Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 397 of 397
Like Tree107Likes

Thread: Yelena Isinbayeva.

  1. #301  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Kojax has not called you a nut job. He has said that to achieve a certain end one would have to outsmart nut-jobs and would therefore need to use nutjob logic. Whether or not this is true it does not include calling you a nutjob. He has also declared that the far right has a lot of nutjobs in it. Again, this does not constitute calling you a nut-job. Therefore you might wish to retract your request that he retract a statement he did not actually make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Kojax has not called you a nut job. He has said that to achieve a certain end one would have to outsmart nut-jobs and would therefore need to use nutjob logic. Whether or not this is true it does not include calling you a nutjob. He has also declared that the far right has a lot of nutjobs in it. Again, this does not constitute calling you a nut-job. Therefore you might wish to retract your request that he retract a statement he did not actually make.
    Thats not how I read the statement he made. But I will retract the request for now.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's very fashionable these days to take these up these various social causes, but if they've already been achieved, and it's obvious they've already been achieved, then it's also very self flattering and vain.
    I felt compelled to respond to this particular comment.

    Are you suggesting that the issue of gay rights is over? That homosexuals are now equal in the eyes of the law? Are you telling me that gay people who want to get married will now have recognized equal rights in all 50 American states? Homosexuality activity is no longer illegal in Russia? Homosexuals are not beaten and killed rampantly throughout parts of Africa? Are you saying that in the eyes of mankind, being homosexuals are no longer ostracized for their lifestyle?

    Until you can answer yes to ALL of those, the issue is not closed.

    I take a HUGE amount of personal offense at the suggestion that I fight for gay rights, as a married straight man, simply to feel better about myself. I post comments on my social media encouraging people to be more critical of their mindset toward gays and I get berated by my deeply Christian relatives and SOMEHOW in your mind I do it all for my own selfish reasons? Either you're wrong in your assumptions or I'm a masochist.

    How exactly do you suggest we (both hetero- and homosexuals) go about fighting for equal rights for gays without making a public display of it? Revolutions are not quiet. They are not won in silence. It would be a disservice to the people who have lost their lives to ignorant bigots and hatemongers to not make this cause openly visible to the world. I, for one, will not be silent.
    John Galt and Strange like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I understand your point and share your concerns, however, I believe it is a parents job to educate their own children concerning moral and social issues.
    Still missing the point. You think it is correct to have a law to potentially make it illegal for someone to say they are gay and that it is no big deal?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I understand your point and share your concerns, however, I believe it is a parents job to educate their own children concerning moral and social issues.
    The issue of homosexuality is not about morality. Do you really think any government is capable of successfully legislating morality?

    This is about legality. Unless it can be demonstrated that homosexuality is destructive to bystanders, there is no basis for making any facet of it illegal.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Until you can answer yes to ALL of those, the issue is not closed.
    But kojax thinks that unless you can measure exactly how much homophobia there is, then you shouldn't try to improve things.
    To him, the issue isn't closed: it was never even open.
    He thinks you shouldn't try to reduce homophobia unless you can specify a particular point where you consider things good enough.

    I did ask him if he felt the same way about racism and sexism, but I don't think he wanted to answer...
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    He thinks you shouldn't try to reduce homophobia unless you can specify a particular point where you consider things good enough.
    I can do that quite easily.

    Homosexuals do not have equal treatment in terms of hospital visitation as married couples. They do not have equal treatment in regards to government taxes or on inheritance from the passing of their significant other. That's three very simple differences where homosexual couples do not receive basic rights which are equivalent to a married couple. Let's start by fixing those three things and see what we have after that.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    How about just admitting you don't like equality for a group you have been brought up to think is an abomination? Rather then all the obfuscation to hide what your feelings are?
    I suppose I could save you the trouble of straw manning me if I would just straw man myself.

    So I'll just ask: what do you think my feelings are about homosexual people? I have strong feelings about political correctness in general. I think that too often "equality" groups attempt to subvert or undermine civil liberties in their quest for something they consider to be a "greater purpose". And I do strongly feel that my civil liberties are threatened.

    I think that soon there will be tighter restrictions on the freedom of speech, and I'll have to worry about going to jail if I accidentally offend someone. Already if were in an altercation with someone for reasons totally unrelated to their sexual orientation, yet happened to know they were gay, I would have to take great care to avoid using any slurs, or else whatever followed would be considered a hate crime. Even if I were only saying it to get them riled up. I could make fun of them for being short or tall, or fat or ugly, or having crooked teeth - but would do well to avoid calling them any homosexual slurs.
    No one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    You're not saying it, but the law says it. If it were to become violent, like exchanging punches, and the authorities became involved, the fact a homosexual slur had been spoken would reclassify the crime as a hate crime. If I were found to be guilty of any kind of assault, then depending on what state we are in, a hate crime modifier could be added to the charges, making it a longer prison term.

    That's about right on the outer edge of what I think of as acceptable freedom loss. We're not over the edge yet. So long as it's just a modifier being added to an act that was already illegal for other reasons, I think I can live with that.

    However, in this particular category of achievement, I don't want homosexual rights to progress any farther. It's already reached the thread bare limit of how far it can go before it starts to become a form of oppression unto itself, and another valuable civil rights issue gets hurt by it.

    Civil rights always will be a juggling act. There's no way around that. The trick is to remember that you are juggling with more than one ball in the air.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was discussing proposition 8 with my sister once, and I asked her why it mattered so much whether the institution be called "marriage" when applied to homosexual couples, as opposed to having some other name, but containing all the same legal benefits. Her answer was that if it were called "marriage", it would be saying that homosexual pairings were equally legitimate as heterosexual ones. And I'm not sure I like the idea of government being used as a tool to tell people what to think - as opposed to merely telling people what to do.
    Separate but equal is never equal. If the exact same benefits are granted why should the term used be changed? "Marriage" is a legal term that is used for this specific legal contract. Religion has never been a required part of it, so the assertion that it is being changed now is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't want there to be any such thing as "thought crime". I want to be allowed to think whatever I want, absolutely without any possible restriction on what it is, even if I'm thinking bad things. Just because I fight for a right doesn't necessarily mean I plan to exercise it, but I want to be free to do so.

    I don't want any "special exceptions" to that rule.
    As before, no one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    I'll admit that you are right that separate but equal doesn't have a very good history.

    It's just unfortunate that it all comes down to semantics. The hardliner Christians would probably accept it if it had a different name. Then the fight would be over. But .... of course...... nobody wants the fight to be over.


    Maybe a good solution would be to call neither institution "marriage", and instead call them both "civil union", and then make "marriage" become only a religious term that gets added to "civil union" by those who want to add it, but which has no legal meaning. Then a priest can still marry people, and heck... if he wants to he can still exclude gay couples from being "married" at his church. But that same couple could just go across the street to a more accepting denomination, and become "married" by a priest at the other church.



    3) - Parades just encourage them.

    So all pride events need to stop? Again you are advocating for all LGBT people to go back into the closet.[/QUOTE]

    In Russia, or in the USA?

    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:35 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No need to target other peoples children with those beliefs. Would you want a school teaching kids that being gay is not ok? It does not matter what your beliefs or my beliefs are, IMO children should not be indoctrinated, brainwashed, politically swayed or fed propaganda by government, activist, organization, etc..
    I wasn't talking about "targeting" anyone. I wasn't even talking about beliefs. I was focusing on the part of the law (as cited by Lynx Fox) that is specifically not about propaganda, etc.Do you really think that saying, "I'm a person like everyone else" is indoctrination, brainwashing, political or propaganda ?If a gay person is interviewed on TV and the interviewer asks if they are gay, should they:a) Lie and say they are not b) Say "yes I am and I am so disgusted by it"c) Say, "Yes, so what. Let's move on".Because the honest, reasonable answer is the one that could be criminalised. That is just wrong.
    I understand your point and share your concerns, however, I believe it is a parents job to educate their own children concerning moral and social issues.
    The problem is that so many parents DO NOT DO THIS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The first thing to understand is, the Russian Mob is mostly not composed of ethnic Russians. Mafias thrive among oppressed ethnic minorities. It's the ideal operating environment, because you've got all these disenfranchised people who feel like "the government" isn't "their government" and it's easier to get them to keep quiet so long as you avoid robbing "your own people", and instead focus on robbing the ethnic majority group.
    Could you give any link on objective source which states that ethnical minorities are oppressed in Russia? This is so ridiculous that requires a proves.
    A better question is: do they perceive themselves to be oppressed?

