus
2007-11-06 18:14:43
Sure is. The psychiatric groups didn't change this because the evidence or study demanded it, but because advocacy did. In other words: there wasn't scientific or clinical basis for the change, there was only emotive and activist reason.
And think about it: we don't treat people who do wrong things very well, we tend to have negative views of them.
If homosexuality is wrong, then it's reasonable to have this viewpoint toward the act.
Until you can actually make the case that homosexuality is at worst morally neutral, you have no basis for demanding people treat them nice. Get to it. Or stop insisting.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 18:15:10
Yes, I have been. I was denied a job because I was, quote, "Too young" (and not because of a minimum age requirement, but because the manager of the restaurant didn't think want a 17 year old working for him) and I was threatened only a few months ago by an atheist nutball because I am Christian (thankfully, said nutball is currently in jail for assaulting another person for their religion).
By your logic, I have been "discriminated" against and my "civil rights" have been violated.
We already have laws against assault and muder, thank you very much. So I don't know why physical safety is relevent to the discussion. As for "economic status", this is so vague as to be completely useless. I could plausibly claim that just about anything "affects my economic status".
Feel uncomfortable around black people? Well, anxiety can interfere with your ability to do your job, thus "affecting your economic status". We'd better ban black people from living in your neighborhood so they don't "affect your economic status".
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 18:31:16
Your arrogant use of the term "ignorant" aside, CT pretty much summed up what I was going to say. Go educate yourself on how homosexuality was dropped from the DSM in the early '70s. You will find that there was no scientific study, they simply sent out a poll on the subject to APA members. Even then, only a fraction of members eligable to vote did so and the decision to remove won the vote by only a few percentage points. Many mental health professionals at the time (and many other people) regarded the decision as being based upon politics rather than science.
Didn't known any of that? No suprise...
Who's "naive" and "ignorant" now?
of course a leftist calling anyone "naive" is a hoot anyway....
Please...
You are really reaching now.
Regarding homosexuality as a mental illnes hardly justifies that at all. In today's world, having a mild mental illness no longer has the stigma it once had. We rightfuly regard those who do as unfortunate people who need treatment. We don't think ill of them for having a problem. Perhaps YOU need to update your thinking.
So why the resistance to calling it what it is? It's not a perjorative term after all. Take off the emotional blinders and altually THINK about the issue. How can homosexuality be anything else but a disorder?
"Trench Raider"
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 18:33:18
It's the attitudes that you are displaying here left_turn that are an obstacle to finding the rot cause of this disorder and treating it. Your insistance that it's just all perfectly normal is keeping millions of folks in emotional pain. Why are you so cruel? Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Are your politics more important than people's happiness?
TR
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 18:37:40
We can't both be right here.
I think homosexuality is natural to most people.
While you seem to think it that it is unnatural, against your interpretation of the Bible and a mental illness.
But what you don't seem to understand is that this is just our opinion based on our own set of facts. Nobody has a lock on the truth with homosexuality.
But here is a very important difference in our views. I don't care if homosexuals are naturally born that way or choose to be gay by choice. Who cares? As long as they are consenting adults who cares?
While you are holding out on old rigid interpretations that in some ways can only be overturned by science – which many Conservatives ignore anyway.
I live in LA. I know many homosexuals and work with them on a daily basis. They are people like you and me. Their sexual preference is their own private business and from what I experience they are no different than anybody else.
I treat homosexuals nice because I treat almost all people nice. Even people like you.
You don't want people to treat homosexuals nice, apparently. Should we jail them if they don't want to get 'clean' or start taking anti-depressants?
You live in Oregon [?] and maybe do not know any homosexuals therefore you seem to want to be able to label them what fits your comfort level. I could be wrong but your views seem sheltered.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 18:40:43
By that logic we should abandon the entire study of psychology and psychiatry because they justify "bad treatment" and "negative stereotypes" of the mentally disabled.
If by that you mean they kowtowed to gay advocacy groups, then yes.
LOL
This from the people who think that Bush lied about WMDs and that the tax cuts were only for the rich and caused the deficit.
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 18:42:15
Of course, homosexuals are unlikely to like this interpretation because it means they are suffering from a genetic disorder, but when they say they are "hardwired" to be gay, that's really the only rational way it could happen.
The other interpretation is that they aren't hard-wired at all. They just happen to like something that isn't natural. And the truth is that most expressions of sexual behavior between animals of like gender is a display of dominance and aggression which probably also isn't very comforting deep down inside.
So, for me, you can dominate whomever you like so long as they are willing participants, but don't expect me to legitimize your behavior by giving you special privileges or rights for it.
Posted by aharris
2007-11-06 18:43:47
Now there's a laugh line if i ever heard one...
Posted by Righty99
2007-11-06 18:50:55
Posted by Righty99
2007-11-06 18:54:09
Yes, it certainly is a laugh that liberals think that, even though every major intelligence agency on the planet plus the entire Clinton administration and half of Congress claimed Saddam had WMDs, somehow Bush lied about the entire thing.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 18:58:35
Got any proof of liberties taken away from Homosexuals, which is a lifestyle choice.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 19:05:06
Make the effort, if you care to condemn people for disagreeing with you. If you can't even try to convince people, then you should keep your personal opinions to yourself. Don't insist something is true then wax relative "well it's just your thing and I have my thing" no, you don't get to do that.
Step up to the plate or keep your pie hole shut. The self-refuting troll tried, surely you can. You're sane at least.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 19:05:06
Got any proof of liberties taken away from Homosexuals, which is a lifestyle choice.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 19:06:22
I work with so many I couldn't even begin to count them, and you know, unless I'm in a forum like this one, bothering to think about it, I don't think about the gay people I work with or deal with on a daily basis...and you know, their agenda is righteous to my mind, because they have suffered much over the years, I mean literally tons of suffering. Part of that suffering comes from the grotesque ignorance of their fellow species, thinking they woke up one morning and said to themselves, "I'm gay today! I like it! Gay today, fun times ahead!" Just depthlessly idiotic, that one.
Posted by Lester_Craven
2007-11-06 19:07:11
trenchraider
Homosexuality = cruel mental illness
I would hope that most fair minded and intelligent readers of RWN would disagree with you at least on this one point.
They are very insulting and presumptuous views.
You're saying that the people who are my friends, colleagues and neighbors have a mental illness or are in pain because they are gay?
So you are saying I am supposed to go up to my colleagues, friends and associates and recommend they get psychiatric help? Or go to your church? That I should basically try to convert them into becoming Right Wing Conservative like you?
No thanks.
Plus, who wants to get their ass kicked for being so presumptuous and naive?
I have to say - and I don't mean this personally - that your view on this is laughable and daringly close dim-witted. I'm serious.
The question needs to be asked. Where do you live? Do you actually know many gay people? Do you go up to them and try to help them? If so, then I will give you credit for sheer balls. If not then please get out and meet gay people. They are not suffering and they are not mentally ill. At least not anymore than heterosexual people are.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 19:07:43
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 7:00 PM |
anti gay how?
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 19:10:20
Posted by Righty99
November 6, 2007 6:54 PM |"
Naw, just trying to give you a thrill.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 19:12:36
The sign of a serious, mature mind is that they eschew the former and attempt the latter. The sign of a typical leftist twit troll is that they do the reverse.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 19:13:08
Hey, let's just break this down to basics, shall we? We got some people here who don't like homosexuality becasue it doesn't square with their 2,000-year-old religion's belief system. They think homosexuals choose to be gay. They would, I get the feeling, go all Sharia on homosexuals and stone them, lock them up, hang them, etc., given the chance (if we lived under Dobson's Rules, say). It's racism by another name, just as ugly as whipping a slave. And they know it.
I don't want to generalize or sound absurd in any way, but I have to tell you, I'm tempted to say that the coolest people I know are gay. It's not cool to stereotype them like that, but you know, in my life gay people have been way, way cool, giving and charitable and kind and good listeners and always there to help. Mentally ill, though? That's sick. That's extremely sick, psycho-sick.
Posted by Lester_Craven
2007-11-06 19:17:15
I believe gays should give up on obtaining the right to marry.
I forget which poster but even here in MA if it was put up to a general vote gay marriage would loose.
Instead, refocus and concentrate on getting legal partner status which is tantamount to being married without the word 'marry'.
If gays have all rights as married couples ie heterosexual couples then they have reached their goal.
Who cares if they can't call themselves 'married'?
Call it gay unions call it whatever you want it is more important to have legal stuff like durable power of attorney with your partner than to have the word married next to your name.
Posted by libliever
2007-11-06 19:17:58
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 7:00 PM |"
Being against gay "marriage" is not being anti-gay.
Personally, I don't care one way or another about an individuals sezuality.
And yes, I've known gays and even [gasp] had gay friends.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 19:22:03
Sorry, but you sound absurd. I bet the only gay people you know are the ones you see on TV.
It's racism by another name
Sure, we all know that there is a gay race.
Posted by Jon_Sandor
2007-11-06 19:22:10
November 6, 2007 7:07 PM |
Are you really so sure of that LT? Since there is yet no genetic, physiological, or psycholgical 'cause' for homosexual behavior, what else would you call it but a choice? You might want to ask some of those who have left the lifestyle, the ones who realize how destructive that lifestyle choice is and what it does to their soul.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 19:22:15
November 6, 2007 7:17 PM |
Geesh, Lester were you born stupid or did your Mom repeatedly drop you on your head as a baby?
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 19:26:07
November 6, 2007 7:22 PM
If it is a choice why would anyone choose homosexuality over heterosexuality?
Posted by libliever
2007-11-06 19:31:23
Yeah, yeah. Republicans bad. Republicans evil. Blah, blah, blah.
Do you have an actual argument to make or is this it?
Exactly what rights are we trying to take away from them?
Oh please. If gays have such a shaky sense of self worth, perhaps they should invest in a good therapist.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 19:33:58
Homosexuals absolutely choose that life style.
They are certainly not forced. It is behavior plain and simple.
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 19:35:36
Why would someone choose to abuse alcohol?
Why would someone choose to start smoking?
Why would someone choose to eat their weight in cheeseburgers every week?
People make bad choices every day.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 19:37:53
wow.
I'm not getting the "insulting" part. Did you not read my above post were I explain that in today's world mental illness no longer has the stigma that it once had? Did you hear me when I said that it was not a perjorative term?
Look. I may live to regret making this confession, but here goes.
I suffer from depression. It's kept under control with therapy and medication. I live a normal and decent life, but it's something that I have to live with. But it does not make me less of a human being and I'm certainly not offended if someone were to point out that I suffered from an emotional disorder, because I do.
Now explain to me how having a mental disorder is somehow a mark of shame again.
Yes.
But because it's taboo to admit the obvious, they are condemned to that life and will never receive treatment. I tell you, if someone were to say that my depression was not a real disorder and that I should be denied treatment for it, i would be pretty angry. I've lived with an untreated emotional problem and it's not fun.
I ask again, why do you hate homosexuals so? Is being PC more important than they are?
No. Of course not. THAT would be preseumtive and intrusive. But by insisting that they do not have a problem you are feeding into the prevaling wisdom that damns them.
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 19:38:37
bthewolf
trenchraider
This is not about me condemning anyone for their beliefs. This is about reality on the ground.
The thing you are hinting at is that somehow gays are hurting society. But you have to show or prove this.
They aren’t hurting anyone. And while you can certainly give me some anecdotal evidence that some former gay person somewhere has ‘recovered’ I would counter that when you live in a society that frowns upon homosexuals or makes you feel guilty and sinful it is pretty hard to be gay – much less come out of the closet to your friends and family.
What I am trying to quash here is the idea that gays live this wild crazy lifestyle. The young gay twenty somethings in LA and SF and NY might indeed have some wild times but no more than heterosexuals do. And we aren’t running after heterosexuals because they want to have a fun time sexually or otherwise. [Or most of us aren’t]
But to be honest from what I have seen most gays past their 20’s live pretty boring lives like the rest of us. Some date a lot and some settle down with one person.
Please go out and get acquainted with gays. You will learn in time that they are regular people like you and me. One straight friend of mine made the observation that Conservatives sure do like to talk about gays a lot. He noted that he can go for months without giving a thought to gays – and he lives in LA. I think we can all get to that point if we learn to accept them. Once we get to that point we can talk about serious issues like health care, wars, starving children and pollution...to name a few.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 19:46:07
Posted by libliever
November 6, 2007 7:31 PM |
Mighty's response is pretty good, why do we make ANY of the choices we make? Most of it is based on perception, gays perceive members as the same sex as more compatible sexaully or intimately than members of the opposite sex, WHY?
