Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 9:20 PM
27 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Theodoric (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,200 Year: 15,236/19,786 Month: 1,959/3,058 Week: 333/404 Day: 51/96 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 419 of 759 (702585)
07-09-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by AZPaul3
07-09-2013 11:05 PM


Re: It's A Long Road.
Yep ACLU defends the "right" of Nazi murderers to shove their murderous philosophy down the throats of their most famous victim group. Have they defended NAMBLA yet, you know, the "right" of gay men to molest little boys? Islam too of course they'd also defend, in that case their "right" to push their doctrine of maiming and killing daughters and wives who are suspected of "dishonoring the family name," killing "infidels" at will and taking over the world for Allah.

The ACLU is out to destroy civilization when it comes down to it, by championing "minority groups" that have that aim. How about kidnappers who hold women hostage for years to rape them? That's a hated minority group isn't it? Naa, they probably won't take that one on for a few years yet. On the other hand I've been surprised at how soon they got into some of their other stuff so you never know.

But how loved is the ACLU nevertheless. I do find it hard to believe that we've come to such a pass that such unmitigated evils are regarded as good, but at least it fits with Bible prophecy about how evil is going to triumph for a while just before the End. So enjoy it while you can.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by AZPaul3, posted 07-09-2013 11:05 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by onifre, posted 07-10-2013 1:10 AM Faith has responded
 Message 421 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2013 1:17 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 422 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 1:21 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 423 of 759 (702598)
07-10-2013 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by PaulK
07-10-2013 1:21 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
Right, there's no way to make a case here that "liberty" cannot possibly apply to criminal and sociopathic behavior, is there? Or that the Constitution certainly never intended that in their defense of liberty. Of course if we decided they didn't we'll just call the Constitution antiquated anyway, because we're determined to have OUR perverted definition of liberty. No sane society ever did such a thing but that doesn't matter to anyone here of course, since no society in history ever got anything right, only we moderns get it right. ALL "liberty" is good to you, is "civil rights." Right, I'm waiting for the defense of the kidnap-torture-rapists. It's coming soon I'm sure.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 1:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 3:15 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 424 of 759 (702599)
07-10-2013 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by onifre
07-10-2013 1:10 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
Sociopathic speech isn't just an opinion we may all choose to agree or disagree about.

My view of islam comes from their own books, onifre, I don't make it up. the Koran and the Hadiths, plus Sharia Law. To give them civil rights in a democratic society is to commit that society to suicide. Check into it sometime.

The Westboro group should NOT have been defended. They are sociopaths too.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by onifre, posted 07-10-2013 1:10 AM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 3:30 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 427 of 759 (702602)
07-10-2013 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by PaulK
07-10-2013 3:15 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
The logic is breathtaking. "Views that I dislike" is how murderous Nazism is categorized, and child molestation and kidnap-torture-rape, just "views" I "dislike." If I call them criminal and sociopathic that somehow makes ME the criminal and sociopath. Really, there is no doubt that my views are going to get categorized as something along those lines, of course, and yes it's already happening, it's all part of the perversion of morality, truth, reason, reality, etc., that's been growing for some time. And very probably you are right that the ACLU would take my case too, since they want to LOOK LIKE they're being even-handed.

Is there nobody here that gets this point, are you ALL twisted?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 3:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 3:46 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 428 of 759 (702603)
07-10-2013 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by AZPaul3
07-10-2013 3:30 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
"Ones with whom we vehemently disagree" at one time might have included opinions about forms of church services, different denominations, or who should be President, or different political platforms. Now it applies to murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. And you guys still don't get it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 3:30 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2013 4:01 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 431 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 8:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 432 of 759 (702613)
07-10-2013 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by PaulK
07-10-2013 3:46 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
And quite frankly if you think that an Orwellian tyranny based on hate and lies is "good" I have to say that it is your morality that is quite thoroughly inverted.

Well, of course you would, that's what I've been saying you do. You would also commit the fallacy of poisoning the well by misdefining my views as Orwellian tyranny etc. etc. You've said only what I've been saying you all say, why bother to repeat it? Oh I know why: if you just keep saying it you'll get everybody to believe it.

My point of course is there is no right to "free speech" of a criminal and sociopathic sort except in the revisionist mindset you all share, and the idea that such freedoms were ever intended to apply to "people who advocate abhorrent things" is a perfect example of that revisionist mindset that the ACLU pursues, against any sane understanding of the Constitutional freedoms that prevailed until really quite recently. I guess it all started with the insane idea that pornography is freedom of speech. Bring down civilization, that's exactly what they want to do.