    Like probably there are a few Chechens and Georgians who think that, because the Russian government isn't friendly with the governments of their homelands, that means the government isn't friendly with them also. So "their people" are oppressed people, even if they themselves are not.

    It doesn't take much to create an "us and them" mentality. The honest reason for a mafia to form is that people are greedy. But typically they won't want to admit that, so they pretend it's about some kind of discrimination or race warfare.

    I don't really feel like digging it up, but yeah some human rights groups put the number of women trafficked through Ukraine as high as 500,000 per year in the earlier part of the century.
    500.000 is more likely not per year, but for a couple of years maybe 8 years or so, at least to be more certain.
    I hope so. I'd really hate to imagine that many women disappearing.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A better question is: do they perceive themselves to be oppressed?

    Like probably there are a few Chechens and Georgians who think that, because the Russian government isn't friendly with the governments of their homelands, that means the government isn't friendly with them also. So "their people" are oppressed people, even if they themselves are not.
    This is a silly comparison. You're comparing people who feel unliked to people who are treated different under the law.

    A homosexual's partner of 20 years dies and the estate is given to next of kin rather than to the partner because the law does not recognize the union of those two homosexuals and will not allow a legally-binding union. Now, that person has to fight for, potentially, the very house in which they live.

    It's not about perception. It's not about hurt feelings. It is about being treated differently by the legal institutions in this country because of a lifestyle choice.

    That. Is. Oppressed.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:36 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    A homosexual's partner of 20 years dies and the estate is given to next of kin rather than to the partner because the law does not recognize the union of those two homosexuals and will not allow a legally-binding union. Now, that person has to fight for, potentially, the very house in which they live.
    .
    There is a little thing called: "Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship"
    This can be used on almost any "property" including bank accounts.
    If you trust your partner enough for marriage, you should trust having everything in both your names, and a will that unequivocally states that your entire estate is the property of your significant other.

    Those who do not use these laws have earned the right to have their estates consumed by lawyers.

    There are also limited partnerships, and a host of other legal options which accomplish the same legal ends, including "power of attorney".

    Almost every legal right derived from "marriage" can be acheived through other means.

    It would seem that:
    What we have left, is the emotional need for a union recognized as a "marriage".

    Far be it from me to deny someone else's emotional needs.
    But I do like calling them what they are.
    And, I wouldn't deny "gay marriage" to anyone who feels the emotional need.
    (Both of my wives seemed happy to be living with me, but felt the emotional need for marriage. So, we married)
    (If memory serves, the sex was more frequent and varied before the marriage than after)------(a caveat for gay couples?)

    A neighbor(the secretary of our homeowners association at my request), who has lived with her partner for a year longer than my marriage, and her significant other had used the law to make their union as binding as marriage. When Iowa honored "gay marriages" they married. I asked her if she had gained any rights by marriage. She said that she didn't see that they had gained anything legal from their marriage except streamlined efficiency.

    She is a valued neighbor, and anything that makes her life a little easier seems a very nice thing.
    So, following her lead, I am slightly positively biased in support of same sex marriages.

    ...............................
    (a tad more camus than sartre?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    A homosexual's partner of 20 years dies and the estate is given to next of kin rather than to the partner because the law does not recognize the union of those two homosexuals and will not allow a legally-binding union. Now, that person has to fight for, potentially, the very house in which they live.
    .
    There is a little thing called: "Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship"
    This can be used on almost any "property" including bank accounts.
    If you trust your partner enough for marriage, you should trust having everything in both your names, and a will that unequivocally states that your entire estate is the property of your significant other.

    Those who do not use these laws have earned the right to have their estates consumed by lawyers.

    There are also limited partnerships, and a host of other legal options which accomplish the same legal ends, including "power of attorney".

    Almost every legal right derived from "marriage" can be acheived through other means.

    It would seem that:
    What we have left, is the emotional need for a union recognized as a "marriage".

    Far be it from me to deny someone else's emotional needs.
    But I do like calling them what they are.
    And, I wouldn't deny "gay marriage" to anyone who feels the emotional need.
    (Both of my wives seemed happy to be living with me, but felt the emotional need for marriage. So, we married)
    (If memory serves, the sex was more frequent and varied before the marriage than after)------(a caveat for gay couples?)

    A neighbor(the secretary of our homeowners association at my request), who has lived with her partner for a year longer than my marriage, and her significant other had used the law to make their union as binding as marriage. When Iowa honored "gay marriages" they married. I asked her if she had gained any rights by marriage. She said that she didn't see that they had gained anything legal from their marriage except streamlined efficiency.

    She is a valued neighbor, and anything that makes her life a little easier seems a very nice thing.
    So, following her lead, I am slightly positively biased in support of same sex marriages.

    ...............................
    (a tad more camus than sartre?)
    The problem is, "family" (which may not have been in a persons life for many years) is very often given priority over the partner that has spent years caring and loving the person.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A better question is: do they perceive themselves to be oppressed?

    Like probably there are a few Chechens and Georgians who think that, because the Russian government isn't friendly with the governments of their homelands, that means the government isn't friendly with them also. So "their people" are oppressed people, even if they themselves are not.
    This is a silly comparison. You're comparing people who feel unliked to people who are treated different under the law.

    A homosexual's partner of 20 years dies and the estate is given to next of kin rather than to the partner because the law does not recognize the union of those two homosexuals and will not allow a legally-binding union. Now, that person has to fight for, potentially, the very house in which they live.

    It's not about perception. It's not about hurt feelings. It is about being treated differently by the legal institutions in this country because of a lifestyle choice.

    That. Is. Oppressed.
    Stanley's question was about organized crime. I was simply pointing out that a minority group's perception of oppression is the deciding factor in the likelihood of a mafia forming. Actual oppression doesn't decide it, only perceived oppression (though the two may often be related.) I doubt there will ever be a gay mafia, so it's kind of a tangent.

    I'm just addressing some of the discussion Stanley and other posters have been having about human trafficking. I'm pretty sure homosexual people are not being blamed for that.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #317  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Just make a freaking "IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST"...and it goes to who you said it goes to.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #318  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Just make a freaking "IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST"...and it goes to who you said it goes to.
    Unfortunately, this is not always true, no matter how illegal it is.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #319  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    It would seem that:
    What we have left, is the emotional need for a union recognized as a "marriage".
    No. Not good enough.

    I know some homosexuals have said they would be fine with a recognized union, but I am not okay with that. That's like suggesting that a colored water fountain is good enough for blacks. I mean, it's the same thing, right? Separate but equal? It leaves too much room for discrimination.

    Our legal treatment of marriage, as a whole, needs to be redefined to include ANY two consenting adults. They don't get some special kind of neo-marriage. They get what I get. Nothing less.

    EDIT: And don't suggest that this is some whiny emotional plea by me. If you continue to do so, I will assume that your lack of interest in equal rights for homosexuals is derived from deep-seated bigotry. Probably wouldn't feel good, would it?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #320  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    It would seem that:
    What we have left, is the emotional need for a union recognized as a "marriage".
    No. Not good enough.

    I know some homosexuals have said they would be fine with a recognized union, but I am not okay with that. That's like suggesting that a colored water fountain is good enough for blacks. I mean, it's the same thing, right? Separate but equal? It leaves too much room for discrimination.

    Our legal treatment of marriage, as a whole, needs to be redefined to include ANY two consenting adults. They don't get some special kind of neo-marriage. They get what I get. Nothing less.