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 19:48:36
That is warped and wrong.
Posted by mipt
2007-11-06 19:49:45
I know I should not be addressing a known previously banned troll like Scrappy here, but this must be said.
Scrappy, even if you concede that homosexality occurs in other life forms besides humans (something I have never been convinced of), what is your point and how does that challenge my point at all? It is thought that mental illnesses manifest themselves in lower animals as well. No one has said it is not a naturally occuring thing...just that it's a disorder.
The resistance to calling it a disorder is puzzling to me..it really is. Now if I were saying it was evil or a sin, I could see were some might have an issue with that. However in today's world disorder is a morally neutral thing.
Really?
I'm not religous, Scrappy. My opinions on homosexuality are secular in nature.
Oops...there you go again spouting off without thinking.
Some do.
Ever been in prison? Know what a prison punk is?
Google it.
In any event, I don't think most homosexuals choose to be such any more than I choose to suffer from depression. However the decision to engage in homosexual acts is very much a choice in every case. And yes, some of the behaviors that are often associated with some homosexuals (the speach patterns, the exageratedly effeminate behavior, the over the top "flaming" personality, etc) are absolutely a life style.
Finally, since I bothered to talk to you would mind sending me your mailing address so I can send you that anti-freeze I promised you last year?
"Trench Raider"
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 19:51:14
And there's where it always ends up.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 19:54:14
Homosexuality = cruel mental illness
I would hope that most fair minded and intelligent readers of RWN would disagree with you at least on this one point.
They are very insulting and presumptuous views
Funny, that sounds a lot like condemnation to me.
Since you are the one making the claim here, shouldn't you be the one who has to show proof?
And...how exactly does this refute the argument that homosexuality can be cured via therapy?
Interesting. When Left_Turn gives us anecdotal evidence of how "most gays past their 20s" live, he expects us to accept it out of hand.
But if we give anecdotal evidence of former gays who were cured of their homosexuality through therapy, suddenly anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything.
How do you know we haven't?
Who are "conservatives"? How much is "a lot"?
How many "conservatives" does your straight friend claim to know? Where does he know them from? How does he interact with them? How much time does he claim to spend with them?
I have a feeling that your "straight friend" is being less than completely truthful.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 20:12:54
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-06 20:19:21
Thanks for the honest post. I apologize if I get personal. This is all just simply positions we take based on our own experiences. However, ultimately is not about you or me.
I have to say I am perhaps a bit naive. I didn't think that many people thought homosexuality was a mental illness that needed drugs and therapy to cure. I have to say I think it would be a very cruel world that would insist [or force] homosexuals to take pills and go to therapy for the way they are. It's a world that would make me weep. It’s a world the Communists set up and, yes, it’s not a world I want one bit. I'm a libertarian on some positions. Homosexual lifestyles are one. I really don't care what they do. And the gays I know don't seem depressed one bit. If some gays choose to go to therapy that is fine. But I think it presumptuous to conclude gays need this to have a better life or that we straight people are somehow better than gays and should lead them to salvation. Makes me sick thinking of it.
Christopher_Taylor
I think we have to agree to disagree. You won't be satisfied until I take you position and visa versa, I guess.
mightysamurai
You're playing games here. Be truthful. Let's keep it simple. Do you like gays or not? Do you think gays are mentally ill or not? Do you really care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? If so, why? Do you really think gays are all crazy sinful party animals whose sole purpose on earth is to set a bad example for the children of the world? What would you do if you had a gay friend or a gay relative?
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 20:35:47
The problem is that many want to make it the government's business by demanding that the state give official sanction to their lifestyle. This goes for so-called "civil unions" as well. Since we-the-people pay the government's bills and elect its leaders, I think we ought to get some say in whether or not that government recognizes such unions.
Why is nobody addressing the point? D-Vega in particular? Ahem ahem? Is this too obvious for you to grasp?
And I absolutely refuse to buy into the idea that some Congressman is a hypocrite because he's caught trolling for sex after voting against gay-marriage legislation. Considering that not even all "outed" gays would vote in favor of it. Damn, I am sick of hearing this "hypocrite" charge thrown around by the Left every time there's another gay sex scandal in Congress.
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-06 20:37:18
I never said they should be forced to submit to therapy at all. Far from it. Just as I would not want to see anyone who suffered from a minor ailment who was not a danger to society forced to submit to treatment. No one forced me to seek help, and I would have resented it had it been attempted. I would just like to see that as an option open for them. As it stands now, the mental health community is running scared from the left and the homosexual lobby so much that they won't even admit there is a problem.
Honestly, I could care less about homosexuals. I just object to the way that their lobby pushes for special rights, pushes the lifestyle as being somehow normal and "cool", adopts an agressive "in your face" attitude, and demonizes anyone who object with the meaningless term of "homophobe".
"Trench Raider"
Posted by trenchraider
2007-11-06 20:50:08
When you presume the rightness of an argument and then try to convince people to take action based on that, it's called an a priori argument, and that's a logical fallacy. Make your case then try to influence policy.
But you will not and cannot do so. You don't even try.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 21:03:35
Good post. However...
I believe there is this feeling among the Right that homosexuals are trying to foist their lifestyle on 'normal' heterosexual Americans. I do agree that Hollywood and TV do play a part in glamorizing and sexing up [if you will] homosexuality. But they do the same thing with heterosexual sex, guns, cops and any subject they get their hands on. That's entertainment. It sells.
Homosexuals for the most part – like heterosexuals – do not want to sell you anything. They also do not live these crazy wild lifestyles portrayed on TV. And more importantly they DO NOT want to legislate so that people accept the specific behaviors of Foley, Craig or Curtis. Nor do they want to legislate for gay parades with large phalic symbols. [The Advertising world already does that].
It is equality and tolerance they want. Equality that married couples have and tolerance so there is not a stigma for being gay.
The debate will rage on, I'm sure.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 21:07:16
Of course, no one said anything about forcing or pressuring gays into taking drugs or going to therapy, but you can go ahead and pretend we did if you want.
As people? Sure. But that doesn't mean I in any way condone their lifestyle, no more than I would condone alcohol abuse or chain smoking.
I believe that homosexuality is purely psychological. Whether or not it is a disorder is for psychologists to decide.
Are you a psychologist? I doubt it.
Yes, I care about what consenting adults do in private, and you do too. Even if you won't admit it.
Would you permit one adult to bludgeon another adult to death, even if the second adult was consenting? No? Why not? As long as they're consenting, what right do you have to stop them?
And as Cylarz rightly points out, gays don't really have a right to complain about the government forcing its way into their bedroom, since they insist on shoving their lifestyle down our throats.
My father always taught me to say what I mean and mean what I say.
If I believed that, I probably would have said it.
The Bible is quite clear on what we are supposed to do in situations like this. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 21:07:59
The former they already have. Gays have exactly the same rights as straights, as we have repeatedly explains.
The latter cannot be acheived through legislation, which begs the question of why gays insist on legislating it.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 21:11:51
This is a complete lie. I am pro marriage, not anti gay. I don't think using marriage to legitimize a lifestyle choice to take away the guilt of the participants is a good thing. You don't like that, tough.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 21:21:08
Completely false, but I'm sure you won't let that get in the way of your delusions.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 21:23:38
Would you permit one adult to bludgeon another adult to death, even if the second adult was consenting?
Come on. Bludgeon to death is a crime clearly defined as a crime under the law. Homosexual acts are not, anymore. This begs the question: Would you send someone for jail for a homosexual act?
I believe that homosexuality is purely psychological.
What experience tells you this? I have gay friends who I have talked to about this and all have said this is the way they were born. It would be pretty presumptous of me to tell them they are lying because I read on a right wing board somewhere that it is psychological. I think gay people have a better handle on their feelings than you do.
I have read that some gays make the choice as well. Personally, it should not matter.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-11-06 21:28:06
November 6, 2007 9:11 PM |
Which already banned idiot troll are you again?
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 21:28:06
The latter cannot be acheived through legislation, which begs the question of why gays insist on legislating it."
There's no getting around the fact that discrimination is written into any law that describes who can obtain a marriage license and that excludes two members of the same sex from getting that license. This is unquestioned.
There is also discrimination against a man and a dog, who also are unable to obtain a marriage license.
The question is: are either of these forms of discrimination justifiable?
I'd argue the discrimination against gays is not justifiable because it denies one set of consenting human beings, both of whom individually and together deserve equal access to govt. controlled licenses (such as marriage licensing) regardless of their sex.
Since the dog can not consent to marriage, that takes that coupling out of the equation.
The only reason to not give a gay couple a marriage license is if you believe their are lesser human beings. That's a pretty rank reason.
This business about "everyone is treated equal" is no different than when this same excuse was offered up to blacks who could not marry whites (you have the same rights as whites because you can marry your own kind). That was disgusting and bigoted and so is this anti-gay crusade among fearful straights.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 21:28:14
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:28 PM |
I feel really bad for you and your partner, gayunemployedmexican. Or are you jackbauer, here to get abused some more?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 21:32:15
I am pro marriage, not anti gay. I don't think using marriage to legitimize a lifestyle choice to take away the guilt of the participants is a good thing. You don't like that, tough.
Posted by Dick_Nixon "
Guess what...I'm pro marriage too. And I don't think using marriage to legitimize a lifestyle choice regardless of guilt or one's prid is a good think either. That's not what's happening with proponents of gay marriage. You are simply witnessing gays asking to have what straights have. And it's a legitimate request seeing how they are denied the right to get a the same license that straights can get.
It's bigotry...plain and simple.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 21:32:42
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:32 PM |
Your opinion. Hope you and your partner don't cry yourself to sleep to much. It is a lifestyle choice looking for acceptance by diluting the institution of marriage. I'm sorry that people view homosexuality as a non normal act. And that is exactly what they are trying to do, legitimize a lifestyle choice that is not considered normal behavior. Tough love I guess.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 21:37:51
WRONG the law applies equally to ALL persons, they are permitted marry any legally consenting member of the opposite sex they choose to. That's not discrimination. and any possible PC manipulation of the language WIL NOT make it true.
The only reason to give gays the right to marriage is if you believe they deserve more rights than the rest of us.
Really no difference, race is something one is born with, and cannot be changed, homosexuality is a choice and as such deserves no special priviliges.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 21:39:13
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:32 PM |
They have the same rights I do - TO MARRY ANY CONSENTING MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX THEY CHOOSE.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 21:41:54
This is demonstrably and empirically true, and Mr Sanchez would be the first to point out how. As he did in this article, and his upcoming book.
You are simply witnessing gays asking to have what straights have.
Sure, but you are starting once more as I said above, with the presumption that homosexuality is at least morally neutral. Given that human history and the bulk of the population on earth, let alone in the country, disagree with this proposition, you are in the position on needing to demonstrate this is not the case.
Until you can do that, you have no room to argue that it's wrong to restrict their actions and behavior.
Remember: none of us can marry simply whomever we choose, we all are under the same restrictions.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 21:44:45
"DILUTING" the institution of marriage? You talk about marriage as though its a beaker in a lab.
It's simply an institution that two people who love each other enter in to. The only "dilution" that occurs in any marriage is the love between two people. You're marriage is worth no more than mine and ours would be worth no more than a gay couples.
Get your head straight man!
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 21:45:12
A short bus rider with the right to vote. Yeah, that scares me. I guess you are also a liberal anti Christian bigot. Pro gay Marriage troll being a anti Christian bigot, gee, I didn't see that one coming.
/s
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 21:45:18
Posted by Malcolm_S
Now, we get to the heart of the homosexual agenda. People like Malcom feel that "truth" lies in being "open"/overt/extrovert and "proud" of their base instincts.
Herein lies the conflict between a society that has historically cherished privacy, moderation and service and the "I'm here I'm queer Crowd" who is cravenly self-serving. :)
Matt Sanchez
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-06 21:46:33
If anyone could marry anyone of either sex, how does that give gays more rights? In fact, it's provides perfect equality for all people on the issue of marriage.
Think Man! Use your head!!
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 21:48:17
Posted by bthewolf "
So, why not extend EVERYBODIES rights to marry anyone of either sex??
THINK!! GET YOUR HEAD ON STRAIGHT!
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 21:51:06
Think Man! Use your head!!