There never was any "right to speak" for people who advocate the stuff NAMBLA advocates. And how naïve of you all to think that supporting the right to advocacy of abhorrent things is somehow not to support the doing of those abhorrent things.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 3:46 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:02 AM Faith has responded
 Message 434 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 10:15 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 435 of 759 (702617)
07-10-2013 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by AZPaul3
07-10-2013 10:02 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
With all its talk of original sin, hell, lake of fire, the bloodshed you hope to see one day in Revelations, plus your god's history of murdering innocent civilians, non-combatant women and children, ethnic cleansing writ large, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of the population of an entire planet, then you must feel that there can be no right to "free speech" for this criminal and sociopathic sort nor for the adherents of such a vile, sick and demented philosophy.

Perfect example of reversing good and evil. God punishes SIN, evil behavior, including what I'm calling criminal and sociopathic behavior, which is a righteous act (after first showing how to escape the consequences of sin too, so none of it has to be experienced) but you call THAT "criminal and sociopathic." Amazing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:02 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:33 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 443 by Coyote, posted 07-10-2013 11:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 439 of 759 (702621)
07-10-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by PaulK
07-10-2013 10:15 AM


Re: It's A Long Road.
Well, of course you would, that's what I've been saying you do. You would also commit the fallacy of poisoning the well by misdefining my views as Orwellian tyranny etc. etc. You've said only what I've been saying you all say, why bother to repeat it? Oh I know why: if you just keep saying it you'll get everybody to believe it.

Excuse me, but you are the one who reacted to a mention of the ACLU with hate and lies.

No, that is what you mischaracterized me as doing. I responded with the truth about the ACLU. And where does this insane idea of "hate" come into all this anyway? Bunch of postmodernist bigotry, that's all that is, designed to discredit those who tell the truth about such things.

And it's hard to see your objection as based on anything other than the fact that the ACLU defends freedoms that you don't like, despite the Constitutional guarantees.

Yes, it is apparently hard for all of you to see this rightly. "Freedoms that I don't like" is all you can make of the insane granting of "rights" to criminal and sociopathic speech and behavior. Advocating the murder of Jews is merely a "freedom I don't like," advocating the molestation of little boys is merely a "freedom I don't like." Is it really possible that you all can't even process this obvious point?

And you have certainly talked of feeling that you have a duty to suppress views that you don't like.

I believe society has a duty to CRIMINALIZE CRIMINAL SPEECH AND BEHAVIOR, in the cases under consideration the advocacy and action of harming, murdering, molesting, exploiting innocents. This is what you persist in calling "views that I don't like" as if they are perfectly legitimate points of view in themselves, apparently unable to see the insanity in this way of characterizing these things.

My point of course is there is no right to "free speech" of a criminal and sociopathic sort except in the revisionist mindset you all share, and the idea that such freedoms were ever intended to apply to "people who advocate abhorrent things" is a perfect example of that revisionist mindset that the ACLU pursues, against any sane understanding of the Constitutional freedoms that prevailed until really quite recently. I guess it all started with the insane idea that pornography is freedom of speech. Bring down civilization, that's exactly what they want to do.

qs\ Since to the best pf my knowledge the ACLU acted within the legal system in all the cases that you mentioned, I suggest that your problem is with the courts - although I guess that you are also arguing that even legal representation should be denied ? And if you aren't then why object to the ACLU providing legal representation?

The conversation has focused on the agenda of the ACLU, but yes I also have an objection to the courts, and sometimes it is hard to tell who influenced whom. The whole system is now corrupt, pursuing a bogus revisionist interpretation of the Constitution, called "legal" just because they illegitimately made it legal.

There never was any "right to speak" for people who advocate the stuff NAMBLA advocates. And how naïve of you all to think that supporting the right to advocacy of abhorrent things is somehow not to support the doing of those abhorrent things.

Here you assume that protecting the right to free speech is not a valid objective in itself.

No, I'm objecting to the revisionist idea of what constitutes free speech. What was originally about the right to advocate the overthrow of the King without threat of imprisonment and that sort of thing, has been insanely extended to define a "right" to advocate what were always considered to be criminal or sociopathic acts. The very idea would horrify the Constitutional generation.

But why ? And why attack the ACLU when it "supports" views like yours to the same extent ?

But not on the right grounds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 10:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2013 1:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 440 of 759 (702622)
07-10-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by subbie
07-10-2013 10:38 AM


Perhaps Faith could take her rabid ACLU bashing to another thread and leave this one to the topic of gay marriage.

Gay marriage is of course just the latest attempt to bring down civilization by such as the ACLU and the rest of the revisionist "legal" system. I can bash THAT sort of criminal insanity too if you like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by subbie, posted 07-10-2013 10:38 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by subbie, posted 07-10-2013 10:57 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 442 by onifre, posted 07-10-2013 11:01 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 445 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 1:42 PM Faith has responded
 Message 495 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2013 10:44 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 446 of 759 (702673)
07-10-2013 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by yenmor
07-10-2013 1:42 PM


You want my advice? My advice would be that you can live together if you want but you shouldn't try to impose your situation on the rest of society by demanding that your living situation be treated as a marriage. I have no idea what you might do about the insurance and the taxes and I think that's rather a self-centered conceit that you want to share them as if you were a normal married couple.

I believe children need a stable traditional family with heterosexual parents so I don't think gays should have children at all. I also understand that there is evidence children raised by gays tend to be depressed, which makes sense to me. Even if the whole society says it's OK a child is going to know there's something wrong with the situation. And have to suppress such feelings too because supposedly it's just another normal alternative. It's not that I think gays are bad people who wouldn't try to do a good job raising kids and even succeed, in some cases better than traditional families, I concede that possibility, I just don't think it's right to stack the deck psychologically against what has always been considered normal family life. Children should be given a chance at a normal life as long as there is a choice in the matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 1:42 PM yenmor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 6:51 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 448 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2013 7:02 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 449 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 7:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 450 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2013 7:27 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 451 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 7:45 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 485 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 4:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 455 of 759 (702694)
07-10-2013 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by hooah212002
07-10-2013 9:18 PM


Yes that is what I meant, they would just know it's wrong even if the whole society conspired to tell them otherwise. As soon as they know something about how babies are made they will know it whether they are allowed to honestly recognize it or not. What silliness you all indulge here.

"Sexual orientation" is a very recent euphemism for what was always regarded by all societies until quite recently as an aberration, something abnormal, even where it's been indulged that much has been known, and it's always belonged to a fringe area of society. It's only in our wacko age that you want to make an aberration into a normality. And just like the naked emperor I'm sure you can convince many of your misguided nonsense.

And just to answer the nonsense about how a couple calling themselves married doesn't affect the rest of us, our individual marriages and all that craziness, that's not the point and has never been the point. The point is how a whole society defines marriage and that's what changes. Marriage has been recognized by all societies in all times as between a man and a woman, the only combination that has the natural potential of conceiving and bearing children, and it makes no sense between any other parties. Nero as far as I know was the only one who married some gay people. Great example there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 9:18 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 12:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 1:41 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 469 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2013 2:18 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 456 of 759 (702695)
07-10-2013 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by yenmor
07-10-2013 7:17 PM


There are statistics that say otherwise. Salon dot com and Huffington Post rather set the tone for your list, a biased collection of course.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 7:17 PM yenmor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by yenmor, posted 07-10-2013 11:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 466 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 12:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 458 of 759 (702697)
07-10-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by AZPaul3
07-10-2013 10:00 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Is pedophilia a "sexual orientation" that shouldn't matter to us? Dr. A posted something that suggests he thinks so. Should we not be upset at the gay priests who have molested young boys? It's just "normal" after all, just a normal alternative sexual orientation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:00 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:27 PM Faith has responded
 Message 460 by Coyote, posted 07-10-2013 11:08 PM Faith has responded
 Message 462 by hooah212002, posted 07-10-2013 11:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 464 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2013 12:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 468 of 759 (702710)
07-11-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by AZPaul3
07-10-2013 10:27 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
You are making "sexual orientation" out to be something we should all simply take for granted, and pedophilia is presumably a "sexual orientation." What else would it be? That's how it fits into the discussion.

Besides, while there are gays who want to live together in a stable marriage situation, there are others who live a lifestyle that spreads AIDS, which is the disease of homosexuality. Homosexuality is not just a "sexual orientation," it's an aberration, it is an unnatural use of the human body, and it spreads disease.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2013 10:27 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by vimesey, posted 07-11-2013 5:01 AM Faith has responded
 Message 489 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2013 5:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 491 by hooah212002, posted 07-11-2013 7:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32707
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 470 of 759 (702712)
07-11-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Coyote
07-10-2013 11:08 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
When other people do things that threaten the stability of society, or spread disease, or redefine the ancient practice of marriage and force such ideas on the next generation in so doing, I'd say it's everybody's business.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Coyote, posted 07-10-2013 11:08 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2013 2:23 AM Faith has responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019