    EDIT: And don't suggest that this is some whiny emotional plea by me. If you continue to do so, I will assume that your lack of interest in equal rights for homosexuals is derived from deep-seated bigotry. Probably wouldn't feel good, would it?
    Flick:
    Are you trying to be silly and pugnacious at the same time?

    Please: Chose just one.
    ................
    reference my bottom line above?
    Last edited by sculptor; September 12th, 2013 at 10:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #321  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'm often silly, but not in regards to civil rights. I don't consider myself pugnacious, but I certainly won't back down on an issue like this.

    Personally, bigotry and unequal treatment of individuals in America (which professes to be the greatest country in the world) is unconscionable. I am as vehement and passionate about squashing bigotry as I am about anything else. It's not because I love homosexuals or because I am friends with so many of them or whatever else people like to suggest in regards to my super top secret hidden agenda. It is simply that we cannot progress as a society if ignorance pervades. I cannot, with good conscience, be quiet about civil rights issues taking place in my country. How will history view people like that?
    RedPanda likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #322  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:36 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #323  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    That's like suggesting that a colored water fountain is good enough for blacks. I mean, it's the same thing, right? Separate but equal? It leaves too much room for discrimination.
    And why concept of separation is always bad? Do you want to tell that people have no right for example for self-isolation when they want it?
    Sure, if you wish to isolate yourself from the rest of the world feel free. But that is different to the state imposing the separation.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #324  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    That's like suggesting that a colored water fountain is good enough for blacks. I mean, it's the same thing, right? Separate but equal? It leaves too much room for discrimination.
    And why concept of separation is always bad? Do you want to tell that people have no right for example for self-isolation when they want it?
    Separation is not bad. Separating church and state is good. Separating bleach and ammonia is good.

    The problem is not separation. That's just the glossy coating you like to put on bigotry.

    The problem is the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. If you allow straight people to get married and only allow gay people to have "unions", then you can manipulate homosexual union conditions without affecting your own. It means the union would be subject to bigotry and unlawful actions down the road. It is a sad attempt to compromise on an issue which does not require compromise.

    I would ask you why separation is so important in this matter. Is there some evidence you want to bring to the table that shows how homosexual marriage would lead to the collapse of nations or the degradation of society?

    EDIT: I ignored the part about self-separation, but maybe it is better to address it. If a gay person wants to live in a city where other gay people congregate, that is their choice. Being put there is not their choice and unless you can demonstrate that there is an important reason (threat to public health, economy, environment, etc) then your actions are unlawful segregation, something my nation, constantly beaming with pride when it manages to do something the rest of the first world did a decade ago, should have stamped out in the 50's.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #325  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    No one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    You're not saying it, but the law says it. If it were to become violent, like exchanging punches, and the authorities became involved, the fact a homosexual slur had been spoken would reclassify the crime as a hate crime. If I were found to be guilty of any kind of assault, then depending on what state we are in, a hate crime modifier could be added to the charges, making it a longer prison term.

    That's about right on the outer edge of what I think of as acceptable freedom loss. We're not over the edge yet. So long as it's just a modifier being added to an act that was already illegal for other reasons, I think I can live with that.

    However, in this particular category of achievement, I don't want homosexual rights to progress any farther. It's already reached the thread bare limit of how far it can go before it starts to become a form of oppression unto itself, and another valuable civil rights issue gets hurt by it.

    Civil rights always will be a juggling act. There's no way around that. The trick is to remember that you are juggling with more than one ball in the air.
    If you are to the point of violating the law by assaulting another person, then motivation for the assault is a valid reason too look at. Conflating hate crime legislation with abridgment of the first amendment its bull. You are still perfectly free to say anything you want and the government cant do jack about it as a response.

    You have not lost ANY rights to the LGBT community that I am aware of, if you have please inform us what specific one you have lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Separate but equal is never equal. If the exact same benefits are granted why should the term used be changed? "Marriage" is a legal term that is used for this specific legal contract. Religion has never been a required part of it, so the assertion that it is being changed now is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't want there to be any such thing as "thought crime". I want to be allowed to think whatever I want, absolutely without any possible restriction on what it is, even if I'm thinking bad things. Just because I fight for a right doesn't necessarily mean I plan to exercise it, but I want to be free to do so.

    I don't want any "special exceptions" to that rule.
    As before, no one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    I'll admit that you are right that separate but equal doesn't have a very good history.

    It's just unfortunate that it all comes down to semantics. The hardliner Christians would probably accept it if it had a different name. Then the fight would be over. But .... of course...... nobody wants the fight to be over.

    Maybe a good solution would be to call neither institution "marriage", and instead call them both "civil union", and then make "marriage" become only a religious term that gets added to "civil union" by those who want to add it, but which has no legal meaning. Then a priest can still marry people, and heck... if he wants to he can still exclude gay couples from being "married" at his church. But that same couple could just go across the street to a more accepting denomination, and become "married" by a priest at the other church.
    Have you done any study of LGBT history? Your statement here is very clearly falsified by looking at the history of the LGBT community. For example in Washington state the state passed a law granting "civil unions" to LGBT people and seniors, which wording specifically to avoid the term "marriage". It was STILL challenged by Christian groups as granting marriage to the LGBT community and thus going "too far". This has happened numerous time in states trying to pass equal rights legislation.

    Marriage was a legal term and practice much longer then it was a Christian concept, and the religious practice already has the name holy matrimony.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So all pride events need to stop? Again you are advocating for all LGBT people to go back into the closet.
    In Russia, or in the USA?

    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    So you would not be happy unless the entire country was a homogeneous group with no diversity at all, and what diversity was present was never acknowledged at all, but forced underground in shame?
    RedPanda likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #326  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    It would seem that:
    What we have left, is the emotional need for a union recognized as a "marriage".
    No. Not good enough.

    I know some homosexuals have said they would be fine with a recognized union, but I am not okay with that. That's like suggesting that a colored water fountain is good enough for blacks. I mean, it's the same thing, right? Separate but equal? It leaves too much room for discrimination.

    Our legal treatment of marriage, as a whole, needs to be redefined to include ANY two consenting adults. They don't get some special kind of neo-marriage. They get what I get. Nothing less.

    EDIT: And don't suggest that this is some whiny emotional plea by me. If you continue to do so, I will assume that your lack of interest in equal rights for homosexuals is derived from deep-seated bigotry. Probably wouldn't feel good, would it?
    I have to agree that "separate but equal" doesn't usually work.

    However, I think what the government should do is remove all religious overtones from heterosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage, both. It's the belief that "marriage" is an inherently religious domain that keeps the religious right up in arms.

    So, fine. If it's inherently religious, then lets get the government entirely out of it. Call heterosexual marriages "civil unions", and call homosexual marriages "civil unions" Both.

    "Marriage" can then be a 100% religious institution, with no legal meaning. Just a fancy word that religions are allowed to add to "civil unions" as an afterthought if they wish.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    No one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    You're not saying it, but the law says it. If it were to become violent, like exchanging punches, and the authorities became involved, the fact a homosexual slur had been spoken would reclassify the crime as a hate crime. If I were found to be guilty of any kind of assault, then depending on what state we are in, a hate crime modifier could be added to the charges, making it a longer prison term.

    That's about right on the outer edge of what I think of as acceptable freedom loss. We're not over the edge yet. So long as it's just a modifier being added to an act that was already illegal for other reasons, I think I can live with that.

    However, in this particular category of achievement, I don't want homosexual rights to progress any farther. It's already reached the thread bare limit of how far it can go before it starts to become a form of oppression unto itself, and another valuable civil rights issue gets hurt by it.

    Civil rights always will be a juggling act. There's no way around that. The trick is to remember that you are juggling with more than one ball in the air.
    If you are to the point of violating the law by assaulting another person, then motivation for the assault is a valid reason too look at. Conflating hate crime legislation with abridgment of the first amendment its bull. You are still perfectly free to say anything you want and the government cant do jack about it as a response.

    You have not lost ANY rights to the LGBT community that I am aware of, if you have please inform us what specific one you have lost.
    .... which is the reason I describe it as being just barely at the edge.