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:48 PM |
All people are equal in marriage. They have the ability to marry the person of the opposite sex that they have chosen, assuming the other person feels the same way. Are you retarded or something, what part of marriage is for one man and one woman do you not fracking understand? And drop the superior liberal attitude, since you have shown no evidence to support your view, and have in fact been shown to be a anti Christian bigot.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 21:52:11
You're engaging in two more unwarranted and undefended assumptions that I don't believe you'd hold to if you examined them more closely.
1) that any two people who love each other ought to be able to get married
2) that all marriages are functionally equivalent.
Let's look at these one at a time. Lets say I love your wife and she loves me. We want to get married, who are you to say no to our love?. Lets say Joe loves his sister Sally and they want to get married. They love each other, why not? Let's say Sally is 13 and Joe is 57 and her father. See where this is going?
Simply being in love and wanting to marry is not sufficient for marriage. As I said above, we all have the same restrictions.
The second one is even more problematic. I believe some marriages are awful and bad for society. Tina and Ike Turner were married, but he beat her like a rented mule. That was a horrible marriage, it was demonstrably inferior to a healthy marriage. Simply being married does not make you the equal of every other married couple. Some are better, some are worse. Some damage the very institution of marriage by demonstrating what it is not meant to be. Some even damage society by their horrible nature.
Please, think about this a while. I suspect you've not spent a lot of time pondering this subject.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 21:52:28
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:45 PM |
Pot meet kettle!
Please explain in terms of genetics, physiology, or psychology how being gay is normal. Then you will have grounds to show that being against gay marraige is even remotely similar to being anti-gay.
Until then you are a pathetic troll looking for attention, and unworthy of rational debate.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 21:57:57
2) that all marriages are functionally equivalent
But is that really the issue? Anti-same sex marriage folks always talk about how it creates "unnatural relationships". If that was really the issue, why wouldn't heterosexual couples have to go through a screening process to make sure they're compatible? Wouldn't marriages like Ike and Tina be illegal?
I don't see that as the issue at hand. The only pertinent issue I see, and you can disagree with me if you wish, is that conservatives thing that two boys kissing is icky and wrong and unnatural? And you're legislating your own judgments of morality and decency to apply universally?
Societies, as a general rule, become more and more tolerant. Let's not forget that less than a hundred years ago, women weren't allowed to vote. Same-sex marriage is on the horizon, my friends, and it might be when you old folks are keeling over, but by the time I'm your age, it should be the law of the land.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:00:56
Good call bthewolf, this fracker is a troll from hell. When he rolled the above drivel out, icing on the cake. Adios American, off to the marriage bed with my lawfully wedded wife. Have a good evening.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 22:01:15
So was homosexuality, at one time. Who’s to say that “murder between consenting adults” won’t be someday as well? Surely you wouldn’t want to legislate what goes on between consenting adults in private bedrooms, would you?
What evidence refutes it?
Well no duh. They have a vested interest in claiming so. Hardly an objective source.
And as a side note, why are you submitting anecdotal evidence after previously claiming that anecdotal evidence doesn’t count as proof?
Whether or not it’s presumptuous has no bearing on whether or not it’s true.
Show me solid scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is biological in nature.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 22:03:36
Did I leave anything out?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 22:06:19
Herein lies the conflict between a society that has historically cherished privacy, moderation and service and the "I'm here I'm queer Crowd" who is cravenly self-serving. :)
Heterosexual sex is just as unabashed as homosexual sex, you just don't notice it because it's a normal part of our society.
Don't believe me? Throw on your TV. Watch ANY SHOW that establishes a male-female relationship. I'd say it's about 95%.
So to say that only homosexuals are to blame for our society devolving into this great openness and flamboyance about sexuality is misleading to say the least.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:06:55
As long as I divorce her first that should be her right.
"Lets say Joe loves his sister Sally and they want to get married. They love each other, why not? Let's say Sally is 13 and Joe is 57 and her father. See where this is going?"
Point taken! We have to decide where to draw the line. Now we draw it at age of consent and at sibllings. I have no problem with that. What's your problem with two women past the age of consent who are not sisters marrying. Why do you anti-gay folks always want to avoid the real conversation?
The second one is even more problematic. I believe some marriages are awful and bad for society. Tina and Ike Turner were married, but he beat her like a rented mule. That was a horrible marriage, it was demonstrably inferior to a healthy marriage."
But you'd not deny them the right to get married? You might incarcerate Ike for assault, but you would not prohibit him from marrying.
"Simply being married does not make you the equal of every other married couple."
No, but simply being able to marry does make you the equal in this area of marriage as every other American.
"Some are better, some are worse. Some damage the very institution of marriage by demonstrating what it is not meant to be. Some even damage society by their horrible nature."
This argument is not only circular but a little absurd: People who want to marry hurt marriage? How is that? And who are these people and why do some marriages hurt the institution. Come on, be bold and make your anti-gay argument.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 22:08:43
I know you don't believe this to be true. However, I believe you will argue it and might have deluded yourself at the moment to I won't pursue it any more, nor any further conversation with you. Absolute relativists are borderline psychotic.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-06 22:08:54
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 10:01 PM |
Look at the troll try to project his complete lack of intelligence on his betters.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 22:09:16
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 9:11 PM |"
Racist. That's disgusting.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-06 22:11:10
Until then you are a pathetic troll looking for attention, and unworthy of rational debate."
A man born with two thumbs and who had to live with that difference is neither physiologically, genetically (likely) or psychologically normal.
Should he be able to marry his sweetheart who is female.
It matters not if someone conforms to what your expectations of what is "normal". We all know friends who were clearly living on the far ends of the bell curve of "normal". Yet they are not prohibited from being married.
There...We are done with the "normal" issue.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 22:12:57
Did I leave anything out?
Yeah.. you left out the logical canyon between how striving for equal rights under the law of America, which is based on that notion if you weren't sure, is the manifestation of guilt. I know several gay people. I don't see guilt.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:13:20
Look, marriage is for one man and one woman. If you don't like it, don't get married. Real simple. And look, don't bring race into a lifestyle choice argument, it demeans the struggles people have endured becuase of racism. Gay marriage doens't work, because marriage is for a man and a women.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-06 22:17:45
November 6, 2007 10:14 PM |
Wow nad there is so much similarity between same sex marraige and slavery?!
What a moron!
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 22:17:45
I know you don't believe this to be true."
Of course I believe it. It should be self evident to any thinking person.
"However, I believe you will argue it and might have deluded yourself at the moment to I won't pursue it any more, nor any further conversation with you. Absolute relativists are borderline psychotic.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor"
And yet, you can offer no evidence to support the idea that there is a single, objective right and wrong.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-06 22:22:03
Should he be able to marry his sweetheart who is female.
It matters not if someone conforms to what your expectations of what is "normal". We all know friends who were clearly living on the far ends of the bell curve of "normal". Yet they are not prohibited from being married.
There...We are done with the "normal" issue.
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 10:12 PM |
No you have not, and it's more the pity that you think you have, just like it's a pitty that you think there is nothing but moral equivalence in the world.
But idiots like you are all too common, and all too dangerous.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 22:22:09
If you actually listen to yourselves when you speak, which I hardly believe could be true after listening to your opinions, you'd realize it's the latter.
Posted by jackbauer
November 6, 2007 10:19 PM |
And your opinion of conservative thought is duly noted and dismissed as completley off the mark.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 22:24:25
Yeah, exactly the same way it was a commonly held belief that Africans were genetically inferior to Westerners, thus, it was OKAY to treat them like livestock. "It's the way it is!"
"Marriage is for a man and a woman! That's the way it is!" sounds a whole lot like "Voting is for a man and a man only, that's the way it is!"
It's not the same, no, and it's nowhere near to the degree of injustice allayed upon another human being. I'd never argue that. To say that I think the degree of injustice of slavery is equal to that of gay rights is not anywhere near an accurate depiction of my view.
Do I particularly like homosexuals? Not in some of my experience. I think that the way some live the lifestyle is generally pretty obnoxious, and when someone is just a pure asshole because they're gay, that bothers me. But that's not casting an aspersion on their sexual preference, rather, it's how they think their sexual preference manifests in their behavior. I've had more than a passing encounter with gay people, maybe 4 times. Two of them are good friends. Two of them are the biggest assholes I've ever met--And they're the same, prototypical, bitchy, obnoxious gay guy.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:28:18
November 6, 2007 10:24 PM |
bthewolf, I base my opinion of the anti-same sex marriage thought not as conservatism in general. I'm simply casting aspersions on the former movement, rather than the latter. The fact that the two are generally intertwined is immaterial.
From what I've seen in this thread, however, is not an attack on same-sex marriage in particular, but on homosexuality in general.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:30:25
The law also excludes close relatives and children from getting married.
Is that "discrimination" too?
Except they as individuals are not denied access to marriage licenses. The law doesn't say "homosexuals cannot get married". It says "marriage is between a man and a woman".
A gay man cannot marry another man, and neither can a heterosexual man. A gay woman cannot marry another woman, and neither can a heterosexual woman.
Perfectly equal.
So it's okay to enslave them and force them to herd sheep and hunt ducks, but not to marry them?
We don't need consent for the former, why should we need it for the latter?
I'm sure it makes it a lot easier for you to demonize your opponents in this way, but it's simply not true. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will become less of a jerk.
The sad thing is, you aren't even aware of how offensive this kind of comparison is to black people.
If that were true they would be asking for civil unions, not gay “marriage”.
Really? So gay people can’t marry someone of the opposite sex?
You know, for someone who claims to hate bigotry as much as you do, you sure like to indulge in it.
So we should legalize adult-child marriages? Brother-sister marriages? Mother-son/father-daughter marriages? After all, aren’t these just examples of love between two people?
Also, I love the emphasis on two people. Does that mean you’re prejudiced against polygamists?
If anyone can marry anyone so long as they’re of the opposite sex, how does that discriminate against gays?
First of all, you do realize that you completely contradicted yourself with this sentence, don’t you? In order for your statement, “there are not objective moral rights and wrongs”, to be true, that statement would have to be objectively correct.
Second, if there are no objective moral rights, then why did you previously object to marriage between a man and a dog? You said the issue was “consent” but isn’t that just your personal, individual opinion of what is morally right?
You heard it here, folks. “TheAmerican” hates democracy.
Question: If all people could marry anyone they want so long as they were of the opposite sex, would all people have equal rights in this regard?
Answer: Yes.
Gosh, it sure makes the debate a lot easier when you make up the rules as you go!
Yes, son, that’s exactly what you are.
bigotry, n.
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
You refuse to tolerate, or even acknowledge, that we disagree with you. You insist that we only believe it because we hate gays.
You are the very definition of a bigot.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 22:32:39
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-06 22:39:56
Posted by jackbauer
November 6, 2007 10:30 PM |
Then you need more classes in reading comprehension.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-11-06 22:41:20
November 6, 2007 10:39 PM |
So, basically, you're arguing that because these men are gay, they have a better perspective to deem is as unsavory? Sorry, I don't buy your thesis.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:44:11
Why should it be necessary that you divorce her first? Who are you to stand in the way of her love?
So you would deny siblings and children the right to marry whomever they love?
*GASP*
BIGOT!!!
Why do you anti-marriage folks always want to avoid our arguments? If it’s okay to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, why is it not okay to change it further to include sibling marriage or adult-child marriage? Isn’t morality subjective?
It’s really quite simple, but I suspect you are missing the point on purpose.
People who want children have been known to hurt their children.
People who claim to respect the Constitution have been known to hurt the Constitution.
Why is it so inconceivable that some people hurt the institution of marriage by getting married?
And there you go with the bigotry again.
Perhaps it is. So what? That doesn’t mean both choices are equal.
I notice you spend an inordinate amount of time calling other people bigots and comparatively little time actually proving your arguments.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 22:46:43
Just curious.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:47:23
Why not?
Who are the most outspoken critics of drug and alcohol addiction?
People in drug rehab and Alcoholics Anonymous, that's who.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 22:50:04
Who are the most outspoken critics of drug and alcohol addiction?
People in drug rehab and Alcoholics Anonymous, that's who.
So you're saying that homosexuality is tantamount to behaviors such as alcoholism and drug addiction, which empirically show that it does damage to your physical, mental and social well-being, whereas the only thing homosexuality has done bad for homosexuals is make them ostracized by ignorant factions of our society?
