Political Crossfire Forums

PrinceJunius · Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:52 am Post subject:

No one seems to care about the issue now, but that will change in a couple of years. I have met very few people my age who have a problem with homosexuality. It's just so much more accepted in my generation. This whole nonsense about hating gays and whatnot will go away eventually, once the bigots all die off. That's how racism came to be thrown out of the mainstream, and I think that is how homophobia will be thrown out of the mainstream too.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6332

PrinceJunius wrote: I have met very few people my age who have a problem with homosexuality.

That's because you haven't been around very much. Try touring one of the many red states this country has to offer....

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9451 Location: Palm Beach

minyard wrote: And that you may feel insulted truly your problem and yours alone. There are same-sex weddings all the time. Go have as many as you want. Why do you need Uncle Sam to be your best man? Didn't you just say you "want government out of marriage also"?

Yes I know, what I'm trying to prevent is a constitutional amendment to ban it.

callous · Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject:

well said patrick, the most important fact is that we are not stumping for the minority, and stumping for the minority is, I believe, about the only truly material concept that Americans can hang their hat on as a pervasive cultural tendancy. Social conservatives would rather us be Nazis. Well, as many of you have stated, the right to dissent spans the political spectrum. But I think legal necessities aside, its quite obvious that attempting to solve homosexuality with hormone drugs is fundamentally barbaric.

Protostar · Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:59 pm Post subject:

ieatfood wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: I have met very few people my age who have a problem with homosexuality.

That's because you haven't been around very much. Try touring one of the many red states this country has to offer....

Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan! Come on down to North Carolina for a while and I think you quickly change you opinion. I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.

Melchior · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 9451 Location: Palm Beach

Protostar wrote: I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.

Holy crap! :ouch:

callous · Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:15 pm Post subject:

Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan! Come on down to North Carolina for a while and I think you quickly change you opinion. I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.[/quote]

I am not at all surprised. Thats why i scoff at people who tell people to chill out and realize gays aren't persecuted on any mass level. That's because there are enough people who are tolerant. Not because the intolerant ones are more forgiving than they have been at other times.

DarthDuncan · Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 103 Location: illinois

callous wrote: Why is it so difficult for progressive minded people to come out aggressively and loudly in the defense of homosexuals? It seems like the only people in the news today are either social conservatives flat ignoring civil liberties, as they usually do, or pundits meekly going about the business of exploiting anything attention grabbing, regardless of whether it's for the good of the American people or not. There is no more debate about whether these people are morally or genetically solid; as if there ever was. WHERE ARE THE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE? I am a born and bred American straight male, and I make a consistent habit of verbally ripping apart anyone who slags gays in any way shape or form. To me the "F" word is just as bad as the "N" word. I am ASHAMED of anybody who can't find the gumption within their hearts to defend these people. This is 1961 all over again. And personally I don't see the same quality of American nowadays as there was marching among the African Americans in protest back then.

STEP UP.

I'm with you 100% man. I hate how people use "gay" as a derogatory term. I find it very offensive actually. Their changing the defintion of "gay" and I don't like it one bit.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:03 pm Post subject:

Protostar wrote: ieatfood wrote: PrinceJunius wrote: I have met very few people my age who have a problem with homosexuality.

That's because you haven't been around very much. Try touring one of the many red states this country has to offer....

Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan!

Michigan is not a liberal state on the whole. If you were to look at a county by county map of the last election, most of the state is actually red, not blue. It just happens that the population base where things are more liberally minded is large enough to sometimes overwhelm the voting habits of the rest of the state. The Michigan house is dominated by Republicans, some of them rabidly and radically conservative.

Quote: Come on down to North Carolina for a while and I think you quickly change you opinion. I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.

And neither would you overmuch, given what I've gleaned from your past debates.

PrinceJunius · Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject:

Quote: Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan!

Hahaha! It's accepted where I live because I live in Ann Arbor, one of the most liberal cities in this entire country. Michigan is not liberal at all. It just so happens that there are plenty of conservatives outside of eastern Michigan.

Protostar · Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: And neither would you overmuch, given what I've gleaned from your past debates.

Actually I would. I think it would be a waste of a nuke. It would be like trying to nuke all drinker or smokers. There's always going to be more drinkers or smokers, just like there will always be more gays.