    The only serious problem with it is the possibility that a mutual fist fight might become a hate crime. But probably it wouldn't. It just depends on the judge, and arresting officer, and such.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Separate but equal is never equal. If the exact same benefits are granted why should the term used be changed? "Marriage" is a legal term that is used for this specific legal contract. Religion has never been a required part of it, so the assertion that it is being changed now is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't want there to be any such thing as "thought crime". I want to be allowed to think whatever I want, absolutely without any possible restriction on what it is, even if I'm thinking bad things. Just because I fight for a right doesn't necessarily mean I plan to exercise it, but I want to be free to do so.

    I don't want any "special exceptions" to that rule.
    As before, no one is saying you cant say what you think, or that you will be legally prosecuted for that, but You will be called out if you do happen to be rude/insulting/bigoted, as that is not something the first amendment protects you from.
    I'll admit that you are right that separate but equal doesn't have a very good history.

    It's just unfortunate that it all comes down to semantics. The hardliner Christians would probably accept it if it had a different name. Then the fight would be over. But .... of course...... nobody wants the fight to be over.

    Maybe a good solution would be to call neither institution "marriage", and instead call them both "civil union", and then make "marriage" become only a religious term that gets added to "civil union" by those who want to add it, but which has no legal meaning. Then a priest can still marry people, and heck... if he wants to he can still exclude gay couples from being "married" at his church. But that same couple could just go across the street to a more accepting denomination, and become "married" by a priest at the other church.
    Have you done any study of LGBT history? Your statement here is very clearly falsified by looking at the history of the LGBT community. For example in Washington state the state passed a law granting "civil unions" to LGBT people and seniors, which wording specifically to avoid the term "marriage". It was STILL challenged by Christian groups as granting marriage to the LGBT community and thus going "too far". This has happened numerous time in states trying to pass equal rights legislation.

    Marriage was a legal term and practice much longer then it was a Christian concept, and the religious practice already has the name holy matrimony.
    Oh I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the bulk of them wouldn't be up in arms.

    The religious right has this problem that NOT ALL OF THEM AGREE. So unfortunately, absolutely no matter what you do, there will be at least a few religious people who challenge it.

    Heck, in Oregon there is a sect fighting for the right to withhold necessary medical attention from their children. If you can think of any ridiculous, or idiotic position to take, there's probably some religious nut job out there supporting it.

    If your goal is to win all of those people over then. HA HA HA HAHH!!!!...... good luck.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So all pride events need to stop? Again you are advocating for all LGBT people to go back into the closet.
    In Russia, or in the USA?

    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    So you would not be happy unless the entire country was a homogeneous group with no diversity at all, and what diversity was present was never acknowledged at all, but forced underground in shame?
    If you're going to post a response without even reading what I said...

    I wish you'd at least be a little bit less obvious about it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #327  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Just make a freaking "IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST"...and it goes to who you said it goes to.
    Unfortunately, this is not always true, no matter how illegal it is.
    What?

    You lost me. An irrevocable living trust is not illegal......please clarify......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #328  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Just make a freaking "IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST"...and it goes to who you said it goes to.
    Unfortunately, this is not always true, no matter how illegal it is.
    What?

    You lost me. An irrevocable living trust is not illegal......please clarify......
    What I meant was that the living trusts have been illegally ignored
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #329  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    I have to agree that "separate but equal" doesn't usually work.

    However, I think what the government should do is remove all religious overtones from heterosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage, both. It's the belief that "marriage" is an inherently religious domain that keeps the religious right up in arms.

    So, fine. If it's inherently religious, then lets get the government entirely out of it. Call heterosexual marriages "civil unions", and call homosexual marriages "civil unions" Both.

    "Marriage" can then be a 100% religious institution, with no legal meaning. Just a fancy word that religions are allowed to add to "civil unions" as an afterthought if they wish.
    Marriage is a legal term, the religious term is holy matrimony, and why change it for a "vocal few"

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    If you are to the point of violating the law by assaulting another person, then motivation for the assault is a valid reason too look at. Conflating hate crime legislation with abridgment of the first amendment its bull. You are still perfectly free to say anything you want and the government cant do jack about it as a response.

    You have not lost ANY rights to the LGBT community that I am aware of, if you have please inform us what specific one you have lost.
    .... which is the reason I describe it as being just barely at the edge.

    The only serious problem with it is the possibility that a mutual fist fight might become a hate crime. But probably it wouldn't. It just depends on the judge, and arresting officer, and such.
    you have not lost any rights, and you are not "right at the edge". whatever happens after the fight breaks out is entirely moot to this discussion.

    You have not lost any freedom of speech an your assertion that you have is rather absurd.

    [quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Have you done any study of LGBT history? Your statement here is very clearly falsified by looking at the history of the LGBT community. For example in Washington state the state passed a law granting "civil unions" to LGBT people and seniors, which wording specifically to avoid the term "marriage". It was STILL challenged by Christian groups as granting marriage to the LGBT community and thus going "too far". This has happened numerous time in states trying to pass equal rights legislation.

    Marriage was a legal term and practice much longer then it was a Christian concept, and the religious practice already has the name holy matrimony.
    Oh I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the bulk of them wouldn't be up in arms.

    The religious right has this problem that NOT ALL OF THEM AGREE. So unfortunately, absolutely no matter what you do, there will be at least a few religious people who challenge it.

    Heck, in Oregon there is a sect fighting for the right to withhold necessary medical attention from their children. If you can think of any ridiculous, or idiotic position to take, there's probably some religious nut job out there supporting it.

    If your goal is to win all of those people over then. HA HA HA HAHH!!!!...... good luck.
    Those vocal minorities have been very successful at smear campaigns when same sex marriage is on the ballot. Its not a matter of winning them over, its a matter of countering the vitriol they produce against LGBT people. YOU are the one that made the assertion that civil unions would not be challenged. I showed you were wrong, and that separate is still not equal. Its better to use the actual legal term then to change it to appease that vocal minority.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    If you're going to post a response without even reading what I said...

    I wish you'd at least be a little bit less obvious about it.
    I read it fully and that is what you said, you are not happy with diversity.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #330  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    I have to agree that "separate but equal" doesn't usually work.

    However, I think what the government should do is remove all religious overtones from heterosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage, both. It's the belief that "marriage" is an inherently religious domain that keeps the religious right up in arms.

    So, fine. If it's inherently religious, then lets get the government entirely out of it. Call heterosexual marriages "civil unions", and call homosexual marriages "civil unions" Both.

    "Marriage" can then be a 100% religious institution, with no legal meaning. Just a fancy word that religions are allowed to add to "civil unions" as an afterthought if they wish.
    Marriage is a legal term, the religious term is holy matrimony, and why change it for a "vocal few"
    Why hold a parade just to protest the vocal few?


    However, there would be side benefits to changing all marriages to being "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. Polygamist cults, for example, would feel less oppressed. If "marriage" is left entirely up to religion, then the guy can be "married" to as many women as he wants, but only have a legally recognized civil union with one of them.

    It's subtle, but it represents the government butting out of peoples' personal lives. Not telling people how to organize their family. Just telling them what forms of join property arrangements they can enter into.

    If a Catholic wants to dissolve their "civil union" with their wife, but stay "married" to her (since of course a Catholic is not supposed to divorce), then I'm not sure, but I think the pope would have to let that go.

    So the benefit is two fold.

    1) - Preventing the law from oppressing religions

    and

    2) - Preventing religions from denying people access to legal benefits they might otherwise have access to.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Have you done any study of LGBT history? Your statement here is very clearly falsified by looking at the history of the LGBT community. For example in Washington state the state passed a law granting "civil unions" to LGBT people and seniors, which wording specifically to avoid the term "marriage". It was STILL challenged by Christian groups as granting marriage to the LGBT community and thus going "too far". This has happened numerous time in states trying to pass equal rights legislation.

    Marriage was a legal term and practice much longer then it was a Christian concept, and the religious practice already has the name holy matrimony.
    Oh I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the bulk of them wouldn't be up in arms.