Further, I wouldn't quite say, if we're to follow your erroneous metaphor, that they're in rehab quite yet. What Matty boy here is saying is, before they're outed, they're trying to keep others from partaking in that "awful sin". So they're not in rehab. They're still in denial. Pretending it's not a problem. Rehab comes after they kick the habit, as we've seen from gay reform camps.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 22:55:46
November 6, 2007 10:47 PM |
I'll field this one.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-06 23:00:08
Yes, yes, and yes.
Posted by cylarz
November 6, 2007 11:00 PM |
So your position is against gay sex. Why isn't gay sex illegal anymore? Because that would be retarded, that's why.
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 23:03:03
Posted by jackbauer
November 6, 2007 10:55 PM |
I can't speak for Mighty or the others, but I can tell you that homosexuality will 'empirically show' to lead to higher incidents of sexually-transmitted diseases, suicide, drug use, and depression.
And further, I love how people who say, "No, there is an objective morality, and I will not tolerate those who try to use the power of the state to run roughshod over it" are simply labeled as 'ignorant.'
They're still in denial. Pretending it's not a problem. Rehab comes after they kick the habit, as we've seen from gay reform camps.
Not being in rehab yet doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And WTF is a "gay reform camp?"
Brilliant reasoning there, Jack. Weren't we talking about the supposed hypocrisy of Congressmen, not the morality of gay lifestyles or marriage?
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-06 23:07:25
In the sense that they are both personal problems, yes, that is exactly what they are saying.
If Foley, Craig, and Curtis believe they have a problem and are trying to solve it, they are uniquely qualified to argue against gay marriage.
Says who? How do you know they aren’t trying to overcome their urges?
You don’t.
REHABILITATION comes AFTER they kick the habit?!
Do you even read what you type or do you just whack your head on the keyboard and hit post?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-06 23:12:12
You're right, you're right, mispeak. Rehab comes AFTER they realize they have a PROBLEM, or at least after people in society realize they do.
And as for gay reform camps-- they exist. Tedd Haggert anyone?
Posted by jackbauer
2007-11-06 23:24:25
Posted by jackbauer
November 6, 2007 11:03 PM |
I'm also against morons cluttering up RWN with their ignorant blathering, which also isn't (yet) illegal.
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-06 23:27:15
The homosexual lobby is not interested in equality.
That is why homophobia is used to deflect anyone who might criticize the group.
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-06 23:39:02
Same can be said about the the denial of hypocrisy by so many conservatives.
"Abrams warned the encounter between the legislator and the callboy could not be described on TV, "but let's just say it involved lingerie, rope and a stethoscope."
That doesn't sound desperate. Nor does this...
"Being chicken that disqualifies you from holding office," said Flanders, so proud that someone was actually listening to what she had to say."
It sounds like you might be desperate by adding that little dig.
"For this liberal loon, Larry Craig's bathroom tap dance, Mark Foley's love texts to teenage interns and Representative Curtis' fetish for female nightwear is "who they are" and therefore these legislators should vote for "gay rights" or else they're hypocrites.
Let's stop and consider how ridiculous this statement is."
Yes, lets...'liberal loon' without any proof sounds desperate. What makes her a loon? Just being liberal? Bathroom tapdance, love texts to teenage interns, fetish for female nightwear, and she gets called the loon. And no insight why this is not 'who they are'. You just assume away this is not who they are.
"Why would Foley, Craig or the latest, Curtis, be so proud of their wayward behavior that they would want to pass legislation to validate it? Were these men showing hypocrisy and denial or just insight and concern?"
OK, that was good. Just one question...why do these characters show insight and concern only after they get caught. You're putting the cart before the horse. Had they not been caught they would still be engaged in their wayward behavior, no? Denial and hypocrisy are still pretty good explainations so far.
Let's see...what else.
"On television, radio, print and now even in the public schools, the purveyors of perversion have forced sexual issues onto prime time airwaves like raw sewage into a city water reserve--completely bypassing the filters and waste treatment plant."
You mean those corporate advertisers spending all that money to help the media produce what the American people consume voluntarily...those purveyors of perversion? But let's move on...
"And here is what is at the core of the syphilitic liberal brain.
Conservatives realize human beings are imperfect, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing the right thing. Of course, the term "right thing" leaves liberals confused and wondering if this is discrimination against those who can only use their left hand."
Interesting. As the core of the syphilitic liberal brain you cite three examples of Republican officials who should have done the right thing even if they were imperfect humans. Or are these officials no longer conservatives?But we're the ones who are confused.
Since I haven't been to S.F. in decades, I'll just take your world for it, although I know there are many "gay lifestyles", some of them quite conservative.
"While producing and filming adult gay films, I thought sex on film was edgy, counter-culture and most of all a black eye for prudish American hypocrisy."
I take it then that you can see where people might actually come to the conclustion that these acts conservative public officials might be hypocrisy. Or were you a liberal then too?
Posted by rmiller
2007-11-07 01:05:59
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 10:22 PM |"
Life and death.
You lose. Thanks for playing.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-07 06:59:50
So....Do you have any argument at all beyond your own subjective feelings that straight is more moral than gay? Any?
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 11:38 PM |
Really, what God says Gay Marriage is acceptable?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-11-07 07:44:47
November 6, 2007 9:46 PM
You have a wonderful way of ridiculing other people based upon their thoughts and beliefs but was is strangely absent is your actual stand on being gay. Having participated in the gay community, one would think that you could actually lend some personal insight as opposed to puppeting others.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-07 07:57:12
November 6, 2007 9:46 PM
You have a wonderful way of ridiculing other people based upon their thoughts and beliefs but was is strangely absent is your actual stand on being gay. Having participated in the gay community, one would think that you could actually lend some personal insight as opposed to puppeting others.
Posted by Malcolm_S
2007-11-07 07:58:12
November 7, 2007 1:05 AM
Nicely done.
Posted by libliever
2007-11-07 08:00:14
Posted by Malcolm_S
November 7, 2007 7:57 AM | "
Shorter Mal:
"How dare you leave the reactionary liberal slave plantation?"
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-07 08:29:43
Second, if there are no objective moral rights, then why did you previously object to marriage between a man and a dog? You said the issue was “consent” but isn’t that just your personal, individual opinion of what is morally right?"
This is the kind of shoddy thinking that tells me America is going down the rat hole.
Let explain.
No...there are not any objective moral rights and wrongs. However, that does not mean that individual does for themselves adopt principles of right and wrong. I don't, for example, believe there is any objective moral imperative to tell the truth. However, I can tell you why I believe truth telling is morally right.
I'll make it easier. There is no clear cut way to determine who was the greatest right handed pitcher of all time. However, I can tell you why I believe the answer to that question is Mr. X.
There...school is out.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 08:48:25
If school is out and this is what you learned, return and get your money back.
(1)"No...there are not any objective moral rights and wrongs." So, if I were to come to your house, kill your family, cripple you, and steal all your stuff; that would be fine as long as *I* think it is fine?
(2)"I don't, for example, believe there is any objective moral imperative to tell the truth." Fine, then I will assume you are a lying piece of trash that has no business participating in any public discourse.
(3)"However, I can tell you why I believe truth telling is morally right." How can you do that when there are not any objective moral rights or wrongs? (see #1 above). Also, how do I know you are not simply lying about it? (see #2 above)
(4)"There is no clear cut way to determine who was the greatest right handed pitcher of all time." So whether or not to lie, steal, cheat, or murder are as subjective as who is the best baseball player?
Behold the mental gymnastics of the Liberal mind.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 09:08:02
If school is out and this is what you learned, return and get your money back.
(1)"No...there are not any objective moral rights and wrongs." So, if I were to come to your house, kill your family, cripple you, and steal all your stuff; that would be fine as long as *I* think it is fine?
(2)"I don't, for example, believe there is any objective moral imperative to tell the truth." Fine, then I will assume you are a lying piece of trash that has no business participating in any public discourse.
(3)"However, I can tell you why I believe truth telling is morally right." How can you do that when there are not any objective moral rights or wrongs? (see #1 above). Also, how do I know you are not simply lying about it? (see #2 above)
(4)"There is no clear cut way to determine who was the greatest right handed pitcher of all time." So whether or not to lie, steal, cheat, or murder are as subjective as who is the best baseball player?
Behold the mental gymnastics of the Liberal mind.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 09:08:02
In the sense that they are both personal problems, yes, that is exactly what they are saying.
If Foley, Craig, and Curtis believe they have a problem and are trying to solve it, they are uniquely qualified to argue against gay marriage."
This is very very bad reasoning. At best you could say that homosexuality is like drinking. For some it becomes a problem. But for many others it does not become a problem.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 09:25:44
Posted by TheAmerican
November 6, 2007 11:38 PM |
Really, what God says Gay Marriage is acceptable?
Posted by Dick_Nixon "
Why does it matter in the least. Any God I claim has the same moral authority as any God you claim. This is why using God's to justify any particular morality is no better than simply making one's case through logic, reason and empathy.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 09:32:08
(1)"No...there are not any objective moral rights and wrongs." So, if I were to come to your house, kill your family, cripple you, and steal all your stuff; that would be fine as long as *I* think it is fine?"
I could tell you why I think that would be wrong and why I think it is immoral. But I wouldn't tell you there is some cosmic repository of definitions of right and wrong. Please tell me you don't need to refer to this cosmic repository of what's right and wrong to figure out if that scenario is right or wrong to you.
"(2)"I don't, for example, believe there is any objective moral imperative to tell the truth." Fine, then I will assume you are a lying piece of trash that has no business participating in any public discourse."
That's ok too. However, it would be interesting to know upon what you base that belief. The difference it seems between me and you is that I could articulate why I think you are probably a nut job. You however seem incapable of backing up your beliefs with anything.
"(3)"However, I can tell you why I believe truth telling is morally right." How can you do that when there are not any objective moral rights or wrongs? (see #1 above). Also, how do I know you are not simply lying about it? (see #2 above)"
How does ANYBODY know if another is lying about what they believe? As for truth telling, I can tell you why I believe it is wrong. Someone else may make a case for it being right. But neither mine or the other person's argument is the last word.
"(4)"There is no clear cut way to determine who was the greatest right handed pitcher of all time." So whether or not to lie, steal, cheat, or murder are as subjective as who is the best baseball player?"
Yes. That's correct. If you can offer anything n the way of argument to dispute that please do. I just don't think you can.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 09:40:50
To you, that does not matter in the least. Each person can make their own, so what is right for me may be wrong for you, but who are you to say that yours is better than mine?
Backed up? You have backup up nothing! and you have articulated less than nothing. All you have said is that if you feel something is right, then it's right. What backup do you have? Your Word???? You don't even believe you should tell the truth.
OK, 2+2=4. You can disagree all you like, but I am right and you are wrong.
Refute that? Simple. I'l use your logic. Name a right handed pitcher. WRONG!!!! That one is the wrong choice. See, I decided what the correct answer is. Are you relying on some cosmic book of statistics to make your choice. How petty of you.
All you have done is say "Whatever I think is right is OK and whatever I use to back that reasoning up is just as valid as yours." That works both ways, T_A. If I were to adopt the principle that you are the epitome' of malice and evil in the world and that no one would survive as long as you and your family lives, that would be fine and dandy by your logic. And if I were to come to your home and slowly torture you and your family to death over the span of a few days, I would be fully justified in doing that, because that was the principle I adopted for my life.
In short, if you have the right and privilidge to decide what is right and what is wrong, then so do I. And if my principles and yours conflict, then it doesn't matter who comes out on top, because we are both right.
And if that situation ever came to pass, it would really suck to be you!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 09:55:47
To you, that does not matter in the least. Each person can make their own, so what is right for me may be wrong for you, but who are you to say that yours is better than mine?
Backed up? You have backup up nothing! and you have articulated less than nothing. All you have said is that if you feel something is right, then it's right. What backup do you have? Your Word???? You don't even believe you should tell the truth.
OK, 2+2=4. You can disagree all you like, but I am right and you are wrong.
Refute that? Simple. I'l use your logic. Name a right handed pitcher. WRONG!!!! That one is the wrong choice. See, I decided what the correct answer is. Are you relying on some cosmic book of statistics to make your choice. How petty of you.
All you have done is say "Whatever I think is right is OK and whatever I use to back that reasoning up is just as valid as yours." That works both ways, T_A. If I were to adopt the principle that you are the epitome' of malice and evil in the world and that no one would survive as long as you and your family lives, that would be fine and dandy by your logic. And if I were to come to your home and slowly torture you and your family to death over the span of a few days, I would be fully justified in doing that, because that was the principle I adopted for my life.
In short, if you have the right and privilidge to decide what is right and what is wrong, then so do I. And if my principles and yours conflict, then it doesn't matter who comes out on top, because we are both right.
And if that situation ever came to pass, it would really suck to be you!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 09:57:01
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-07 09:58:56
Incorrect. "Univeral norms" describes a certain system of values which are viewed similarly throughout all societies. Or, better put:
"The idea of universal rights is denied by some who insist that moral standards are always culture-specific. If value relativism were to be accepted in extremis, then no tyrant — Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot — could be criticized by outsiders for any action. Relativism is often the first refuge of repressive governments. The false dichotomy between development and human rights is usually a smoke-screen for corruption and cronyism. Relativism merely requires an acknowledgement that each culture has its own moral system. Government behaviour is still open to evaluation by the moral code of its own society. Internal moral standards can be congruent with international conventions. Because moral precepts vary from culture to culture, this does not mean that different peoples do not hold some values in common. Few if any moral systems proscribe the act of killing absolutely under all circumstances. At different times, in different societies, war, capital punishment or abortion may or may not be morally permissible. Yet for every society, murder itself is always wrong. All societies require retribution to be proportionate to the wrong done. Every society prizes children, the link between succeeding generations of human civilization; every culture abhors their abuse."
Dr Ramesh Thakur, Vice Rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/si...eng0.nsf/html/57JQZD
Posted by jasamc
2007-11-07 11:24:13
There's really no need for me to say or insist my morals are better than yours, as you correctly point out. However, there are occasions when our individual morals and the values that underpin them come into conflict in a social or political setting. Gay marriage is a perfect example. You and I in that case would be expected to assert why our values on this issue or better than the others and hopefully offer a reason for asserting this.
"Backed up? You have backup up nothing! and you have articulated less than nothing. All you have said is that if you feel something is right, then it's right. What backup do you have? Your Word???? You don't even believe you should tell the truth."
It's true that I've not offered any comprehensive argument for the position that there are not any objective morals in this world. Perhaps you would like to have that discussion. It appears you feel differently. That said, the issue of whether or not I think I should tell the truth can be put rest easily. I do believe that. Now, you may say "How do I believe you", but that's really a non sequitor because you have nothing to go on to answer that question just as I have nothing to go on as to whether or not to believe you. I'm simply going to take your word for it when you tell me you believe it is wrong to lie. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
"How does ANYBODY know if another is lying about what they believe? As for truth telling, I can tell you why I believe it is wrong. Someone else may make a case for it being right. But neither mine or the other person's argument is the last word.
OK, 2+2=4. You can disagree all you like, but I am right and you are wrong."
Whether 2+2=4 is right is not a moral question. There are some epistemological questions involved in that equation, but they are not moral questions.
"Yes. That's correct. If you can offer anything n the way of argument to dispute that please do. I just don't think you can.
Posted by TheAmerican November 7, 2007 9:40 AM
Refute that? Simple. I'l use your logic. Name a right handed pitcher. WRONG!!!! That one is the wrong choice. See, I decided what the correct answer is. Are you relying on some cosmic book of statistics to make your choice. How petty of you."
Stan, I'll grant you your opinion about who is the best right handed pitcher of all time. And you and I can discuss why we each believe our choice is correct. In the end, however, I think we can both agree that the basis upon which we make our determination is somewhat arbitrary. For me "greatness" might hinge on statistics. For you it might hinge on leadership. The point is that we come to our belief based on our individual values, and those are not universal, but personal...just like morals.
"All you have done is say "Whatever I think is right is OK and whatever I use to back that reasoning up is just as valid as yours." That works both ways, T_A."
Yes, you are correct again. It not only works both ways but it works for everyone. However, I'd change the way you word it to, "Whatever I think is right is my own personal conclusion..." And yes, I think what I use to back up what I think is as valid as anyone else's insofar as it gets me to where I am. However, I think some forms of reasoning or explanation are far more convincing than others.
"If I were to adopt the principle that you are the epitome' of malice and evil in the world and that no one would survive as long as you and your family lives, that would be fine and dandy by your logic."
"Fine and dandy" suggests that I agree with you that I am the epitome of evil. We both know that's not the case. However, I would agree with the notion that you could come to this conclusion based on your values. That does not mean I agree with your conclusion, but only that I admit it's possible for you to come to that conclusion. Understanding that there is no objective right and wrong does not imply that an individual must give every set of morals and values individual weight. Then only way to do that would be to acknowledge that I have no personal values or morals to guide me. And I've never met such a person.
"And if I were to come to your home and slowly torture you and your family to death over the span of a few days, I would be fully justified in doing that, because that was the principle I adopted for my life."
Fully justified in your own mind, yes...if you say so.
"In short, if you have the right and privilidge to decide what is right and what is wrong, then so do I."
Yes. Exactly.
"And if my principles and yours conflict, then it doesn't matter who comes out on top, because we are both right."
Well, we are both right, but only in a very small arena: our own mind. Our actions however will be judged by others. That's another arena in which our principles, values and morals play out.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 11:26:26
Again, the mental gymnatsics you go through are amazing to watch.
I say gay marriage is wrong. You say that there are no moral absolutes and that I have no basis for that belief (paradox). Yet you say with absolute moarl certainty "...that I am the epitome of evil. We both know that's not the case." I don't know that at all. That is the principle I have adopted. Who are you to say it is wrong? Do you have some cosmic rulebook or moral compass that disproves my principle? And if you do, so what? Mine is just as valid as yours.
The whole point of this is that your are a desparate and pathetic moral relativist that thinks you can dismiss our principles while holding onto yours. If everything is permitted, then everything is permitted, not just the things that benefit you or exist in your world. Gay marriage is fine, abortion is fine, terrorism is fine, slavery is fine, genocide is fine, rape is fine.
Gay marriage is wrong. Equivocate all you wish, but all you have proven is that you have no standards, no reason, no intellect, and no soul.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 11:40:57
Posted by TheAmerican
November 7, 2007 8:48 AM
Incorrect. "Univeral norms" describes a certain system of values which are viewed similarly throughout all societies. Or, better put:..."
Are these "universal norms" objective truths about morals or are they nearly universally accepted "norms". I think the latter. To say there are objective right and wrongs is to make a statement about the transcendent nature of the universe. To say there are universal norms of behavior (and I agree there are) is to make a statement about how man tends to interact with men. These are two very different kind of statements.
Thakur's statement: "If value relativism were to be accepted in extremis, then no tyrant — Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot — could be criticized by outsiders for any action"
This is true. But what he fails to note is that value relativism is never accepted in-extremis, either between individuals or between governments or cultures. In order to accept value relativism in extremis you'd have relinquish your own values (an individual's or a culture's) when dealing with other individuals or cultures. That has never happened for the simple reason that an individual and culture can not function without even the most fundamental values to guide its actions.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 11:45:10
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 11:54:06
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 11:56:38
I say gay marriage is wrong. You say that there are no moral absolutes and that I have no basis for that belief (paradox)."
Stan, I don't say you have no basis for that belief. I say I haven't heard you enunciate your basis for that belief.
Yet you say with absolute moarl certainty "...that I am the epitome of evil. We both know that's not the case." I don't know that at all."
Stan, I meant to suggest that you and I both know I do not think I am the epitome of evil. If you didn't know that or think that, now you do. Sorry for the confusion.
"That is the principle I have adopted. Who are you to say it is wrong? Do you have some cosmic rulebook or moral compass that disproves my principle? And if you do, so what? Mine is just as valid as yours."
First, you've not state a principle. You've state an opinion in saying you believe I am the epitome of evil. I presume there is a principle or value at the basis of that statement, but you've not stated what that is. As for why I believe this statement about me is wrong, I could talk about what my idea of "evil" is, what standards have to be met to call someone evil, then go over the ways I don't meet those standards. I would not be suggesting that my idea of evil is the transcendent idea of evil, but rather that it is MY idea.
As for validity of our positions, I'd say that your process for coming to your conclusions is likely just as valid as mine because it will likely be based on some value you hold personally. But, when I judge that value and your position about my degree of evil, I can call it wrong from my perspective. This, by the way, is at the heart of politics.
"The whole point of this is that your are a desparate and pathetic moral relativist that thinks you can dismiss our principles while holding onto yours."
Not "dismiss", but dispute. That's important. For example, I presume you dispute the principle that abortion is not morally wrong. I presume you'd argue with those who say this. I presume you'd make that case based on values and principles you personally hold. What I would dismiss because I don't see any evidence for it is that there is a universal principle that says abortion is wrong. I don't see any source of that universal, transcendent principle.
"If everything is permitted, then everything is permitted, not just the things that benefit you or exist in your world. Gay marriage is fine, abortion is fine, terrorism is fine, slavery is fine, genocide is fine, rape is fine."
When you talk about "what is permited" you are now talking about social contract: what a group of people agree they will allow or not in their society. I'm not suggesting that everything is permitted or should be. I'm saying that everyone comes to their ideas of what is morally permissible on their terms. They are informed as to what is right and wrong based on the values they hold. They then take those values with them into whatever public forum they choose...a blog, the voting booth, a town hall meeting, an editorial, a conversation...whatever. But what they have not evidence for and what will be dismissed is that there is some universal truth that transcends the individual.
"Gay marriage is wrong. Equivocate all you wish, but all you have proven is that you have no standards, no reason, no intellect, and no soul."
I hear you say Gay Marriage is wrong. But without any explanation as to why, that statement is meaningless. And I do have standards...but they are mine. Not anyone elses, not handed down by a God or government.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 12:02:41
Posted by TheAmerican
November 7, 2007 11:45 AM
And there you have it. There isnt anything more fundamental than girl plus boy. That very simple notion has guided the human race since the beginning.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 12:04:49
Posted by tblrk2006"
You seem to be arguing that the state's interest in only issuing marriage licenses to straight couples is based on the straight couples ability to create children. Not raise them, but create them biologically.
It's an interesting position and raises some questions. Is it in the interest of the state to see as many children born as possible? The more, in fact, the better for the culture? Is there a limit?
Second, we both know that the state of marriage is not necessary to create children. Nor, clearly, is it necessary to encourage the creation of children.
There is nothing about the marriage license or the state of marriage that demands it only be issued and allowed for straight folks. Children will still be born and raised whether that license is issued to gays or not. There is nothing at stake in that regard.
What the issuance of marriage licenses to gays would accomplish, as long as the state feels it needs to be in the business of overseeing who can officially marry, is to acknowledge that gays, like straights, both want and are capable of living in the kind of committed, intimate, public relationship.
There is no questions that gays can and do live this way. The question is this: is the harm to society that comes with acknowledging this by issuing gays marriage licenses so bad that it must be avoided? That's the fundamental question. What is the convincing positive answer to that question?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 12:17:19
Pathetic try to have it both ways again, T_A.
We have stated on numerous occasions why gay marriage is wrong, siting reason and logic. You ignored and dismissed our reasons, explaining there are no moral absolutes. You then say that there is no way you are the epitome' of evil in the world. But I have accepted that as my moral principle, based upon the fact that you are an uncious jerk who ideas will destroy civilization. Who do you think you are to tell me that I am absolutely wrong about that?
You presume and assume far too much. I have standards, not handed down by anyone. One of my standards is that quibbling moroins like you do not deserve to live. Screw laws, the government, or religion. That is *MY* moral principle, it is the truth that I live by. And in that, you and your entire family desere nothing less than a long and painful death. Now, if I truly believed that as my guiding principle, by your logis and reasoning, I am fully justified in carrying my principles to their logical conclusions.
Again, you have given no reason for anything you have stated, other than "Because I say so". Fine, I'll take you at your word. You can lie if you feel like it, you can take any position on any subject because you want to. My confusion lies in why you think you are deserving of this moral freedom, yet wish to deny it to people whose viewpoint differs from yours.
Perhaps projecting your hollow existance and your spineless political views on others is not what you had in mind. People have standards they are willing to stand for, fight for, and even die for. And pathetic relativists like you have no concept of what that is like.
But hey, "If it feels good, do it". Even if it "feels good" for me to beat your children to death while you watch, Right T_A?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 12:21:01
Posted by TheAmerican
November 7, 2007 12:02 PM
What more do you need in that both people are the same.....it takes two different people to marry, to make kids, to have the specail love. Your gay couple cannot, be defanition, have or accomplish the same. Im sure you think that marriage is only about love and that anybody can claim to love another just as much as anybody(thus deserving the marriage title), but the two components being same dont allow for what two differnt people can achieve. Your logic is downright false.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 12:22:57
Posted by TheAmerican
November 7, 2007 11:45 AM
And there you have it. There isnt anything more fundamental than girl plus boy. That very simple notion has guided the human race since the beginning."
No one would disagree that procreation is rather important to the human race. However, procreation and marriage are not the same thing. One is a civil/religious institution. The other is biological function. Two different things.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 12:23:02
The former.
You are wrong.
Again, you are wrong. Transcendence is the "being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge"; therefore, when we are qualifying right and wrong on that which falls within our sphere of experience and knowledge, we are not making a statement about "the trancendent nature of the universe."
Thakur's statement: "If value relativism were to be accepted in extremis, then no tyrant — Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot — could be criticized by outsiders for any action"
Again, incorrect. He wasn't arguing that value relativism is or is not accepted in extremis, he was using that as an example.
Posted by jasamc
2007-11-07 12:26:17
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 12:26:52
Posted by TheAmerican
November 7, 2007 12:23 PM
What the hell are you talking about? They go hand in hand. People get married to make kids between themselves sharring both their DNA. Marriage was (invented) so that two opposite individuals could make kids between themselves and themselves only. They dont have to love eachother, like eachother, or get along. Although it certainly helps. Your only basis for so called gay marriage is that a form of love is present. You can love anybody or anything you want. Man+man love and man+women love.....two different things.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 12:36:40
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
November 7, 2007 12:26 PM |
.........
The one has nothing to do with the other.
You're welcome.
Posted by EF_Martha
2007-11-07 12:41:31
November 7, 2007 12:41 PM
welcome for what, pointing out the obvious? Gee wiz
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 12:46:16
Au contraire, oh oft-banned sock-puppet, Mr. TheAmerican has been arguing at length that there is no such thing as right and wrong. I invited him to make that same case on a thread where the subject is obviously morally repugnant. You're not welcome; you're trespassing.
Btw- as a self-proclaimed champion of women's rights, why haven't you condemned the Imam's repulsive statement?
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 12:51:26
I was asking for your reasons. I don't know who speaks for you here.
"You then say that there is no way you are the epitome' of evil in the world. But I have accepted that as my moral principle, based upon the fact that you are an uncious jerk who ideas will destroy civilization. Who do you think you are to tell me that I am absolutely wrong about that?"
I'm just like you...a person with a belief based on certain principles. Certainly you are not suggesting that each of us can't or shouldn't advance our beliefs and the reasons for them?
"You presume and assume far too much. I have standards, not handed down by anyone. One of my standards is that quibbling moroins like you do not deserve to live. Screw laws, the government, or religion. That is *MY* moral principle, it is the truth that I live by. And in that, you and your entire family desere nothing less than a long and painful death. Now, if I truly believed that as my guiding principle, by your logis and reasoning, I am fully justified in carrying my principles to their logical conclusions."
Close. Based on my logic you have given YOURSELF a clear justification for acting against me and my family. However, my logic does not suggest that simply because you've got principles that I can't dispute them.
"Again, you have given no reason for anything you have stated, other than "Because I say so". Fine, I'll take you at your word. You can lie if you feel like it, you can take any position on any subject because you want to. My confusion lies in why you think you are deserving of this moral freedom, yet wish to deny it to people whose viewpoint differs from yours."
I don't think I've denied that each person has the Moral Freedom (a great way of phrasing it by the way) to come to their own conclusions about their own principles and values as well as to judge other's principles and values. I acknowledge that all people come to their own conclusions on morals and are quite able and justified in criticizing others based on their own values. My point is only that there is no such thing as UNIVERSAL, TRANSCENDENT Values and morals that are the "truth".
"But hey, "If it feels good, do it". Even if it "feels good" for me to beat your children to death while you watch, Right T_A?"
I'd recognize that you've clearly come to the conclusion that this kind of act is moral and that there is no universal truth stopping you from coming to this conclusion. But I personally would not agree it is moral.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 12:56:13
November 7, 2007 12:56 PM
So, why should gays be allowed the same marriage as hetero couples? B/c gay sex happens and a form of love could very well be present?
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 13:00:22
T_A, that is the exact position you are taking in regard to Gay Mariage, that we cannot take the position we do and call it wrong because there is no such thing as wrong.
Is gay marriage wrong? Is abortion wrong? Is rape wrong? Is beating your wife wrong? Is being a Boston Red Sox fan wrong? Was Hitler or Stalin wrong?
I have standards and principles as well. They are based upon my life experiences, my chosen religious teachings, and my education. And for you to denegrate my principles in deferrence to you own makes you unworthy of my wasting any more of Mr. Hawkins bandwidth on you.
Why don't you drop by the wife-beating thread and give us your thoughts on why that is no big deal. I am done with you!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 13:06:34
T_A, that is the exact position you are taking in regard to Gay Mariage, that we cannot take the position we do and call it wrong because there is no such thing as wrong.
Is gay marriage wrong? Is abortion wrong? Is rape wrong? Is beating your wife wrong? Is being a Boston Red Sox fan wrong? Was Hitler or Stalin wrong?
I have standards and principles as well. They are based upon my life experiences, my chosen religious teachings, and my education. And for you to denegrate my principles in deferrence to you own makes you unworthy of my wasting any more of Mr. Hawkins bandwidth on you.
Why don't you drop by the wife-beating thread and give us your thoughts on why that is no big deal. I am done with you!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 13:12:57
Au contraire, oh oft-banned sock-puppet, Mr. TheAmerican has been arguing at length that there is no such thing as right and wrong. I invited him to make that same case on a thread where the subject is obviously morally repugnant. You're not welcome; you're trespassing.
Btw- as a self-proclaimed champion of women's rights, why haven't you condemned the Imam's repulsive statement?
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
November 7, 2007 12:51 PM |
........................
Yet you never put a sock in it.
I have not seen TheAmerican arguing that there is no right or wrong. Your reading skills . . .ehh!
Public forum - I'm not trespassing.
Btw, the Imam's repulsive statement is so obviously repulsive that only a fool would waste time bickering about it.
Posted by EF_Martha
2007-11-07 13:13:27
No...there are not any objective moral rights and wrongs.
Posted by TheAmerican November 7, 2007 8:48 AM
Private property, from which you have been repeatedly banned.
Now, piss off and die, troll!
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 13:22:06
Posted by TheAmerican November 7, 2007 8:48 AM
Private property, from which you have been repeatedly banned.
Now, piss off and die, troll!
Posted by StanW
November 7, 2007 1:22 PM |
......
Seems you missed a modifier, Stanley. Reading skills . . . ehh!
Can't be private on the Internet, Stan. That's what email is for.
Wot's your fascination with piss and death? I'd have that looked at if I were you.
Posted by EF_Martha
2007-11-07 13:27:19
Tell that to ISPs, sock-puppet. Mr. Hawkins pays for this site therefore it is his property. You have been banned innumerable times for violating the rules he set up for this site hence you are, in fact, trespassing.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 14:23:44
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
November 7, 2007 2:23 PM |
Post a comment
.........
He opens his site to the wonders of the Internet, in the hope I will purchase some of what is being advertised. Get a grip.
I've been banned because I reveal the truth. If I have broken any rules, they are oft broken by every regular poster here. Thus they are to be ignored.
Posted by EF_Martha
2007-11-07 14:32:01
Posted by EF_Martha
November 7, 2007 2:32 PM
And that is?
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-11-07 14:34:58
Posted by tblrk2006
November 7, 2007 2:34 PM |
....................
Black and white can not be seperated from the grey.
Posted by EF_Martha
2007-11-07 14:40:15
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-07 14:58:46
LMAO. You wouldn't know truth if you fell over it. You come here to antagonize people to get attention. IOW- you troll, which is against the site's rules.
"If I have broken any rules, they are oft broken by every regular poster here."
RWN is not a democracy, idiot troll, it's a monarchy ruled by the site's owner: Mr. Hawkins. He get's to pick and choose who he allows to post on his site.
"Thus they are to be ignored."
Thus you are to be banned again and again.
Posted by EF_Martha
November 7, 2007 2:40 PM
Grey, huh? LOL. That's odd... you've NEVER, not once, EVER posted ANYthing (on the rare occasions when you've actually responded to the thread's topic) that was NOT explicitly the exact polar-opposite of whatever the conservative stance was. Heh. That's some pretty banal black-n-white thinking right there, reactionary-troll. Hypocrite.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 15:11:29
LMAO. You wouldn't know truth if you fell over it. You come here to antagonize people to get attention. IOW- you troll, which is against the site's rules.
"If I have broken any rules, they are oft broken by every regular poster here."
RWN is not a democracy, idiot troll, it's a monarchy ruled by the site's owner: Mr. Hawkins. He get's to pick and choose who he allows to post on his site.
"Thus they are to be ignored."
Thus you are to be banned again and again.
Posted by EF_Martha
November 7, 2007 2:40 PM
Grey, huh? LOL. That's odd... you've NEVER, not once, EVER posted ANYthing (on the rare occasions when you've actually responded to the thread's topic) that was NOT explicitly the exact polar-opposite of whatever the conservative stance was. Heh. That's some pretty banal black-n-white thinking right there, reactionary-troll. Hypocrite.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 15:12:06
I saw an interview several years ago with a California student activist discussing Charles Manson's upcoming parole hearing.
He spoke for several minutes about all the wrongs done to Manson by the government and the state law enforcement officers. He went on and on about all the mean and evil things that had been done to Manson while he was in prison.
The interviewer then asked him, "What do you have to say about all of the evil deeds Manson did that got him into the trouble he is in?".
The man answered, "I do not believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of right and wrong."
He had no idea his answer completely negated everything he had said about Manson.
The(so-called)America own words refuted his point. Having him further elaborate on them made it worse.
As a truly great American philosopher once said... "What a Maroon!"
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 15:12:28
I think it is a claim about transcendent truth when you claim that something is ALWAYS moral or immoral. Here's why:
In order to make the claim that something is right or wrong morally in all places and all times you must defer to some sort of authority or reasoning that transcends all time or space. When you say that homosexuality is always wrong or gay marriage wrong or immoral are you just talking about "our own sphere of experience and knowledge"? If so then you've not transcended time, nor space since we exist here and now and then and there.
Furthermore it should be clear that not all people agree that homosexualty or gay marriage are immoral. So while a majority may have at one time or even now, that's not evidence that it absolutely is. It's only evidence that a majority of people think it is.
But you also refer to "experience". I'm not sure what experience you are referring to but I'm sure you have something in mind. If it is some experience that demonstrates that homosexuality and gay marriage are a wrong or immoral then it needs to show it to always be wrong and immoral. I don't see how you can show this without referring to an authority that takes the question out of human hands.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 15:49:57
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-07 15:56:46
OK, let's see if I have this.
If I think you are the epitome' of evil and deserve to die a horrible death, then while it may be my guiding principle, my lone voice does not automatically make it so becaus there is nothing behind it, and it may be contrary to what everyone else thinks.
BUT...
If I can find a group of people that believe to the very core of their being that you are the epitome' of evil and deserve to die a horrible death, we have now countered the argument that "everyone disagrees". We are then free to carry out the logical extension of our principle.
So, as long as someone can say ALWAYS or NEVER (which you claim is impossible), then that is a moral absolute. Everything else is open for debate and interpretation.
And, don't you *DARE* criticize my chosen principle. Who sre you to say that my reality is less valid than Jeffrey Dahmer's, or Joseph Stalin's, or yours?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 15:58:34
Posted by Christopher_Taylor "
Simply because one argues that there is no Objective right and wrong that does not mean they cannot offer their own view of right and wrong while at the same time appealing to those who share this particular view.
We all understand that our views are just that: our views. Some may share them. Others may not. Determining that gets us in the realm of politics.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 16:28:09
If I think you are the epitome' of evil and deserve to die a horrible death, then while it may be my guiding principle, my lone voice does not automatically make it so becaus there is nothing behind it, and it may be contrary to what everyone else thinks."
That's pretty close to what I'm saying. I'd only add that that your voice does not make it OBJECTIVELY the Truth about me. That is to say, the "TRUTH" whether or not you suggest it. There is definitely something behind the position you hold. I think in an earlier post you noted "experience, religion, etc." The point is that simply because you say so, that does not make it the one and only Truth with a capital T.
BUT...
"If I can find a group of people that believe to the very core of their being that you are the epitome' of evil and deserve to die a horrible death, we have now countered the argument that "everyone disagrees". We are then free to carry out the logical extension of our principle."
