Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 255 of 313 (379205)
01-23-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by crashfrog
01-22-2007 9:31 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
crashfrog wrote:
By the way - how, exactly, does a libertarian come to the conclusion that he gets veto power over other people's marriages?
You scored one there, frog. I got ahold of some bad cat food last night and lost my concentration. I don't know what I am politically”maybe a Dinosaurocrat. If I had my way all public school children would wear uniforms, sit up straight, and get two tablespoons of cod liver oil for lunch. Then they would all go home to find their mothers darning socks and making chocolate-chip cookies. And the cartoons on TV would NOT have any gay characters coming out of the closet.
btw: Did you know that some gays have claimed Christopher Robin as one of their own. Go figure. I don't think A. A. Milne meant that at all. What's this world coming to? The kids are humping each on the dance floor like horny toads, and mothers are telling their daughters to use blow jobs to avoid poregnancy. I guess I'm just behind the times.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2007 9:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 01-23-2007 1:05 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 271 by Chiroptera, posted 01-23-2007 1:24 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 311 by nator, posted 01-23-2007 8:40 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 256 of 313 (379206)
01-23-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
01-22-2007 9:25 PM


Re: The definition of a word
RAZD wrote:
The problem is that "marriage" is not only about sexual relationships - it is about property rights, income tax rates, medical rights, immigration rights, etc etc etc.
And civil unions are not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 9:25 PM RAZD has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 257 of 313 (379207)
01-23-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
01-22-2007 8:38 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Ringo wrote:
The MAJORITY opinion has no bearing on right and wrong.
So you're against democracy?
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 01-22-2007 8:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 12:10 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 312 by nator, posted 01-23-2007 8:44 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 260 of 313 (379211)
01-23-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ringo
01-23-2007 11:52 AM


Ringo says:
You still haven't answered the question: What is equal about telling gay people they are not allowed to marry?
What is UNEQUAL about allowing gays their equal rights to civil unions?
Ringo, would you mind explaining to me how a same-sex "marriage" would be consumated. Please tell me where the genitalia go, and I'll tell you something you may not know about biological sex.
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 12:36 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 12:38 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 265 of 313 (379218)
01-23-2007 12:54 PM


"Consummation"
I've NEVER heard of any marriage being annulled because one member refused to have oral or anal sex with the other.
”Hoot Mon

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 1:00 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 270 by docpotato, posted 01-23-2007 1:16 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 272 of 313 (379227)
01-23-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by crashfrog
01-23-2007 1:05 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
c-frog wrote:
You're a bigot and a homophobe, HM. That's what you are...I had thought your brand of bigotry died with Reagan. I guess I was wrong.
Such a lot of fluff! This reminds me of those flag-waving Americans who say it is unpatriotic to oppose the war in Iraq. Your argument lacks for philosophical substance. You are the one who is narrow-minded, not me. You wave your flag for civil-rights, and you don't even know how to define them. Let's see some rationality in your argument. And don't tell me that homosexuality and race are somehow equivalent. That's a huge insult to MLK and everything he stood for. Hey, maybe you're a racist. But I don't need to reduce my argument to petty name calling. Get some stuff, for crying out load, and put it in your pop gun. Show me something with a bang in it.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 01-23-2007 1:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 1:38 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 1:39 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 01-23-2007 2:04 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 276 of 313 (379238)
01-23-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
01-23-2007 1:39 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Ringo wrote:
If you think there is a difference, why don't you show us the difference instead of just decreeing it? Until you can show a difference between racist bigotry and homophobic bigotry, bigotry is just bigotry.
A person is born with a race; he/she has no choice in that matter. Nature rules absolutely. But is a person born to be gay? I don't know. I think it may be a matter of choice. Prove to me it isn't and I'll say you moved a step closer to equalizing race with sexuality. But do you really think there ought to be special laws protecting that choice? People choose to be Masons and body builders and cat owners, too; maybe they need their own special laws. I'll come around to your way of thinking when gay genes are discovered. And then there will be gay-gene therapy to straighten them out. And then we're be back to choice again.
Dan Carroll brought out the Constitution and read us an Ammendment. Nice job, Dan. But where does it say anything about same-sex "marriages"? Where does it say anything about homosexuality? Where does even say anything about sexuality at all?
Ringo, Dan, and the rest of you morality cops: Do you honestly believe that the framers of our Constitution or any of the authors of its Ammendments were the least bit concerned about the rights of gay people to get married? If you say yes, then I'm going for the history books.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 1:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 3:04 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 3:06 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 4:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 282 of 313 (379248)
01-23-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
01-23-2007 3:06 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Hoot wrote:
Do you honestly believe that the framers of our Constitution or any of the authors of its Ammendments were the least bit concerned about the rights of gay people to get married?
They also owned slaves and denied women the vote.
Well, that doesn't say a lot for the U.S. Constitution then, does it? Maybe we should throw out the whole darn thing and start over. This time let's give the Indians a better shake. I don't see anybody bothered by the abused they've taken. Let's have special laws for anybody who feels deprived, marginalized, downtrodden, and queer in any way.
Dan, Ringo, please draft me a new Constitution. Let's trash that old one written by those awful bigots. Let's have everybody and their dogs get married. Let's have special laws assuring equal rights for pole sitters and coin collectors. See if you can fit it all in. And while you're at it, add an Ammendment to protect old people from being abused by ridiculous concepts...like the right to same-sex "marriage," and the right to gerrymander political districts, and the right to buy assault weapons at gun shows. I'd also get rid of the anti-sodomy laws, too. I don't mind what those fairies do behind closed doors. I just don't see the need to run it up the flag pole.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 3:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 3:52 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 4:13 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 286 of 313 (379271)
01-23-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taz
01-23-2007 4:21 PM