    The religious right has this problem that NOT ALL OF THEM AGREE. So unfortunately, absolutely no matter what you do, there will be at least a few religious people who challenge it.

    Heck, in Oregon there is a sect fighting for the right to withhold necessary medical attention from their children. If you can think of any ridiculous, or idiotic position to take, there's probably some religious nut job out there supporting it.

    If your goal is to win all of those people over then. HA HA HA HAHH!!!!...... good luck.
    Those vocal minorities have been very successful at smear campaigns when same sex marriage is on the ballot. Its not a matter of winning them over, its a matter of countering the vitriol they produce against LGBT people. YOU are the one that made the assertion that civil unions would not be challenged. I showed you were wrong, and that separate is still not equal. Its better to use the actual legal term then to change it to appease that vocal minority.
    I had suggested renaming both versions to be "civil union"

    That's not "separate but equal". That's fully equal.


    .. and yes. You are right that I had suggested that it would not be challenged in a way that implied the challenge would be absolute zero. And I already admitted that.

    In politics nothing is ever absolutely zero challenged.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    If you're going to post a response without even reading what I said...

    I wish you'd at least be a little bit less obvious about it.
    I read it fully and that is what you said, you are not happy with diversity.
    You read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    And concluded that I was opposed to diversity?

    Could you please elaborate?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #331  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Just make a freaking "IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST"...and it goes to who you said it goes to.
    Unfortunately, this is not always true, no matter how illegal it is.
    What?

    You lost me. An irrevocable living trust is not illegal......please clarify......
    What I meant was that the living trusts have been illegally ignored
    I would beg to differ.

    We've had three.

    They all worked just fine if they were DONE correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #332  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    I have to agree that "separate but equal" doesn't usually work.

    However, I think what the government should do is remove all religious overtones from heterosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage, both. It's the belief that "marriage" is an inherently religious domain that keeps the religious right up in arms.

    So, fine. If it's inherently religious, then lets get the government entirely out of it. Call heterosexual marriages "civil unions", and call homosexual marriages "civil unions" Both.

    "Marriage" can then be a 100% religious institution, with no legal meaning. Just a fancy word that religions are allowed to add to "civil unions" as an afterthought if they wish.
    Marriage is a legal term, the religious term is holy matrimony, and why change it for a "vocal few"
    Why hold a parade just to protest the vocal few?


    However, there would be side benefits to changing all marriages to being "civil unions" in the eyes of the law. Polygamist cults, for example, would feel less oppressed. If "marriage" is left entirely up to religion, then the guy can be "married" to as many women as he wants, but only have a legally recognized civil union with one of them.

    It's subtle, but it represents the government butting out of peoples' personal lives. Not telling people how to organize their family. Just telling them what forms of join property arrangements they can enter into.

    If a Catholic wants to dissolve their "civil union" with their wife, but stay "married" to her (since of course a Catholic is not supposed to divorce), then I'm not sure, but I think the pope would have to let that go.

    So the benefit is two fold.

    1) - Preventing the law from oppressing religions

    and

    2) - Preventing religions from denying people access to legal benefits they might otherwise have access to.
    Pride celebrations aren't held in protest of the vocal few. Your lack of any actual knowledge of LGBT culture is showing again.

    All you have done is change the word, and are YOU going to foot the bill for lawyers to go through every city, state, and federal statute and make the needed wording changes to all of the laws that use the term marriage?

    Polygamy (is not a cult for one) would see no change in the legal tangles that make it currently illegal.

    The RCC would most likely still regard it as divorce and as I said before the religious term is holy matrimony anyways, so why change the entirety of legal code for the minority religious groups that what absolute control of the word.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Have you done any study of LGBT history? Your statement here is very clearly falsified by looking at the history of the LGBT community. For example in Washington state the state passed a law granting "civil unions" to LGBT people and seniors, which wording specifically to avoid the term "marriage". It was STILL challenged by Christian groups as granting marriage to the LGBT community and thus going "too far". This has happened numerous time in states trying to pass equal rights legislation.

    Marriage was a legal term and practice much longer then it was a Christian concept, and the religious practice already has the name holy matrimony.
    Oh I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the bulk of them wouldn't be up in arms.

    The religious right has this problem that NOT ALL OF THEM AGREE. So unfortunately, absolutely no matter what you do, there will be at least a few religious people who challenge it.

    Heck, in Oregon there is a sect fighting for the right to withhold necessary medical attention from their children. If you can think of any ridiculous, or idiotic position to take, there's probably some religious nut job out there supporting it.

    If your goal is to win all of those people over then. HA HA HA HAHH!!!!...... good luck.
    Those vocal minorities have been very successful at smear campaigns when same sex marriage is on the ballot. Its not a matter of winning them over, its a matter of countering the vitriol they produce against LGBT people. YOU are the one that made the assertion that civil unions would not be challenged. I showed you were wrong, and that separate is still not equal. Its better to use the actual legal term then to change it to appease that vocal minority.
    I had suggested renaming both versions to be "civil union"

    That's not "separate but equal". That's fully equal.


    .. and yes. You are right that I had suggested that it would not be challenged in a way that implied the challenge would be absolute zero. And I already admitted that.

    In politics nothing is ever absolutely zero challenged.
    Again, the conservative religious groups will still try to prevent the granting of the legal benefits, as they did in Washington. WHY do you, given the change will not stop the problem, insist on changing the legal term rather then informing those groups that they do not have control of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    If you're going to post a response without even reading what I said...

    I wish you'd at least be a little bit less obvious about it.
    I read it fully and that is what you said, you are not happy with diversity.
    You read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    And concluded that I was opposed to diversity?

    Could you please elaborate?
    See the bolded sentence and your comments on St. Patricks day parades etc. You have stated a number of times that you are annoyed when groups have celebrations of what makes them unique.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #333  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post


    Pride celebrations aren't held in protest of the vocal few. Your lack of any actual knowledge of LGBT culture is showing again.
    What does LGBT culture have to do with that?

    All you have done is change the word, and are YOU going to foot the bill for lawyers to go through every city, state, and federal statute and make the needed wording changes to all of the laws that use the term marriage?

    Polygamy (is not a cult for one) would see no change in the legal tangles that make it currently illegal.
    Legally there is nothing wrong with a man having one wife, and 4 mistresses. It's kind of impolite toward the wife (unless she also has lovers living with her). But it's not illegal to cheat on your wife.


    The RCC would most likely still regard it as divorce and as I said before the religious term is holy matrimony anyways, so why change the entirety of legal code for the minority religious groups that what absolute control of the word.
    Maybe to pacify them a bit? Why seek confrontation if it can easily be avoided and everyone can be happy?



    Again, the conservative religious groups will still try to prevent the granting of the legal benefits, as they did in Washington. WHY do you, given the change will not stop the problem, insist on changing the legal term rather then informing those groups that they do not have control of the word.
    It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. If a significant fraction of the religious right are pacified by it, then it will be that much easier for you to win ballot measures.

    Or do you just not want to win them? (Wouldn't have anything to fight about if you won.)




    If you want to have them, then by all means have them. They annoy me because I don't think homosexual people are substantially different from straight people. I don't see the point in focusing on the differences when they're meaningless and arbitrary.

    When I see a homosexual person, I don't like to think of them as a "homosexual person". I prefer instead to think of them as a "person who happens to be homosexual".

    The opposite of "thing to be ashamed of" doesn't have to be "thing to make a big deal out of and be proud of". It could just be "thing that doesn't and shouldn't matter because I'm still a person just like everyone else."
    And concluded that I was opposed to diversity?

    Could you please elaborate?
    See the bolded sentence and your comments on St. Patricks day parades etc. You have stated a number of times that you are annoyed when groups have celebrations of what makes them unique.
    Opposing trumped up, pretentious, overrepresentations of diversity is not the same as opposing the differences themselves.

    It doesn't bother me that some people are Irish, nor that some people are gay. It bothers me when they try to suggest that those differences mean something, because it's not a sensible form of meritocracy.

