 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Cptn., you really need to learn to address your audience. This is not a bad thing. I understand what you were getting at, but you did it the wrong way. You don't call black ppl "you people" you don't point out that gays are "whiners"... Granted they are only 2% of the US population, but they have plenty of supporters by human rights activists, and that is what concerns me.
I am a friend of gays, but I do not condone much of what they are asking for, but you don't see 'those people' ripping on me. Learn to argue, that's something I suggest to straight white males all the way up to black, jewish, querrs who smoke pot! Know your audience and know how to debate, else you will just come off as a moron. Which, Cptn, you did.... Not that you are, your arguments just weren't condusive to the arena, and the arena here is about the same that you will find in any court or any senate. |
Boris and I are still waiting for you to clarify yourself -- when you are back on here and have time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
But that does not justify gays having to be excluded from establishing their own families. |
No it does not justify the exclusion of creating a family unit. It does, however, justify the ability for such people to do so with the consent of the law. If it did not justify a legal union we would not be having the to do we are seeing in the legal system today. In a democracy, and even a republic, we need to appeal to the bigots as well as the supporters. Regurgitating age old arguments is not going to change the minds of those with the age old rebuttals.
It's like I tell people who want to legalize Marijuana, come up with enough arguments and enough compromises, and everyone will eventually give in. Yet, those who argue for the legalization of MJ just say the same thing over and over and hopes that it eventually sinks in.
As for gay unions I am for them. I am for them because it is my opinion that in order for these partners to share the same rights, as do straight spouses they should have a legally binding union that would affect them outside of such benefits. Many of the companies in this area offer health benefits to life partners, what makes that person a life partner? Only that they say so, nothing more, maybe having been together for a certain amount of time, but verify that? Can you see the abuse that can stem from this?
Also, as far as hospital visitation, benefactor benefits, and shared equity defaults it should be covered in these union laws. There will be a lot of confusion, as it is a separation from the norm, thus additional confirmation will be needed. Thus, making a gay union different from the commonly perceived marriage.
quote:
Would you have been against black people "impeding" on the territory of whites being able to vote, or interracial couples "impeding" on the territory of non-mixed couples to marry?
Tradition is such a piss-poor justification for legal discrimination. |
One more time; I am not against gay unions/marriage.
As for historical examples; blacks rioting in the streets, causing public havoc, over their right to vote. Civil rights are for those who behave civilly. It took the likes of Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and MLK to set the record straight. Interracial marriages, didn’t violate any laws.
Homosexuality has sparked a sexual revolution. Many gay communities and people tell big brother to stay out of their bedroom, and then some of those who say those things decide to parade on the streets? Hypocrisy I tell you. It was the same with the black communities who demanded equal rights, only to have a small few return the violence they were seeking to remove from their communities.
Sadly, it is these small numbers that give a bad name to the few. Still, it is “the many” who make their decision based on these few that need to be convinced of the injustice… That’s called democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
What? I think I adequately stated my position. Militant gay activist and even flamboyant gay activists are giving gaty ppl a bad name. What they gay community is a creduable and decent leader, not a bunch of cross dressers dancing down Castro St. or knowing violating state laws and getting married because of a publicity stunt by the mayor. I really would have had more respect for gays and their views on marriage if the gay community stood up and told Newsom that they didn't want to get married as part of his ego boost... Granted some did, but they should of protested or something, to show that it is equality they demand, not a cookie or a pat on the head. |
But even as I agree with you to some extent that flamboyant, militant activists who are belligerent to the extent that they loudly proclaim that they are out to destroy marriage and family and are heterophobic, I do not believe this makes them any less deserving of equal rights than the majority of gays who are more moderate and reasonable.
The extremists just need to seriously reassess exactly what they hope to achieve through heterophobia, anti-Western belligerency. IMO, this extreme approach does nothing constructive. Once they reassess, and realize the harm they are doing, they are welcome to join the cause for equal rights in a way that is more constructive and intelligent.
On the other hand, you have other flamboyant activists who have had more courage than closeted gays -- in 1969, drag queens in Greenwich refused to bow to police during a raid of the local gay bar.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
You know, David Floyd, Ramo, and a few others live near there (Lago Vista is in the same county as Austin (Travis County)). Perhaps they've heard something that we haven't? |
Yeah, actually I read the article in the Statesman as well. Then I laughed my ass off at the idiocy of the whole scenario.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly in favor of gay rights, and schools should allow same sex couples the same privileges as girl-boy couples. As a sidenote, schools that receive public funding should be required to, because of Equal Protection, but private schools should be able to do whatever they want - using the Commerce Clause in this manner would be far too much of a stretch.
Anyway, as near as I can tell, the two girls aren't even lesbians. They're friends. The prom is, essentially, for couples to go to, dance, etc. Yes, friends can also do this, and I even attended my prom with a friend, not a girlfriend. But this misses the point. I didn't dance with any male friends at my prom, and I seriously doubt these two girls would dance with each other. The argument that they want to go because they are friends and want to spend time together is silly, because they could do that a lot cheaper and a lot easier at a coffeeshop or, hell, even one of their houses.
No, it looks to me like these two are just trying to get attention. Yeah, I suppose the school should let them go together, and I don't even have a problem with requiring a public school to do so. I just think the girls are being idiotic and trying to get attention, and it's even possible their parents are to some degree behind it.
Of course I don't know, that just seems the best reasonable explanation for why two straight girls want to attend their high school prom together in a school that just happens not to allow it. Hmmmm....
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2004 21:15
in the world isn't going to change their minds unfortunatly.
|