Just opinions, that's all
Everything said so far on this thread and others about "gay marriage" are OPINIONS. Nothing else. In a democracy opinion rules if it gains a majority vote. So take a public vote on same-sex "narriage" and see what you get. What could be more democratic than that? But DON'T tell me that a minority opinion has special rights just because it's an opinion. These things are basic, folks. Why are they so difficult for perfectly intelligent people to grasp?
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 4:21 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 5:03 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 288 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 5:09 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 289 by jar, posted 01-23-2007 5:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 290 of 313 (379279)
01-23-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dan Carroll
01-23-2007 5:09 PM


Re: Just opinions, that's all
I wonder why not a single court of law has upheld the rights of gays to get "married." Could it be that they are bigots, too, and go home at night and beat their slaves? Or could it be that the law just does not provide for same-sex "marriages"?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 5:09 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 01-23-2007 6:41 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 292 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 7:02 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 293 of 313 (379313)
01-23-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Chiroptera
01-23-2007 6:41 PM


Re: Good question.
Chiroptera wrote:
Why didn't the courts begin to protect the rights of black people until the 1950s, even though the main purpose of the 14th amendment (ratified in the 1860s) was explicitly to protect those rights? I bet the answers are similar.
Obviously they're not. Why haven't all the states approved same-sex-marriage rights under their laws? Where is the support for it in the U.S. Congress. Why haven't all the liberal Democrats come out in force for same-sex marriage? Maybe it's not a question of "civil rights" at all. There must be some reason other than bigotry that prevents the gays from marrying each other. It doesn't seem to me like the majority of OPINIONS expreessed here are very popular on the American stage.
Ringo, a question: Does Canuckistan provide for same-sex marriages under its laws?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 01-23-2007 6:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by docpotato, posted 01-23-2007 7:24 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 296 by DrJones*, posted 01-23-2007 7:32 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 01-23-2007 7:32 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 303 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2007 8:16 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 295 of 313 (379317)
01-23-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by docpotato
01-23-2007 7:24 PM


Re: Good question.
So the United states is a nation of bigots?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by docpotato, posted 01-23-2007 7:24 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by jar, posted 01-23-2007 7:35 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 299 by docpotato, posted 01-23-2007 7:48 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 300 of 313 (379333)
01-23-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by docpotato
01-23-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Good question.
doc wrote:
I think it's undoubtable that the United States has bigots within its population. Which makes it a nation at least partially comprised of bigots. Do you disagree with this?
Jesus Scooter Christ, no!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by docpotato, posted 01-23-2007 7:48 PM docpotato has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 301 of 313 (379336)
01-23-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by jar
01-23-2007 5:21 PM


Re: Just opinions, that's all
Hoot wrote:
Everything said so far on this thread and others about "gay marriage" are OPINIONS. Nothing else. In a democracy opinion rules if it gains a majority vote. So take a public vote on same-sex "narriage" and see what you get. What could be more democratic than that? But DON'T tell me that a minority opinion has special rights just because it's an opinion. These things are basic, folks. Why are they so difficult for perfectly intelligent people to grasp?
jar replied:
Denying inheritance rights is an opinion?
Denying someone the right to donate blood is an opinion?
Denying someone access to health care is an opinion?
Denying someone access to equal protection under the law is an opinion?
Well, they are opinions of the general public, at least, and also the opinions of the legislatures and courts of this "bigoted" country of ours. Do those count for anything?
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by jar, posted 01-23-2007 5:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by jar, posted 01-23-2007 8:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 310 of 313 (379349)
01-23-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by berberry
01-23-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Where's berberry?
Berberry, may I sincerely ask you a relevant question? In all due resepct, could you tell me if you chose to be gay, or was it deeply embedded in you somehow, over which you had no control? A biologist might ask, Was it in your genes? I would value your answer.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by berberry, posted 01-23-2007 8:16 PM berberry has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024