    I prefer if society celebrates traits that matter, instead of traits that honestly couldn't matter less.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #334  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I would beg to differ.
    We've had three.
    They all worked just fine if they were DONE correctly.
    But that is the problem with anecdotal evidence.

    I have never been burgled.
    Does that mean that burglaries don't happen? Of course not.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #335  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I would beg to differ.
    We've had three.
    They all worked just fine if they were DONE correctly.
    But that is the problem with anecdotal evidence.

    I have never been burgled.
    Does that mean that burglaries don't happen? Of course not.
    It has to be done RIGHT!!!! Which means it is not cheap! In the end, it's worth it though!! *L*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #336  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It doesn't bother me that some people are Irish, nor that some people are gay.
    So do you object to St Patrick's Day parades in the same way as you object to Gay Pride?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #337  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It doesn't bother me that some people are Irish, nor that some people are gay.
    So do you object to St Patrick's Day parades in the same way as you object to Gay Pride?
    In the same way, yes. Though St. Patty's day is a national holiday, not just a holiday for Irish people.

    If the parade is a Irish Heritage parade, then yes it annoys me. Heritage parades annoy me in general. I like to think of my heritage as "American", not German, English, or whatever else. (Since those two are my strongest ancestry.)

    Suggesting that a person's ancestry ought to matter is like suggesting that the Caste system was a good system, and that we ought to bow before lords and ladies.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #338  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Think about World War II Veteran parades. The older gentlemen who march in those parades were all part of a common experience. They contributed something, and made a difference somewhere.


    Now imagine someone proposes a "descendants of World War II Veterans'" parade. It would have younger people marching to celebrate their parents' and grandparents' sacrifice. None of those people will have actually been there, nor even know what it was like. Does that seem a little bit silly? It would be like trying to make "veteran" into a hereditary title. Maybe they want a "descendant of a veteran" discount at restaurants too now?

    So how is it different to have a "Descendants of Irish immigrants" parade? Few if any Irish Americans born in the last two or three decades has any direct experience being oppressed, mistreated, or discriminated against.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #339  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Though St. Patty's day is a national holiday, not just a holiday for Irish people.
    I never knew that...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #340  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Have you ever tried participating in a gay pride parade?

    To my knowledge, they aren't known for arresting straight men and women who want to march in support of gays.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #341  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It doesn't bother me that some people are Irish, nor that some people are gay.
    So do you object to St Patrick's Day parades in the same way as you object to Gay Pride?
    In the same way, yes. Though St. Patty's day is a national holiday, not just a holiday for Irish people.

    If the parade is a Irish Heritage parade, then yes it annoys me. Heritage parades annoy me in general. I like to think of my heritage as "American", not German, English, or whatever else. (Since those two are my strongest ancestry.)

    Suggesting that a person's ancestry ought to matter is like suggesting that the Caste system was a good system, and that we ought to bow before lords and ladies.
    Didn't know it was a national holiday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #342  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It used to be that the ideal was to treat everyone the same. To ignore any meaningless differences and evaluate them as a person on the basis of stuff that mattered.

    Somehow that ideal has morphed. Now it seems I'm supposed to value them merely for being "diverse". The meaningless differences go from being something I'm supposed to leave out of my evaluation of the person entirely, to being something I'm expected to include in my evaluation and assign a positive value to.

    I simply don't believe that it's possible to be racist/genderist/orientationist in only one sense for long. If you allow yourself to assign a positive value to any race or creed, then you've opened the door to the possibility of assigning a negative value to other races and creeds. Anyone who "values diversity" is going to be equally prone to "valuing some diversity more than others".
    Neverfly likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #343  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The big irony is that it's everyone else telling me that "separate but equal" has never worked out. But what is a pride parade, but an attempt to establish that a person is "separate" from the mainstream, and then to try and make that version of "separate" or.... "diverse".... as prestigious a designation as possible?

    Admitting that homosexual people are not substantially different from heterosexual people establishes that they are one and the same, and ought to be treated equally. If they're "diverse", then we're left with the question of "how diverse"? Diverse enough to be treated differently? Differently, but equally?
    Neverfly likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #344  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Good point- which raises a question that was nagging at my brain yesterday...

    Why do we have three different threads on gayness all of the sudden?

    Where are the threads discussing being straight?
    Or the Caucasian threads? We need affirmative action; I demand these topics get discussed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #345  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:37 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #346  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Good point- which raises a question that was nagging at my brain yesterday...

    Why do we have three different threads on gayness all of the sudden?

    Where are the threads discussing being straight?
    Or the Caucasian threads? We need affirmative action; I demand these topics get discussed.
    Apparently "straight" isn't the right kind of diversity. You're not allowed to be proud of yourself for that.

    If you are straight and Caucasian then you will need to gain the respect of others by hard work or something. Only group affiliation with a previously oppressed people gains you access to unconditional love and affection.

    However I think the problem can be solved. We just need to invent enough "diversity" status types so everyone can claim one. It may require some revisionist history (but I think a lot of "diversity" requires that to some degree or another.) Once the pity boat has enough people clamoring to get on board, it will eventually start to sink. If everyone has hiring priority when applying for a job, then nobody has it. If everyone has a sob story, then there's nobody to listen.

    Maybe the reason Russia doesn't get in on the whole "diversity" thing is because it's a whole country of "communism survivors". The atrocities that government committed against various groups are so numerous it's hard to find a group that wasn't hit in one way or another. Ukrainians have Stalin's artificial famine. Groups from all over got shipped to Gulags. There are some areas of the country you still can't visit. Presumably because of things that still haven't come to light, which the authorities would prefer to keep from coming to light.

    If homosexual people were previously afraid of getting drug off by the secret police, yeah.... well... So was everybody else.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #347  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    I was talking to my chick today about " Straight Pride Marches ". She tells me that they do not happen.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #348  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:37 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #349  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    I was talking to my chick today about " Straight Pride Marches ". She tells me that they do not happen.
    You're right. We should march to celebrate an end, at long last, to the oppression of the heterosexual white male.

    Here in Indy, we usually call those Klan Rallies, but I think the dress code is pretty open. No pink, though. For the love of god, no pink...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #350  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Maybe the reason Russia doesn't get in on the whole "diversity" thing is because it's a whole country of "communism survivors". The atrocities that government committed against various groups are so numerous it's hard to find a group that wasn't hit in one way or another. Ukrainians have Stalin's artificial famine.
    Stalin was ruler of USSR, not Russia. He wasn't Russian himself. What relation to modern Russia does it have?
    Everyone in Russia suffered due to the policies Stalin enacted.

    That means all Russians have a common heritage of "communism survivors".

    My point is that the basis for groups in the USA calling themselves "diversity" is that they are always people from a group that suffered oppression. In Russia, everyone is a member of one such group. For that reason, it's not very interesting for a homosexual person in Russia to say "My people have been oppressed!!". All the people in Russia have been oppressed. Why should they care that homosexual people in particular have been oppressed if all of them have been oppressed just as badly?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #351  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:37 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #352  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Everyone in Russia suffered due to the policies Stalin enacted.
    Stalin died more than 60 years ago, so majority of modern Russians couldn't directly suffer from his policies.
    This is quite similar to many of the various "diversity" groups in the USA also.

    For example, slavery of black people ended over 140 years ago, but it still gets mentioned. Apartheid itself ended nearly 50 years ago in the USA. The holocaust of the Jewish people in Germany gets discussed to no end, and that was 70 years ago. Hawaiian people often bemoan the annexation of Hawaii 54 years ago. Mexican immigrants are constantly bringing up the fact that Texas, California, and a number of other American states used to be part of Mexico prior to the end of the Mexican American war, which ended in 1848, so 165 years ago.

    People who want pity tend to have very long memories in the USA.


    Homosexual people have only been treated equally for a short time, though, 10 or maybe 20 years depending on what measure is used. They don't have marriage yet, so maybe they're still being mistreated a little bit.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #353  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:38 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #354  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    I was talking to my chick today about " Straight Pride Marches ". She tells me that they do not happen.
    You're right. We should march to celebrate an end, at long last, to the oppression of the heterosexual white male.