I'd say that from an individual perspective you are always "free" to act on your principles. You'd likely recognize there are consequences, but there is nothing cosmic that stops you. And you don't even need to find a group of people who agree with you to make this a true statement about human freedom to act. What I'd say further, however, is even with a group in agreement, that does not make your claim about my evilness an objective truth.
"So, as long as someone can say ALWAYS or NEVER (which you claim is impossible), then that is a moral absolute. Everything else is open for debate and interpretation."
I hadn't thought about that only because it is so implausible. I can't think of any situation in which everyone who ever existed believed the same way on any question. Claiming something is always wrong is easy to do. I'm not sure, however, how you'd back up that claim without having to resort to a transcendent authority.
"And, don't you *DARE* criticize my chosen principle. Who sre you to say that my reality is less valid than Jeffrey Dahmer's, or Joseph Stalin's, or yours?"
I don't know what your base principles and values are, Stan. However, I am capable of criticizing your positions on issues, just as you are mine. What you should note is that the positions of yours that I am criticizing MUST be a result of your values and principles just as my criticism of your positions are also a result of my values and principles. What our positions are not, however, are a result of transcendent, objective Truths about right and wrong.
Posted by StanW
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 16:46:34
I thought you said there were no moral absolutes, T_A?
Rather inconsistent of you.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 16:52:24
What our positions are not, however, are a result of transcendent, objective Truths about right and wrong.
Posted by TheAmerican November 7, 2007 4:46 PM
I thought you said there were no moral absolutes, T_A?
Rather inconsistent of you."
That's correct. But I've not enunciated any particular moral "right" or "wrong" in the above statement.
When I tell you that 1+2=3 we are not talking morals.
However, I realize that many folks do suggest that there are transcendent, objective moral truths. I think they are absolutely wrong about this, but I'm willing to listen to their reasoning on it.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 16:55:33
Posted by Christopher_Taylor"
Christopher, I think you are confusing the idea of "I Believe that..." with "It is an objective truth that..."
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 17:00:17
So what if they do?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 17:02:04
No, you are not.
You have already decided, as well as stated, that there are no absolutes, but you are absolutely sure that there is no higher power, not are there any moral truths.
No amount of reason, logic, or proof will suffice to convince you of anything you have not already decided is right or wrong.
T_A, your own words have destroyed your argument. Everyone is free to determine their own moral compass and what they conside right or wrong, unless it disagrees with your rights and wrongs.
Thanks for the back-and-forth. You have negated your own point more efficiently that I ever could have.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 17:03:41
November 7, 2007 5:03 PM
Why beat your head against a wall, Stan? This guy's never going to concede what everyone else already knows. There are definite rights and wrongs in this world. He's aruging simply for the sake of an argument. Having read a few of his posts, I think its safe to assume that he's what our old friend Lumberjack would've referred to as an "educated idjit".
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-11-07 17:19:59
I understand that GoB (and thanks for the concern), but this is a debate tactic I learned while Debating Whine-O. Continue to ask and prod and let the liberal fully explain their position. It always ends up with logical fallacies, contradictions, paradoxes, and the audiences seeing the liberal for the pathetic idoit that they are.
Whine-O never failed to provide the necessary idiocy. T_A is attempting to live DOWN to Whine-O's level.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 17:25:14
Funny, I was going to say the same about you.
But why should we listen to your views on the subject? If there are no objective truths, then your belief that lying is wrong has absolutely no relevance and you cannot compel anyone to follow it.
Oh really? No way at all? Funny, because I seem to recall a little something called “stats” that they use to rate baseball players. That sounds pretty clear-cut to me.
Tough luck. There are no objective truths, so you can’t criticize it.
Why doesn’t it matter? What makes secular ethics better than religious ethics?
If it’s no better, then why are you objecting to it?
And remember, there’s no objective truths. So you can’t say that our opinion is wrong.
Why can’t he tell you that? If there is no objective morality, then this so-called “cosmic repository of knowledge” is no better than any other moral standard.
Except if there is no objective morality, then he has no obligation to explain his beliefs to you.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 17:25:39
You have already decided, as well as stated, that there are no absolutes, but you are absolutely sure that there is no higher power, not are there any moral truths."
Actually I am inclined to listen as there are any number of ways to approaching this question.
"T_A, your own words have destroyed your argument. Everyone is free to determine their own moral compass and what they conside right or wrong, unless it disagrees with your rights and wrongs.
Posted by StanW"
Stan I've never suggested that there is anything I can possibly do to prevent any individual from determining their moral compass. How could I reach in and control what a person thinks.
However, that is entirely different than no agreeing with reasoning behind, the efficacy or the logic behind one's moral compass.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 17:27:35
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy"
Can you name a few and demonstrate how you know they are absolute, transcendent, objective moral rights and wrongs?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 17:31:40
NO!
Absolute enough for you?
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 17:37:49
Then why, pray tell, have you spent so much time telling us how wrong we are?
Again, why should we offer a reason?
If morality is all relative, then you can’t say that I must offer a reason for why I believe what I do. And you can’t say that you’ve won the argument if I don’t offer a reason.
So what if you do? If it’s all relative, then your beliefs about what arguments are “good” and which ones are “bad” are irrelevant.
You…do realize you just conceded the entire argument, don’t you?
If a set of fundamental values are necessary for society to function, then moral relativism is useless as a philosophy. Which means you just completely wasted yours and our time.
Why should he? If there are no objective morals, then he has no obligation to do so.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 17:39:18
I love this guy.
“There are no moral absolutes, and anyone who thinks there are is absolutely wrong.”
TA, you couldn’t be more inconsistent if we paid you.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 17:41:31
I'm not attempting to compel you to do anything. I'm merely stating a claim that no objective truth exists then noting that in my personal view, lying is wrong.
"I'll make it easier. There is no clear cut way to determine who was the greatest right handed pitcher of all time. However, I can tell you why I believe the answer to that question is Mr. X.
Oh really? No way at all? Funny, because I seem to recall a little something called “stats” that they use to rate baseball players. That sounds pretty clear-cut to me."
I'd almost be ready to agree with you that stats tell the story. However, what does "great" mean? And are there other factors to consider? You and I both know that "great", just like "good" is a very nebulous term.
"This is very very bad reasoning.
Tough luck. There are no objective truths, so you can’t criticize it."
Again, I think this is the wrong way to understand it. While no one can offer any good support for the idea that lying is Always immoral, a person could explain why THEY BELEIVE truth telling is always right.
"Why does it matter in the least.
Why doesn’t it matter? What makes secular ethics better than religious ethics?"
This is very good question and gets to the heart of the issue. Stan never quite understood this or couldn't articulate it like you.
Just to try to brush the subject without going into great depth, I'd argue that secular ethics are better because a) they don't rely on faith in a deity that can not be shown to exist, b) because they tend to be based relations between humans, rather than relations between humans and gods and c) because they tend to put human liberty at the center of the equation.
"Any God I claim has the same moral authority as any God you claim. This is why using God's to justify any particular morality is no better than simply making one's case through logic, reason and empathy.
If it’s no better, then why are you objecting to it?"
Because while basing morals on a God authority I think is no better than basing it on reason and empathy, I think reason and empathy are better tools for understanding right and wrong than relying on gods.
"And remember, there’s no objective truths. So you can’t say that our opinion is wrong."
Yes, I can say that. And I can tell you all the reason why I think Player X is not the best pitcher ever. You may end up agreeing with me or not. But my argument won't be based on the notion that it is objective just as my opposition to your view on gay marriage won't be based on claims of objective, transcendent truth. It will be based on much more, not the least of which are my views on and appeals to empathy, notions of liberty and freedom, and the proper role of the state.
"I could tell you why I think that would be wrong and why I think it is immoral. But I wouldn't tell you there is some cosmic repository of definitions of right and wrong. Please tell me you don't need to refer to this cosmic repository of what's right and wrong to figure out if that scenario is right or wrong to you.
Why can’t he tell you that? If there is no objective morality, then this so-called “cosmic repository of knowledge” is no better than any other moral standard."
Agreed. But first you'd have to show that such a repository exists.
"That's ok too. However, it would be interesting to know upon what you base that belief. The difference it seems between me and you is that I could articulate why I think you are probably a nut job. You however seem incapable of backing up your beliefs with anything.
Except if there is no objective morality, then he
has no obligation to explain his beliefs to you."
I'm not suggesting he has any obligation. I'm only observing that the seems to be incapable of backing up his beliefs with anything.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 17:49:05
Posted by TheAmerican November 7, 2007 5:31 PM
NO!
Absolute enough for you?
Posted by StanW"
I would agree with your assessment. I don't think one could name any objective, transcendent moral rights and wrongs, let along demonstrate why they are such.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 17:53:40
That's true. I can't insist with any expectation that this insistence will result in anything, and whether morality is relative has nothing to do with it. However, given your willingness to engage in discussion in general but your unwillingness to delve into the question, it's not outrageous for me to assume you either are not comfortable with the arguments you are likely to make or simply have no arguments.
However, I think some forms of reasoning or explanation are far more convincing than others.
So what if you do? If it’s all relative, then your beliefs about what arguments are “good” and which ones are “bad” are irrelevant."
To you perhaps. But in the absence of any suggestions to the contrary by you I have to assume you agree with me or simply are over your head.
"In order to accept value relativism in extremis you'd have relinquish your own values (an individual's or a culture's) when dealing with other individuals or cultures. That has never happened for the simple reason that an individual and culture can not function without even the most fundamental values to guide its actions.
You…do realize you just conceded the entire argument, don’t you?
If a set of fundamental values are necessary for society to function, then moral relativism is useless as a philosophy. Which means you just completely wasted yours and our time."
But this doesn't speak to the idea that there are transcendent, objective values that cross cultures and time. I'm merely suggesting that any action at all, be it by a culture, govt. or individual is always predicated on their values. But that statement does not address the eternal truth of any person's or culture's values...only that they must have some.
"Stan, I don't say you have no basis for that belief. I say I haven't heard you enunciate your basis for that belief.
Why should he? If there are no objective morals, then he has no obligation to do so."
Again, I've not suggested there is any obligation on his part. I've merely observed he hasn't offered any. I'm inclined as to speculate why that may be, but you are right when you say he has no obligation to offer them.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 18:24:04
“There are no moral absolutes, and anyone who thinks there are is absolutely wrong.”
TA, you couldn’t be more inconsistent if we paid you.
Posted by mightysamurai
MS,
I could be far more inconsistent insofar as there is nothing about this statement that is inconsistent. Claiming there are no moral absolutes is not a statement of moral truths. It is an observation about the nature of our world along the lines of, "there are no three inch tall fairies that live inside banana peels.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 18:30:03
And another point missed. Imagine my surprise.
I did not mean, "NO, there are no objective moral rights and wrongs". I meant, "No, I am no longer going to provide you opportunity to make yourself look foolish."
Time for you to go away. And I mean that absolutely.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 18:34:39
I did not mean, "NO, there are no objective moral rights and wrongs". I meant, "No, I am no longer going to provide you opportunity to make yourself look foolish."
Time for you to go away. And I mean that absolutely.
Posted by StanW"
Happily, it appears the only thing that makes me look foolish is proximity to you, Stan.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 18:37:32
Don't sell yourself short, T_A.
Besides your words, your ideology, your attitude, and your personality, standing next to someone as wise and handsome as I am is only a small part of what makes you look foolish.
Posted by StanW
2007-11-07 18:41:49
Time for you to go away. And I mean that absolutely.
Posted by StanW
November 7, 2007 6:34 PM |
.........................
And thus there is no white or black - just grey.
Absolute grey
Posted by FG_Martha
2007-11-07 18:43:55
Besides your words, your ideology, your attitude, and your personality, standing next to someone as wise and handsome as I am is only a small part of what makes you look foolish.
Posted by StanW "
LOL...OK...I relent. Touche!
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 18:49:49
I mean... why would you argue anything at all if you didn't think you were right? And why should I listen to you if you can't even say you're right?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-07 19:22:10
Really? Then what’s this?
Posted by TheAmerican November 6, 2007 9:28 PM |
Posted by TheAmerican November 6, 2007 9:32 PM |
Posted by TheAmerican November 6, 2007 9:45 PM |
compel, v.
force or oblige (someone) to do something
Seems to me that you have been compelling us to accept gay marriage for some time now. Yet here you are now claiming that morality is subjective. Which means that every post you have made so far advocating gay marriage is now utterly meaningless.
Just because the term is vague does not mean the answer is subjective. All you have to do is define what “great” means in this context.
So what? There’s no objective right and wrong, so my way of understanding it is perfectly acceptable.
They could, but they don’t have to, because according to you there is no objective rule saying they must.
Funny, I think he articulated it just fine. Rather, I think you just chose not to understand.
Aaaand that’s as far as you’re allowed to go.
No objective right or wrong, remember? That means you can’t say that secular ethics are “better” than religious ethics.
I see a lot of “I thinks” and “I believes” in your posts. Yet I also seem to recall you criticizing Stan and others for not justifying their beliefs with facts and/or logic.
As the Good Book says, physician, heal thyself.
No, sir, you can’t. You can only tell us you disagree with our beliefs. You can’t say that our beliefs are wrong.
Remember, according to you there is no such thing as objective right and wrong.
Except that since there is no objective right and wrong, I don’t even have to consider or even acknowledge your appeals to empathy, liberty, and so on. I can stick my fingers in my ears and go “BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH” if I want to, and you can’t do a thing about it because there’s nothing “wrong” with what I’m doing.
Why? If there’s no objective right and wrong, there’s nothing wrong with believing in something without any evidence, is there?
Oh please. Don’t even pretend that wasn’t what you were doing. You and I both know that you were only “observing” this in a feeble attempt to discredit his argument (though I guess you weren’t counting on someone like me pointing out that your “no objective morality” argument removes any obligation he might have to explain himself).
“Unwillingness to delve into the question”?
What, pray tell, have we been doing for the last few hours if not “delving into the question”?
Except, for the umpteenth time, even if that were true, since there is no objective morality there is nothing “wrong” with that and you can’t criticize it.
Actually to everyone, everywhere.
See, this is what relativists never seem to get. If everything is relative, then EVERYTHING must be judged relatively.
Clearly you haven’t thought your argument through.
You cannot say “there are no absolutes” because that very statement is an absolute.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 19:27:33
Whoever said I didn't think my positions were right?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 20:07:20
No one.
Clearly you do believe your position is right, else you would not be here arguing it.
What you don't seem to realize is that if there is no objective right or wrong, then your position can't be right.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 20:11:48
Sam, you could still do this even if there were an objective right and wrong. Listening is a choice.
I think the problem we are having is that you aren't seeing the difference between concrete and abstract.
Ideas, morals, values...these are abstract notions. We can not see them. Saying that one particular moral position is the absolute right one requires you to demonstrate the basis for that claim if you really believe it. So far no one, including you have offered any way to do that, let alone try to do it.
May argument is that you can't do this because there is nothing in the way of an authentic authority that you can point to that sets the rule for what is morally right and wrong.
God is the only object I've ever seen people point to. Yet "God" is also an abstract idea. You simply push the authority out further by pointing to god.
With regard to the Gay issue, those who call it immoral must eventually try to rely on the "god" argument because any other argument (it's unhealthy, it doesn't create children, it's not natural, etc) always includes exceptions that you have to try to fit into your argument. That always leads to double standards that can, again, only be reconciled, by the resort to an ultimate authority that we can never pin down.
As far as I can tell, the only way demonstrate there is anything like objective moral rights and wrongs is to prove the existence of God. And then, that doesn't even get you there because you have to ask the question:
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?
This leads to some very difficult dilemmas.
The solution then, to what is right and what is wrong, is to admit no definitive answer is possible because what is moral and what is not is a question that can only be answered by the individual and that answer, though adoptable by others, can be given in numerous ways.
Everything after that is persuasion. Can I persuade you to see it my way?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 20:29:37
Clearly you do believe your position is right, else you would not be here arguing it.
What you don't seem to realize is that if there is no objective right or wrong, then your position can't be right."
It doesn't need to be objectively right. It only needs to be persuasive to reason.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 20:31:40
No, I think the problem we are having is that you are refusing to use your brain.
You say that if I present something as an absolute moral law, I am "required" to demonstrate how it is an absolute moral law.
But what you don't seem to realize (or refuse to realize) is that if morality is subjective, I am not required to do anything at all.
If there is no objective right or wrong, then there is nothing wrong with me simply presenting my beliefs without justifying them. I am not required to demonstrate how my belief is correct because there is no objective moral standard saying that I must.
Except, for the 4 billionth time, if there is no objective right or wrong then you can't tell me what I can or can't do because there is nothing wrong with what I'm doing.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 21:04:51
You say that if I present something as an absolute moral law, I am "required" to demonstrate how it is an absolute moral law.
But what you don't seem to realize (or refuse to realize) is that if morality is subjective, I am not required to do anything at all.
If there is no objective right or wrong, then there is nothing wrong with me simply presenting my beliefs without justifying them. I am not required to demonstrate how my belief is correct because there is no objective moral standard saying that I must."
Even if there are objective moral standards, I can't think of one that would require to present any arguments alongside you simple statement of what you believe they are.
All I'm saying is that if you have any desire to demonstrate, prove or otherwise make a case for your contention, it would require to to explain it.
"May argument is that you can't do this because there is nothing in the way of an authentic authority that you can point to that sets the rule for what is morally right and wrong.
Except, for the 4 billionth time, if there is no objective right or wrong then you can't tell me what I can or can't do because there is nothing wrong with what I'm doing."
Now you seem to be confusing morals with reason.
My point is that REASON won't get you where you want to be if where you want to be is stating that there exists an authentic and objective authority on right and wrong. You seem to think that when I say "you can't do this because..." that I am saying it is morally wrong for you to do this. That's not it at all. I'm saying you can't do this and have any claim to be using reason. It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of logic and reason.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 22:18:17
Look, everyone. God handed down morality starting with Moses at Mt Sinai, and continuing with the appearance of the Christ, on through the books of the Bible that were written after His ascension.
Every standard and norm of good, civilized, and decent behavior is derived from somewhere along that period, most from Jesus' teaching in particular. God is real and He is the standard. It says right there in Proverbs that anyone who refuses this teaching is a fool and will be condemned.
Those who insist that there's no such thing as right and wrong will answer to the Lord after they die. That's all. Right now, He's offered them freewill to say things like what Mr American in saying...but there will be consequences for those who refuse the message of the Cross.
Count on it.
(And man have we come a long way off topic, haven't we?)
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-07 22:23:03
Probably because you aren't thinking at all.
That's your opinion of how an argument should be constructed. And if everything is relative, your opinion is no better than anybody else's. So you can say that I am required to explain the reasoning behind my argument, but I can just claim that the truth is self-evident and proof is not required. And you can't say I'm wrong because according to you, "wrong" is a subjective term.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Actually that is what you're saying.
By saying I "can't" do something, what you really mean is that it is "wrong" for me to do something. Except if there is no objective right or wrong, you cannot say that I have done something "wrong" because "wrong" is simply a matter of opinion.
TA, do you even realize how easy it is for me to argue against this position you have taken? Because you've taken this ridiculous "everything is relative" stance, you are utterly incapable of arguing against ANYTHING that ANYONE says. If you disagree with someone's position, you cannot say they are wrong without admitting that morals are objective.
Indeed, your very argument contradicts itself. By saying that there are no absolutes, you are making an absolute statement. In order for your argument to be true, the phrase "there are no absolutes" would have to be absolutely true, which would invalidate your argument that there are no absolutes.
I feel like I'm back in elementary school doing that old "stop hitting yourself" game. Except this time the kid really is hitting himself.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-11-07 22:51:56
Well, you are incorrect if you think you've achieved something but demonstrably not. For example, if you claim X, but offer nothing but the claim to back it up, then you would be incorrect by any known logic if you say you supported that claim. It's not a matter of being wrong morally, it's a matter of being wrong factually. YOu are still having a difficult time separating morals and reason.
"TA, do you even realize how easy it is for me to argue against this position you have taken?"
Well of course I realize it. If you choose to abandon any semblance of logic or reason then it's pretty simple to make an argument.
"Because you've taken this ridiculous "everything is relative" stance,"
AH!!! I see the problem. You haven't realized we were talking about morals. You think I meant EVERYTHING is relative. Got it. Ok...What I've been arguing is that MORALS are relative. Now I see the problem you've been having. My mistake. I didn't really notice this until now.
"you are utterly incapable of arguing against ANYTHING that ANYONE says. If you disagree with someone's position, you cannot say they are wrong without admitting that morals are objective."
Let ask you this: Are OPINIONS subjective? Or is your opinion the objective truth on the subject?
Also, what do you believe are the differences between OPINIONS and Morals?
"Indeed, your very argument contradicts itself. By saying that there are no absolutes, you are making an absolute statement."
Yes, but it's not a statement of moral absolutes.
"In order for your argument to be true, the phrase "there are no absolutes" would have to be absolutely true, which would invalidate your argument that there are no absolutes."
I'll say it again: stating there are no moral absolutes is not a statement of what is morally right and morally wrong. It is a statement about the nature of "knowing" and an epistemological statement. That's very different from a moral declaration.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 23:38:14
Can you name 5 of these "norms of good" that no one in the world held to prior to moses and Jesus?
Further, if it can be shown that their were folks who adhered to these norms of good prior to Moses, what does that say about humans' abilities to come to a determination of right and wrong without the help of Christian doctrine?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-07 23:42:20
Liberals and gay advocates will say none of this matters.
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-08 00:02:59
November 7, 2007 11:42 PM |
I'm not taking the bait, fool. Mighty has spent enough time going around and around with you for all of us. I could answer those, but you'll simply assert that it doesn't prove anything. You'll rattle off some gibberish about the Sumerians or the Code of Hammurabi and we'll be right back to square one.
If you want to know the answers to those questions, read "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist," by Geisler et al, available at the following link:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Hav...id=1194498301&sr=1-1
Answers your questions better than I ever could and basically demolishes, through logic and reason, every argument of your type that has been made in the last century.
I would wish you luck in your search for truth, but at the rate you're going, you'll be 90 and still asking, "What right did my parents have to tell me I couldn't stay out past midnight as a teenager?"
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-08 00:08:10
It never ceases to amaze me how things that were taken for granted, literally for millennia (such as the definition of "marriage") are being called into question by the present generation.
It is like they think they've run across some great cosmic ephiphany, one that somehow escaped the world's great philosophers and civilizations, isn't it? Moral standards have varied through time and place, but it was never until recently that anyone dared claim they didn't exist at all.
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-08 00:13:32
It's not bait. It's just a very simple, straightforward set of questions that should be easy to answer.
Why do you fear disagreement? Since when is discussion a zero sum game?
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-08 00:17:37
November 8, 2007 12:17 AM |
You're looking for a way to escape moral accountability to anyone higher than your own whims. You'll deny it. But it's true. That's what this is, and has always been, about. (Actually, I also believe it to be the root & driving force behind the Theory of Evolution.)
My job as a Christian is to do three things:
1. Spread the Word.
2. Set a good example for others.
3. Serve humanity.
There's nothing in that job description about arguing with people over the existence of my faith's very foundation. They either get it, or they don't...in which case I walk away and leave them for the next believer to talk to. Convicting you of sin is God's responsibility, not mine.
Aaaaaannnd, I'm moving onto the next thread. Pick up the book I recommended if you still aren't convinced. The Bible would be even better.
Posted by cylarz
2007-11-08 00:49:29
This is more shoddy thinking, particularly if you look at it from your own perspective: christian.
If your God exists, it matters not how I view his existence or if I deny his existence. The fact is, I can't escape being accountable to Him.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-08 09:41:27
Actually if the Christian God exists, then Pascal's Wager is in effect. The wager is a weak argument on its own, but if you assume the existence of God then it's incredibly compelling.
Yes, it matters. Eternally.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-08 14:11:47
Yes, it matters. Eternally."
Actually, if you know the Christian God exists then Pascal's wager is off the table insofar as it's a wager that has already been resolved.
But, the Wager is in fact all about accountability, otherwise there's no reason to even consider the wager if there are no consequences to obeying God's rules and regulations. This is why the non-believer is clearly not trying to avoid accountability. In fact it's likely that the non-believer understands that accountability for one's actions really comes in the here and now as their actions will be judged by all sorts of folks starting with their family and friends and including those with whom they contract as well as by society.
Posted by TheAmerican
2007-11-08 15:42:45
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-11-08 18:12:08
Posted by n_obrain
2007-11-08 21:11:21
Posted by mattsanchez
2007-11-10 08:42:03