00timh · Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 13006 Location: upstate NY

callous wrote: Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan! Come on down to North Carolina for a while and I think you quickly change you opinion. I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.

Quote: I am not at all surprised. Thats why i scoff at people who tell people to chill out and realize gays aren't persecuted on any mass level. That's because there are enough people who are tolerant. Not because the intolerant ones are more forgiving than they have been at other times. You live in a pocketed area where this is more hatred for other races and homosexuality than most other areas of the country. You cannot define the entire nation with what you see in NC.

Ben_Huh · Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 4081 Location: Pittsburgh

Quote: The general attitude as i perceive it in American culture is that homosexuality is something still to brush under the carpet regardless of so called "advances" in society acceptance watermarked by TV shows, equality movements etc

You need to watch Showtime and/or HBO more often. Besides I believe it's up to the individual on wether or not their sexuality is "brushed under the table"

BTExpress · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:20 am Post subject:

Moved

Wallie_x · Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 538 Location: Central California

Melchior wrote: Quote: I want government out of marriage also. But government involvement or not, banning gay marriage is an insult to our right to unlimited contract, I will not stand for it.

Unfortunately, the whole idea begs the question: Why do gays think that their unions are entitled to the term: marriage?!?!
I don't care if they profess civil unions or whatever; and have basically equal civil rights as those of a heterosexual union. What I blatantly oppose is the attempt by the gay community to steal the term 'marriage'.
I believe gays are in no wise entitled to make your unions the moral and spiritual equivalent of the only union nature has ordained as procreative: that between a woman and a man.

d357r0y3r · Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 539

00timh wrote: callous wrote: Damn. You said it before I could. It's accepted where you are Junius because you live in Michigan! Come on down to North Carolina for a while and I think you quickly change you opinion. I heard conversations take place in classrooms about exiling gays to an island and nuking it. The teachers had no problem with this whatsoever.

Quote: I am not at all surprised. Thats why i scoff at people who tell people to chill out and realize gays aren't persecuted on any mass level. That's because there are enough people who are tolerant. Not because the intolerant ones are more forgiving than they have been at other times. You live in a pocketed area where this is more hatred for other races and homosexuality than most other areas of the country. You cannot define the entire nation with what you see in NC.

Heh, there are more than enough whacko's around here, liberal AND conservative.

Here's a concept: Not all people that disagree with the gay lifestyle hate gay people. I know - it's tough to understand.

Do I disagree with it? I'm not going to comment. Do I understand it? Definitely not. Do I hate gay people? Definitely not - that would be ignorance. Now, am I going to accuse christian people - who believe it's a sin - of being intolerant? No - because it simply isn't so.

The only thing worse than intolerance is the so-called "tolerant" people who want to force their tolerance on other people.

As for the word marriage -

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

That's simply what marriage is. You can try to change the definition, or whatever. But marriage, in the development of our english language, was meant to be in context of a man and woman. Make a different word for it, if you want to. But a man and a man getting legally joined is simply not, "marriage."

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 7102 Location: Colorado

Dang, how many threads do we need on the same exact topic? To define things off the bat, I am not pro-gay, I am not anti-gay; I am pro-rights, I stand for the Constitution of these united States. As owner and proprietor of my body, of my person; I have many rights. One of these rights is the unlimited right to contract. Marriage is a contract, and as such I can enter into the terms of said contract without the consent of government. There are many things in this country that people are free to do, and I may not like what these people do. But if you are to stand for true freedom, true liberty, than we must accept that people are free to make choices for themselves even if these choices are against our beliefs and we do not agree with them. There is nothing that states we must be tolerant, there is no right to not be offended. But if we are to remain free, we must accept that the consequences of freedom, to take upon our shoulders the responsibilities that come with this freedom. The one and only restriction upon our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. If I so choose, I can be a "homophobe". I can shout unto the mountain tops that homosexuality is evil and is a sin (I don't, but this is merely an example). What I can not do is prevent people from being gay, I can not stop them from being married.

The real problem is that somewhere along the way (right after the Civil War to be exact) we allowed government to take powers that were not theirs. We initiated the marriage license, which is to say we accepted that we must ask government's permission to be married. Where did they get the power to grant such privileges? Why must I ask government's permission to marry someone? The answers are simple. Government has no power to demand we submit to them in terms of contract, I do not need the government's permission to marry whomever I choose. The solution to this problem is clear; abolish government control. The government has no legal right to usurp my unlimited right to contract, it has no place in defining marriage what so ever. That is between the adults whom enter into the contract, the terms of the contract are up to them to decide. It really is that simple.

To be free is a great power. And as Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility". We have the power of freedom, but we must accept the responsibility that comes with it. The responsibility isn't to cry out to the federal government every time something doesn't go our way. The responsibility is to acknowledge the rights of others, to let them do as they please so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. You can not like homosexuality, you can speak out against it, you can condemn it if you like. What you can't do is stop it, what you can't do is to infringe upon the rights of others.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:34 am Post subject:

Wallie_x wrote: Melchior wrote: Quote: I want government out of marriage also. But government involvement or not, banning gay marriage is an insult to our right to unlimited contract, I will not stand for it.

Unfortunately, the whole idea begs the question: Why do gays think that their unions are entitled to the term: marriage?!?!
Because their unions are comparable to those of heterosexuals in every way save 2:

1) The gender of one participant
2) The ability to procreate together - which in fact is not shared by all heterosexual couples, either.

Neither of the above elements is essential to recognize a union as a marriage.

Quote: I don't care if they profess civil unions or whatever; and have basically equal civil rights as those of a heterosexual union. What I blatantly oppose is the attempt by the gay community to steal the term 'marriage'.
The idea of theft implies some sort of ownership. But there is no way for the unincorporated group of heterosexuals opposed to gay marriages to effectively trademark this word or patent the concept of one man, one woman marriage.

If you don't own the word 'marriage', it can't be stolen from you. You can object to what you personally view as a misuse of the word, but don't assume your opinion on the matter is fact - it is only an opinion. There are plenty of people who don't share your opinion that marriage is or should be an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Quote: I believe gays are in no wise entitled to make your unions the moral and spiritual equivalent of the only union nature has ordained as procreative: that between a woman and a man.
Can you prove that 'Nature' has ordained anything? No. Nature is a concept, not an entity. Concepts don't go about ordaining things - it's a perfectly foolish notion.

Are men and women allowed to marry that don't and/or can't procreate? Yes. A marriage license is not a license to procreate. If you insist on linking the two, then I insist that a couple's marriage be dissolved if they do not procreate in a reasonable time frame and that all couples seeking to marry submit to fertility testing - those who fail will not be permitted to marry unless they agree to adopt and they must do so within a set time frame. When a couple's last child reaches the age of majority, the marriage will be dissolved. There will also be periodic fertility tests and when a couple reaches the age where one is no longer fertile and there are no dependent children remaining in the home, the marriage shall be dissolved. If a couple's children are removed from their home due to neglect and/or abuse, their marriage shall be dissolved and each shall be banned from seeking marriage with a different partner. I would also favor making it more difficult for fertile couples to marry as well - make them prove they're fit to be parents first. Unmarried parents shall have their children removed from their custody and placed with a qualified married couple.

You either agree to a substantial portion of the above or I insist that you drop your 'procreative marriage' argument.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6332

callous wrote:

I am not at all surprised. Thats why i scoff at people who tell people to chill out and realize gays aren't persecuted on any mass level. That's because there are enough people who are tolerant. Not because the intolerant ones are more forgiving than they have been at other times.

I don't think that other people talking about nuking you is really persecution. Persecution is like forcing you to sit at the back of the bus or giving you three-fifths the vote of a white man. It may hurt your feelings, but when a coworker you hate calls you an ignorant ****, is that persecution too? Perhaps persecution is so low in this country that someone excercising their freedom of speech is now regarded as persecution. I guess that's a good sign.

SavannahMan · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 1307

This is hilarious - the homosexual in this country enjoy a higher income and educational level than the average heterosexual. Yet they want to claim persecution? If a crime is committed against a homosexual they have the chance to have it classified as a hate crime meaning stiffer sentences for the perpetrator - the same crime committed against a heterosexual? No such luck. Employers around the country have to think twice before firing an opening homosexual employee simply because the homosexual can raise a bogus court case against the employer. Heterosexuals fired by their employers? No such luck.

Persecution?? Sounds like preferential treatment to me.

And all for a behavioral choice.

Seems to me that a large part of the homosexual community has a "persecution complex" - it wouldnt be that far-fetched given the much greater incidence of mental health issues seen in the homosexual community.