    Here in Indy, we usually call those Klan Rallies, but I think the dress code is pretty open. No pink, though. For the love of god, no pink...
    What! Are you telling me, that there are no gay people, in the Indy branch of the KKK.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #355  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    I was talking to my chick today about " Straight Pride Marches ". She tells me that they do not happen.
    You're right. We should march to celebrate an end, at long last, to the oppression of the heterosexual white male.

    Here in Indy, we usually call those Klan Rallies, but I think the dress code is pretty open. No pink, though. For the love of god, no pink...
    What! Are you telling me, that there are no gay people, in the Indy branch of the KKK.
    Only if they are still closeted!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #356  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    A lot of white supremacist gangs form on the inside of prison, where people from all the other ethnic groups are present in equal or greater numbers, and have their own race based gangs which white people (usually) aren't allowed to become part of.

    Unfortunately these white survival gangs don't always disband once they make it through their sentences and get released to the outside world. The attitude of being oppressed and needing to take action against it continues even after the reality of being oppressed has ceased. A lot of them gather into communities, where their collective paranoia can isolate them even further.

    Is there perhaps a lesson to be learned from their folly?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #357  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    For what it's worth, it looks like the most recent Pope is lightening the dogma toward homosexuality for the Catholic Church.

    ‘Might Be Greatest Man Alive’: These Catholics — and a Few Celebrities — Gush Over Pope Francis’ Remarks on Homosexuality, Abortion | TheBlaze.com
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #358  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    I read an entire article in the newspaper today about this subject Kojak.

    Sounds promising....and would be quite a feat for the Catholic Church, but will it happen?

    I have my sincere doubts. After being raised Catholis up to the 8th grade, then Pentecostal.

    I have zero use for either church, or their beliefs.

    I also want to post a question as to WHY we have to buy into what they teach anyhow?

    If you are a Catholic and wish to be gay, why should you feel guilt about that?

    When I was a kid there was a lady who had 13 kids....and her doctor told her that if she had any more, that she'd die.

    She went to the pastor to ask permission to have a hysterectomy.

    Her request was refused.

    She died in childbirth with her 13th child.

    I'm sorry....no one needs PERMISSION to be themselves be they gay or straight, nor permission for birth control either.

    No church has that right to impose that on their fellowship NOR to make them feel guilty when they do not abide by the doctrine.

    Fear should never have been part of belief.

    If "GOD" = "FEAR" and judgement

    what the hell is the point anyhow!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #359  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think the Catholics are perhaps getting tired of being the bad guys. They had a former Nazi as a Pope, and now they may feel a need to go the other direction. And there were those scandals with their priests molesting children. It seems Catholicism needs a new strategy for the 21st century.

    If they do actually make good on this by loosening their restrictions on homosexuality, and the decision is well received, and so the Catholic Church rises in prestige, then probably a lot protestants will follow afterward. There's kind of a competition to be the better faith.

    I know from Mormonism, that one of the biggest black eyes the Mormon Church ever got was from being one of the last to allow Black people to be priests. Once something is universally accepted as wrong/right, no religion wants to have been the last to have said so. They certainly don't mind waiting until after the liberals have broken ground, but once a single church has joined in, all the churches have to choose to either:

    A) - Accept it early

    or

    B) - Accept it never.

    B is a serious gamble. Because down the line, the idea might become so popular that you just plain can't continue to reject it (or else all the church's followers would leave.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #360  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think the Catholics are perhaps getting tired of being the bad guys. They had a former Nazi as a Pope, and now they may feel a need to go the other direction. And there were those scandals with their priests molesting children. It seems Catholicism needs a new strategy for the 21st century.

    If they do actually make good on this by loosening their restrictions on homosexuality, and the decision is well received, and so the Catholic Church rises in prestige, then probably a lot protestants will follow afterward. There's kind of a competition to be the better faith.

    I know from Mormonism, that one of the biggest black eyes the Mormon Church ever got was from being one of the last to allow Black people to be priests. Once something is universally accepted as wrong/right, no religion wants to have been the last to have said so. They certainly don't mind waiting until after the liberals have broken ground, but once a single church has joined in, all the churches have to choose to either:

    A) - Accept it early

    or

    B) - Accept it never.

    B is a serious gamble. Because down the line, the idea might become so popular that you just plain can't continue to reject it (or else all the church's followers would leave.)
    Well they are losing parishioners and INCOME that they bring in to a very wealthy BUSINESS.

    Voting that Nazi in wasn't such a great idea either.

    Could it be, perhaps a move in order to appeal to the non participating in an attempt to further fund their coffers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #361  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    Could it be, perhaps a move in order to appeal to the non participating in an attempt to further fund their coffers?
    True their heart isn't necessarily in the right place.

    But even though the effect is unintended, that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial. Catholicism is one of the major players in world religion, and all the others will be comparing themselves to see if they can gain a lead in the contest for membership. It's possible that tolerance of homosexuality will soon become one of the points of comparison.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #362  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post

    Could it be, perhaps a move in order to appeal to the non participating in an attempt to further fund their coffers?
    True their heart isn't necessarily in the right place.

    But even though the effect is unintended, that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial. Catholicism is one of the major players in world religion, and all the others will be comparing themselves to see if they can gain a lead in the contest for membership. It's possible that tolerance of homosexuality will soon become one of the points of comparison.
    I agree

    *L* but hell my Pentecostal ordained minister parents (who converted FROM Catholicism would never buy into it... *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #363  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:38 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #364  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    You're erroneously suggesting that someone is FORCING straight people to watch homosexuals on parade. That's the lowest form of nonsense.
    Do you think that the Russian law we discuss, doesn't clearly indicate it?
    The Russian law is fear-mongering at its most basic and NOT founded in reality.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #365  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    What do you know of the russuians?
    And what do you know of the intent of this law?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #366  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    You're erroneously suggesting that someone is FORCING straight people to watch homosexuals on parade. That's the lowest form of nonsense.
    Do you think that the Russian law we discuss, doesn't clearly indicate it?
    The Russian law is fear-mongering at its most basic and NOT founded in reality.
    Am I incorrect in believing that I read that homosexuality is not greeted will in Russia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #367  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    I support her
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #368  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:39 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #369  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    A new study shows that genetics could be secondary in homosexuality determination.
    "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics."
    There are 2 faulty assumptions in that article :

    1) Identical twins have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do not happen after birth.

    Neither assumption is correct.
    Last edited by RedPanda; December 18th, 2013 at 05:05 PM.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #370  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I am pre-disposed by genetics, epigenetics and upbringing to be heterosexual. I therefore find the sexual aspects of male homosexuality unappealing.
    A new study shows that genetics could be secondary in homosexuality determination.
    "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics."
    Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic | Life In HD - The Official Website For Pastor Holland Davis
    Instead of pulling something wildly spun off an extremely bigoted religious web site. Wouldn't it be better to actually read the source, such as....I don't know....perhaps an actually peer review scientific paper by Neil Whitehead, such as the one titled:
    "Neither Genes nor Choice"
    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 18th, 2013 at 03:13 PM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #371  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I would facepalm, but I'm afraid I'd block the non-stop stream of vomit issuing forth after reading that post.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #372  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    such an emotional subject
    how apropos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #373  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I am pre-disposed by genetics, epigenetics and upbringing to be heterosexual. I therefore find the sexual aspects of male homosexuality unappealing.
    A new study shows that genetics could be secondary in homosexuality determination.
    "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics."
    Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic | Life In HD - The Official Website For Pastor Holland Davis
    Please answer this question:
    Do you hold the belief that homosexuality and transexuality are mental disorders?
    I do not know. What is definition of disorder? But if a boy believes he is a Christmas bunny the parents take him to a psychiatrist. If boy believes he is a girl, then?..
    The first is such a blatantly biased and non-neutral source even YOU should have known it would not be reliable.

