If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > > I was just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand > > anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? That's one good question, yes. Another question: What's with this "homosexual lifestyle" nonsense? What, heterosexuals have *lives*, but homosexuals just have a "lifestyle"? And only just *one* lifestyle, at that? All homosexuals' lifestyles are the same? OK, I guess that does make it easier, but then the same rules must apply to everyone: There is one and only one heterosexual lifestyle. Some heterosexuals abuse drugs, have casual and dangerous sex, kill themselves, commit domestic violence, molest children, and smoke cigarettes. Therefore, the heterosexual lifestyle involves drugs, violent crime, suicide, child molestation and cigarette smoking. And these people want to teach our children! They want to get married! They want to adopt! This is unacceptable; the heterosexual lifestyle is incompatible with a hopeful, decent, moral society. -DS (Hey, it works for "Doctor" Dobson and friends...) |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Abeness wrote:
> > Matt Whiting wrote: > > I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was > > just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone > > who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply > > rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree are > > worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, but I > > don't hate homosexuals. > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? It's called DEMOCRACY. I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! And thank God! Live and let live. > It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have > freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from > doing so? You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice". "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. And since this is a constitutional republic, and since it is the people within that republic who have the right to determine what laws they want to define the parameters of the sort of society they wish to live in--the Gay marriage crowd learned a lesson about how the system works the same way the Mormons learned a hundred years ago when they were forced to give up polygamy to become a state. Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. There would be no constitutional grounds for restricting it. So let's use the same arguments to legitimize IT: "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to inflict their own morality on someone else!" > > Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly > nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just > like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they > can't get married if they so choose. OK. But guess what? Not everyone agrees with your assessement. So what happens when your group believes one thing and another group believes something else on an issue affecting society? A decision must be made on which side's agenda will become law. That's decided by either the courts, the ballot box, or the gun. In this case, the people overrode the acitivties of (some) courts which were attempting to go too far in legistlating their ultra-Liberal views on this issue which were unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's why John Kerry ultimately lost. That's also why some folks' attempt to argue against it on the basis of its being 'unfair' or 'discriminatory' holds no real weight. Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination is always unconstitutional. I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example. That's discrimination since YOU can walk precincts for your candidate, and I can't or I'll lose my job. So I'm prevented from becoming active in politics when maybe I'd like to be. So I'm discriminated against and you're not. Think of some aspect of your > lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of > citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and > passed a law against it? The guys from NAMBLA wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS NOT acceptable behavior and practice. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
> > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? > It's called DEMOCRACY. No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over nomenclature? > I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that > give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business > because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being > discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best. > Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So? > Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from > driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. See above, and learn what "invidious" means. > I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law > is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example. This also is not invidious. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote: > > > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > > > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > > > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? > > > It's called DEMOCRACY. > > No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over > nomenclature? So the minority should always have its own way? Who decides what is moral and what is not moral in the society? A minority who believes one thing, or a majority who believes another? It is untenable to declare one position morally superior to another when the position is at odds with that of the overwhelming majority in society unless you can show a source from which you derive your beliefs which is superior to the prevailing moral beliefs of the society as a whole. I don't want the minority of the Aryan Nations deciding what is and is not right for America any more than I want the local Gay & Lesbian Alliance to. But I do, in general, trust the majority of Americans, who are the finest people on earth, to articulate the best course for morality in this country. I haven't agreed with every position our society has taken, but I can respect 95% of it, and I have been able to live with all of it. > > > I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that > > give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business > > because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being > > discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! > > Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious > discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison > to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best. They are both limiting people from doing what they want to because the society has decided that the majority has the right to have its sensibilities protected from the minority who want to go their own way, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it. > > > Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. > > Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So? > So our society, as a whole, does not want to become Sodom & Gomorrah in order for the abberant views of a minority of people to be given legal, and by implication, moral sanction. You may not like that, but that's how the system works. I make no apology for it. I'm offended at the thought of Gay marriage. I'm offended at the thought of polygamy. And I have the legal right to use the ballot box to impose my ethics upon you even if you resent it. Even if you're hurt by it. And even if you feel it is discriminatory or unconstitutional. And vice versa, by the way. > > Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from > > driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. > > See above, and learn what "invidious" means. > > > I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law > > is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example. > > This also is not invidious. But it IS discrimination* because I am being denied the right to do something I'd like to do for reasons that don't seem valid to ME. * I am using the term loosely, just as most everyone who doesn't get their way tends to use the word. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was >> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone >> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply >> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree >> are worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, >> but I don't hate homosexuals. > > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live. > It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have > freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from > doing so? > > Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly > nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just > like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they > can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your > lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of > citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and > passed a law against it? And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or a rock - what do you tell him? After all - who are you to forbid a lifestyle to him. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote: > > >>>The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to >>>"disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it >>>doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? > > >>It's called DEMOCRACY. > > > No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why quibble over > nomenclature? > > >>I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that >>give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business >>because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being >>discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! > > > Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious > discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a comparison > to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best. > > >>Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed. > > > Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So? How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better health benefits, Medicare, etc. >>Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from >>driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. > > > See above, and learn what "invidious" means. > > >>I face that discrimination every day as a government employee who by law >>is prevented from working on political campaigns, as one example. > > > This also is not invidious. Neither is restricting legal marriage to a man and a woman. Matt |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
> And to the guy who wants to marry his sister, or his dog, or a tree, or > a rock - what do you tell him? Ah, Bill's true colors finally show through. You tell him, Bill, that his dog, his tree or his rock is not sentient and is therefore unable to give consent, and that family members are prohibited from intermarrying for medical reasons. DS |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Very well said. I chalk it all up to sloppy thinking, and there's a
shameful amount of that in the world. Daniel J. Stern wrote: > That's one good question, yes. Another question: What's with this > "homosexual lifestyle" nonsense? What, heterosexuals have *lives*, but > homosexuals just have a "lifestyle"? And only just *one* lifestyle, at > that? All homosexuals' lifestyles are the same? OK, I guess that does make > it easier, but then the same rules must apply to everyone: There is one > and only one heterosexual lifestyle. Some heterosexuals abuse drugs, have > casual and dangerous sex, kill themselves, commit domestic violence, > molest children, and smoke cigarettes. Therefore, the heterosexual > lifestyle involves drugs, violent crime, suicide, child molestation and > cigarette smoking. And these people want to teach our children! They want > to get married! They want to adopt! This is unacceptable; the heterosexual > lifestyle is incompatible with a hopeful, decent, moral society. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
vince garcia wrote:
> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that > give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business > because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being > discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is! I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail. > You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice". > "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution. No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly choose otherwise. > "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what > right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not > hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if > we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to > inflict their own morality on someone else!" You have a point here. ;-) In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis! > Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from > driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people > who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination > is always unconstitutional. Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent abuse of power with these laws. > Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system > works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell > they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS > NOT acceptable behavior and practice. You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by anyone. But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so. It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else. Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Abeness wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> I wasn't at all comparing helmet laws to homosexual marriage. I was >> just pointing how how the homosexual crowd is so quick to brand anyone >> who disagrees with their lifestyle as being hateful. That is simply >> rubbish and anyone with half a brain knows that. Hate and disagree >> are worlds apart. I strongly oppose homosexual marriage legalization, >> but I don't hate homosexuals. > > > The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to > "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle when it > doesn't damage their property or personal liberties? Live and let live. The lifestyle is not the issue - it's the legal sanction of it that is distasteful. No problem with live and let live. You're basically pulling as shell game here in your logic - but you knew that. > It's fine if you don't want to live like someone else does, you have > freedom of choice, but why do you feel it necessary to prevent them from > doing so? No problem there. But in the very next paragraph you are saying you want government to sanction their "marriage". Trying to slip one in on us? (pun intended) > > Seems fairly simple to me. But then I have gay friends who are perfectly > nice, kind, caring citizens out to make the world a better place just > like other folks I respect, and I cannot imagine telling them that they > can't get married if they so choose. Think of some aspect of your > lifestyle that you take seriously. How'd you like it if the majority of > citizens in your state decided they didn't like your lifestyle and > passed a law against it? But I'm not asking them to pass new laws to promote, endorse, and encourage my hypothetical unapproved lifestyle. That's effectively what you're asking for in demanding legal recognition of gay "marriage" (an oxymoron). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Tim Klopfenstein | VW air cooled | 43 | November 30th 04 04:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Napalm Heart | Mazda | 20 | November 30th 04 04:10 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | David Gravereaux | VW air cooled | 63 | November 29th 04 07:00 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ityzn | Nate Nagel | VW water cooled | 0 | November 7th 04 11:29 PM |