Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Dan,
>>You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but you're
>>showing your ignorance regarding politics.
>
>
> False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
> me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
> exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.
>
>
>>You are from Michigan, right?
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>>Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
>>to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
>>would so many other states add the same amendment to their
>>constitutions?
>
>
> Oh, several reasons:
>
> 1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
> will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
> whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
> religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
> (Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
> people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
> civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
> worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
> running societies than does the USA.)
>
> 2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
> then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
> The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
> from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
> of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
> mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
> women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
> possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
> not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
> used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
> the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".
>
> 3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!
>
> The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
> (apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
> last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
> look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
> of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
> embarrassment, shame and regret.
>
> And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
> enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
> anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.
>
> -DS

And we all know how the blacks just *LOVE* having the gay cause compared
to theirs! How enlightened of you.

I can't help but notice how many of the "middle of the roaders" here
prove their "open-mindedness" by saying, in effect "Many of my friends
are gay". I remember not too many years ago when any person, regardles
of their genuineness or motivation, stating that "Many of my friends are
black" were automatically ridiculed and branded by liberals as an
outsider trying to appear as one of them. Today, making such a
statement about gays will guarantee your being welcome with open arms.

One who was called a n*****-lover more times than I care to recall
because of stands that my family and I took during those years...

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 =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Dan,
>>You have brilliant, thoughtful posts regarding Chrysler products, but you're
>>showing your ignorance regarding politics.
>
>
> False. I am showing that my politics differ from yours. That doesn't make
> me ignorant -- nor does it make you ignorant. Nevertheless, your claim of
> exclusive truth and rectitude is noted.
>
>
>>You are from Michigan, right?
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>>Michigan residents voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment
>>to define "marriage" as an institution between a man and a woman. Why
>>would so many other states add the same amendment to their
>>constitutions?
>
>
> Oh, several reasons:
>
> 1) History shows us that when given the option to vote on it, the majority
> will virtually always opt to oppress the minority. It matters not at all
> whether the majority/minority split is along lines of skin color,
> religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or whatever.
> (Not that America cares much about the rest of the world's opinion, but
> people in much of the rest of the world are gobsmacked that matters of
> civil rights would be put to a popular vote, for exactly this reason. It's
> worth noting that much of the rest of the world has much longer experience
> running societies than does the USA.)
>
> 2) Again, per Gandhi, the stages of social change: "First they ignore you,
> then they ridicule and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
> The pattern is clearly obvious with any social issue you care to pick,
> from slavery to women's suffrage to segregation...to gay rights. The flood
> of gay marriage bans -- just like the flood 60 years ago of bans on
> mixed-race marriage -- are a reaction to the possibility of two men or two
> women getting married. Not long ago, the very idea was unthinkable, the
> possibility didn't exist, and so no such bans were necessary. This is
> not the only parallel, either. In both cases, God and the Bible were
> used as rationale for the bans. In both cases, the rhetoric was along
> the lines of "protecting the institution of marriage".
>
> 3) Never discount the strong motivational power of ignorance and fear!
>
> The bans are a laughable insult and a sad commentary on American society
> (apparently we've learnt nothing), but they will be temporary. They'll
> last more than 4 years and less than 20. In 40 years, most of society will
> look back on these bans with embarrassment, shame and regret, just as most
> of society looks back on the anti-black laws of the 1950s and earlier with
> embarrassment, shame and regret.
>
> And that's not me being "ignorant", Mr. M100C, though I suppose it's easy
> enough for you to make that accusation from the comfy obscurity of
> anonymity. That's me having a different view than you do.
>
> -DS

And we all know how the blacks just *LOVE* having the gay cause compared
to theirs! How enlightened of you.

I can't help but notice how many of the "middle of the roaders" here
prove their "open-mindedness" by saying, in effect "Many of my friends
are gay". I remember not too many years ago when any person, regardles
of their genuineness or motivation, stating that "Many of my friends are
black" were automatically ridiculed and branded by liberals as an
outsider trying to appear as one of them. Today, making such a
statement about gays will guarantee your being welcome with open arms.

One who was called a n*****-lover more times than I care to recall
because of stands that my family and I took during those years...

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 =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern > wrote:

> ...Scarequotes emphasize the
> difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely assume the
> title for political expedience.
>
> DS

ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

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 =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel J. Stern > wrote:

> ...Scarequotes emphasize the
> difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely assume the
> title for political expedience.
>
> DS

ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

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 =---

Matt Whiting wrote:
> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...

I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
it's hard to miss.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> That hardly means they hate homosexuals. Many states have helmet laws
> also. I don't however go around saying that such states HATE
> motorcycles. This is a pretty big stretch...

I don't wish to argue the semantics of "hate": that isn't the point. You
clearly aren't gay, or you wouldn't be comparing helmet laws that
protect folks to a ban on gay marriage that prevents people from
entering into the same social contracts with the same obligations and
protections afforded heterosexuals by the institution of marriage. I
don't happen to be gay, but I do recognize the injustice of imposing
one's religious ideals on the American people. And the fact is that
large numbers of those folks do hate gays: just observe the rhetoric and
it's hard to miss.

"Abeness" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
> >>> target of hatred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
> >
> >
> > What is the evidence of this?
>
> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
> of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Why should they legitimize an aberration?
H

"Abeness" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
> >>> target of hatred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
> >
> >
> > What is the evidence of this?
>
> Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
> marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
> lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
> of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
> convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Why should they legitimize an aberration?
H

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> > the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
> > assume the title for political expedience.

> ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> > the difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely
> > assume the title for political expedience.

> ROTFL - I'm not even gonna ask!!

Why's that, Bill? Afraid you might accidentally learn something?