    We are still waiting for you actual answer to the second question:
    Do YOU think Homosexuality and transexuality are mental disorders.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #374  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:39 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #375  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Stanley514

    Mental disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So according to this definition it depends on what is considered as a norm in some particular society. Biology is not as exact as mathematics and often depends on point of view. I think that people suppose to have right to "cure" themselves from homosexuality if they want so. Parents suppose to have right to put a child for psychiatric investigation and try to understand the reasons. If person developed non-traditional sex orientation after psychic trauma similar to rape or molestation or pornography, then trauma definitely could be regarded as a disorder.
    What is there to "CURE"? Oh heavens to betsy!! CURE THEMSELVES!! It isn't AN ILLNESS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #376  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:39 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #377  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If we regard physical infertility which prevents or reduces chances of person to have a baby as a disorder, than why LGBT traits which effectively do the same thing cannot by regarded as a disorders? Doesn't every person have right to have their own children born in a natural way?
    I will quote this so that the people who have you on ignore can see that you should stay there.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #378  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If we regard physical infertility which prevents or reduces chances of person to have a baby as a disorder, than why LGBT traits which effectively do the same thing cannot by regarded as a disorders? Doesn't every person have right to have their own children born in a natural way?
    Infertility is NOT a mental disorder any more then being homosexual or transgender is.

    As a gay man I am Very much physically capable of having offspring, and there a multiple ways I can. So you assertion is total bullshit.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #379  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If we regard physical infertility which prevents or reduces chances of person to have a baby as a disorder, than why LGBT traits which effectively do the same thing cannot by regarded as a disorders? Doesn't every person have right to have their own children born in a natural way?
    HAVE YOU EVER SUFFERED from infertility? WELL?

    I did!

    You don't know what you are even talking about!

    I got lucky and had two kids....but many of my friends were UNABLE to conceive, and adopted.

    You DO NOT HAVE the RIGHT to have children born naturally.

    Heavens!! That is past ignorant!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #380  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stanley514 View Post
    if we regard physical infertility which prevents or reduces chances of person to have a baby as a disorder, than why lgbt traits which effectively do the same thing cannot by regarded as a disorders? Doesn't every person have right to have their own children born in a natural way?
    infertility is not a mental disorder any more then being homosexual or transgender is.

    As a gay man i am very much physically capable of having offspring, and there a multiple ways i can. So you assertion is total bullshit.
    nor a choice!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #381  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:40 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #382  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    To have a baby you need to have In any case both male and female DNA. A child needs a mother.

    At no point is intercourse required though, and same sex couples are shown to be just as effective and good parents as hetero couples.

    a womb does NOT dictate what is evil or not.
    babe likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #383  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    To have a baby you need to have In any case both male and female DNA. A child needs a mother.

    At no point is intercourse required though, and same sex couples are shown to be just as effective and good parents as hetero couples.

    a womb does NOT dictate what is evil or not.
    Nor does a womb determine good parenting!! PEOPLE DO!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #384  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:40 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #385  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    At no point is intercourse required though, and same sex couples are shown to be just as effective and good parents as hetero couples.
    1) And a child suppose to grow without communication with his own mother? 2) Maybe we switch to cloning then?
    Two parents, be it, two heterosexual or two homosexual parents can raise very grounded child.

    It doesn't have to do with the sexuality, it as to do with the parenting. You can have a mother or a father who is a piece of shit....and in a heterosexual marriage.

    As I said, the parenting has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.....it has to do with PARENTING!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #386  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Stanley, What don't you get about parenting being the determining factor as to how a child turns out, NOT the gender of the parent.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #387  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:40 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #388  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    There are 2 faulty assumptions in that article :

    1) Identical twins have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do not happen after birth.

    Neither assumption is correct.
    Do you mean spontaneous genetic changes after birth?! I wish to get explanations regarding both assumptions.
    1) Identical twins share the same genotype, but different phenotype (their genes are expressed differently).
    2) Regarding DNA changes over a lifetime; JAMA Network | JAMA | Intra-individual Change Over Time in DNA Methylation With Familial Clustering
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #389  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    There are 2 faulty assumptions in that article :

    1) Identical twins have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do not happen after birth.

    Neither assumption is correct.
    Do you mean spontaneous genetic changes after birth?! I wish to get explanations regarding both assumptions.
    What I meant was:

    1) Identical twins don't have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do happen after birth.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #390  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    There are 2 faulty assumptions in that article :

    1) Identical twins have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do not happen after birth.

    Neither assumption is correct.
    Do you mean spontaneous genetic changes after birth?! I wish to get explanations regarding both assumptions.
    What I meant was:

    1) Identical twins don't have exactly the same DNA.
    2) Genetic changes do happen after birth.
    yep..you can always tell the difference when you are raised around them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #391  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:40 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #392  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    There used to be a pretty good study that was easy to find on the internet, where identical twins were shown to have high likelihood of sharing the same sexual orientation. However unrelated children raised in the same household were also found to have a higher than statistically normal likelihood. Less than the identical twins, but still statistically abnormal. Now it seems all I can find is over the top - politically motivated studies that purport to demonstrate it is all 100% one thing, or all 100% the other.

    I don't think it matters which is the case, but arguing a genetic cause for any behavior, even one that is harmless, is a slippery slope. If you argue it for a harmless behavior, then you automatically open the door to argue it for harmful behaviors. Psychopathy may also have a genetic cause, as may non-psychopathic acts of violence. However I don't want people to be able to argue that "my genes made me do it" in court.

    But even if it's not genetic, it's still out of the person's control. I like blueberry pie. I can't control that I like it. I didn't choose to like it. It just happened to me. If I'm on a diet I may choose not to eat blueberry pie very often. I wouldn't want to have to go my whole life and never eat any blueberry pie, though. Just because everyone else around me perhaps doesn't like it? Do I need to argue genetics in order to claim that right? I certainly hope not.
    babe likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #393  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 07:41 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #394  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    I just watched Yelena Isinbayeva's homophobic rant for the first time. She seems to say that homosexual acts in the middle of the street are not OK. I tend to agree with her on that one. But who does that? She rambles on and swerves drunken-like around what it is she is trying to not condone.

    It is similar to Islamic extremists that claim "infidels fornicate in the middle of the street and want it to be OK".

    I find it interesting that
    Yelena Isinbayeva mentions the Russian people thinking of themselves as "the norm". This reeks of nationalism, which has been wildly popular in the past 15 years or more. It has had political influence, but in this context it has had a very strong hold on the viewpoints on young people like this girl.

    Ironically, she is not an East Slav, which Russian neo-nazis often cite as "Russians". Racism is rampant in the Russian Federation, and violence against "almost everyone" that does not fall into a category should and must be wiped out.

    Unfortunately I do not see that happening with current political views around both Russian peoples and government.
    babe likes this.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #395  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    I just watched Yelena Isinbayeva's homophobic rant for the first time. She seems to say that homosexual acts in the middle of the street are not OK.
    She's probably thinking about hand holding or kissing rather than anal sex.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #396  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I don't think it matters which is the case, but arguing a genetic cause for any behavior, even one that is harmless, is a slippery slope. If you argue it for a harmless behavior, then you automatically open the door to argue it for harmful behaviors.
    In my understanding having evil genetics doesn't serve an excuse for committing a crime. Evil nature should be punished for been evil. But evil personality should not be confused with classical mental disorders. Sick people should be rather cured than punished. Psychopathy, if I no make mistake, is one of the mental disorders. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Somebody who have evil educator have a bit more of excuse that somebody of evil nature.
    But even if it's not genetic, it's still out of the person's control. I like blueberry pie. I can't control that I like it. I didn't choose to like it. It just happened to me. If I'm on a diet I may choose not to eat blueberry pie very often.
    Not necessarily. Often person have and should find strength to suppress its own impulses.
    Again, are you saying that all the worlds psychology associations are wrong and that homosexuality is a mental disorder?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #397  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Yelena Isinbayeva has homophobia.......

    It's a pity. She'll never know some really wonderful people in this world with a different sexual preference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •