Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

 

2010-03-08 07:26:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Already made my point, no one not gay or straight can marry same sex. It is not discriminatory
lowing you are totally missing the point. I guess for you then Rosa Parks shouldn't have complained about needing to sit at the back of the bus because both black and white people could have got the same bus and nothing discriminatory was going on - which is plainly bollocks.

Saying gay people can marry people of the opposite sex has nothing to do with it. Gay people want to marry someone of the SAME sex. It's not about what they theoretically could do, it's that they are prevented from doing what they WANT to do.

People want to get married because they love their partner.

Hetero people can marry someone they love.

Gay people cannot.

What is it about this simple state of affairs that causes you to ignore the issue and claim it's not discriminatory when it so blatantly is?

Maybe if I put it like this:

Preventing someone from doing something that a) they want to do, and b) other people can do, is discriminating against them.
1. Nope Rosa Parks stood for a greater injustice. In that era there was truely discrimination. Blacks could not vote, they could not eat where they wanted to work where they wanted to, make as much as a white person etc.

Gays have no such restrictions on them. NO ONE can marry same sex, including straight people.

"Preventing someone from doing something that a) they want to do, and b) other people can do, is discriminating against them"

This is wrong. Preventing someone from doing something WHILE ALLOWING OTHERS TO IT is discriminating.

As I have said before, there is no legislation against gays. There is only legislation against an action. SAME SEX MARRIAGE is not allowed for anyone.
2010-03-08 07:27:42
Chou
Member
+737|7076
What are gay rights and why do gays feel the need to strip down to a speedo and dance around on the streets expressing the fact that they are also homo sapiens?

i want to encourage my kids that what they see in the parade is a sign of how the world should be. full of sex and a little bit more.
show off that freaky sexuality because it's good to be gay, shame on the hetero community!
2010-03-08 07:43:17
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

1. Nope Rosa Parks stood for a greater injustice. In that era there was truely discrimination. Blacks could not vote, they could not eat where they wanted to work where they wanted to, make as much as a white person etc.

Gays have no such restrictions on them. NO ONE can marry same sex, including straight people.

"Preventing someone from doing something that a) they want to do, and b) other people can do, is discriminating against them"

This is wrong. Preventing someone from doing something WHILE ALLOWING OTHERS TO IT is discriminating.

As I have said before, there is no legislation against gays. There is only legislation against an action. SAME SEX MARRIAGE is not allowed for anyone.
The rosa parks example is exactly the same. Your argument fails.

Marriage is PRIMARILY about being with someone you love. The sex of that person is incidental.  GAY PEOPLE CANNOT MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE. STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN.

Ah fuck it you onbviously can't understand the point.
2010-03-08 07:48:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Nope Rosa Parks stood for a greater injustice. In that era there was truely discrimination. Blacks could not vote, they could not eat where they wanted to work where they wanted to, make as much as a white person etc.

Gays have no such restrictions on them. NO ONE can marry same sex, including straight people.

"Preventing someone from doing something that a) they want to do, and b) other people can do, is discriminating against them"

This is wrong. Preventing someone from doing something WHILE ALLOWING OTHERS TO IT is discriminating.

As I have said before, there is no legislation against gays. There is only legislation against an action. SAME SEX MARRIAGE is not allowed for anyone.
The rosa parks example is exactly the same. Your argument fails.

Marriage is PRIMARILY about being with someone you love. The sex of that person is incidental.  GAY PEOPLE CANNOT MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE. STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN.

Ah fuck it you onbviously can't understand the point.
Civil rights is nothing like the same thing as gay rights. Not the same ball park or even the same sport.

I understand your point, I simply do not agree with it.

Homosexuality is about same sex, sex. NOT marriage.

WE ALL are allowed to marry anyone we love with the only restriction ON US ALL is it has to be opposite sex.

I am all for same sex marriage. I am against GAY RIGHTS. There is a difference, regardless if you acknowledge it or not

Last edited by lowing (2010-03-08 07:48:59)

2010-03-08 11:50:57
BVC
Member
+325|6981

lowing wrote:

Might wanna read prvious posts. I have no probel with same sex marriages. I have a problem with "GAY RIGHTS"
So to clarify, when you say "gays can't marry" it is an observation of present laws, an objection to extra rights and privileges given to gays over and above the rest of us (gay rights), and not explicitly an objection to the legal recognition of gay marriage?
2010-03-08 12:01:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Pubic wrote:

lowing wrote:

Might wanna read prvious posts. I have no probel with same sex marriages. I have a problem with "GAY RIGHTS"
So to clarify, when you say "gays can't marry" it is an observation of present laws, an objection to extra rights and privileges given to gays over and above the rest of us (gay rights), and not explicitly an objection to the legal recognition of gay marriage?
gays can marry, they can not marry same sex, and niether can you or I. No discrimination,

I do however believe that people should be free to marry anyone they want. It is not my business or the govts. business.

My problem is GAY RIGHTS. If gays are allowed this right, then all of us should be. Let us figure out why we would want to later.


Gay rights also includes shit like special legislation for crimes committed against gays. I disagree with this. murdering a homosexual should not be so special as to bring any harsher punishment or special consideration in trial as murdering a straight person.
2010-03-08 16:51:50
BVC
Member
+325|6981

lowing wrote:

My problem is GAY RIGHTS. If gays are allowed this right, then all of us should be. Let us figure out why we would want to later.


Gay rights also includes shit like special legislation for crimes committed against gays. I disagree with this. murdering a homosexual should not be so special as to bring any harsher punishment or special consideration in trial as murdering a straight person.
Given the commonly-accepted definition of gay marriage then any of us, in theory, could marry someone of the same sex.  Not that we'd want to, just technically that right would be there.

You do raise a good point though, there is a very fine difference between allowing same-sex marriages, and only granting those rights to people in same-sex relationships.  The later of the two is just as discriminatory as current marriage laws or laws which advantage couples based on their sexuality, or some of the crime laws which you speak of.

Out of curiosity, do these crime laws specify that assaults etc on gays attract greater penalties, or do they simply say that greater penalties apply where sexuality is a factor?  (people have been "straight-bashed"...)
2010-03-08 19:19:33
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.

Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in statewide office, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.

Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.

"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.

The 55-year-old father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life until his March 3 arrest.

"When I crossed the line and broke the law and put people at risk, that's different, and I do owe people an explanation," he said.

Ashburn was arrested after he was spotted driving erratically near the Capitol, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The next day, reports surfaced that he had left Faces, a gay nightclub, with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle.

"The best way to handle that is to be truthful and to say to my constituents and all who care that I am gay," he said. "But I don't think it's something that has affected, nor will it affect, how I do my job."

Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk.

Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, said it consistently gave Ashburn a 0 rating on its scorecard.

The senator said those votes reflected the way constituents in his district wanted him to vote.

Ashburn has been on personal leave since his arrest but was expected to return Monday to the Senate. His spokesman, Noel Libang, did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press seeking comment.

In the radio interview, Ashburn said he is drawing on his Christian faith, and he asked people to pray for him.

He said he does not plan to run for any public office after his term ends later this year.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 … latestnews
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-08 19:51:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
Even if his excuse is true, then I'm sure his constituents also would have liked to know if their representative was gay.  I'm pretty sure if they are anti-gay in policy, they don't want a gay person in office to represent them.
2010-03-08 23:50:59
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6280|Truthistan

lowing wrote:

Gay rights also includes shit like special legislation for crimes committed against gays. I disagree with this. murdering a homosexual should not be so special as to bring any harsher punishment or special consideration in trial as murdering a straight person.
Hey Lowing, I heard you flew into a building!? Well it wasn't me either.


On the Gay thing. If someone picks someone out of a crowd for how they look or act and assaults them based solely on that, it means that their crime is more senseless and more egregious than a regular crime and that that person is more dangerous to the public in general and therefore there their punishment should be harsher. I wouldn't call it special consideration, I would call it labelling the criminal to be a really dangerous POS to assault some stranger for no reason whatsoever.




And on the Gay thing.... religion does strange things to people. They go against their inner nature, imo there are a lot of people who live in anger and frustration because they can't or won't accept who they really are. Personally I have a good laugh every time some GOP or religious right character falls out of the closet. I have an even bigger laugh when they go to sexual orientation rehab. Its all such a load of bull. And you have to wonder why a person who is a self hater would align themself with other people who hate who that person really is. I guess its like the biggest whimp buying the biggest gun, or the guy with a really small dick buying the expensive sports car, its the "I can't be gay so I'll be the biggest gay hater out there and then no one will think I'm gay" which of course the guy really is.


IMO what people in organized religions are afraid of is that if gay becomes okay, then people are going to leave those religions that teach others to hate who they are [ie catholic priests anyone???].... I guess it all sounds kind of revolutionary evolutionary to me. The short story is that govt shouldn't be regulating morality, that's just socialism and an attempt to forestall society evolving out of the old dogma of the past. Organized religon shouldn't have its tenets encoded in our laws. If you want to follow a specific religion then all the more power to yah, others should be free to do what they want too. And the govt really doesn't need to be regulating who can and can't marry. its not like it used to be when you needed a license to have sex, which some really sensible people finally decided was none of the govts business either.
2010-03-09 00:02:12
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

Diesel_dyk wrote:

GOP or religious right ...

The short story is that govt shouldn't be regulating morality, that's just socialism.
hmmm...you were doing quite well until you mentioned socialism, since this shows you have no idea what socialism is, and if your definition of correct then Bush, Cheney and Republicans in general who are MUCH more concerned with telling people how to live their lives than those on the left are, are in fact all socialist.
2010-03-09 11:35:24
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,743|7023|Cinncinatti
I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic grade school, high school, and now college. I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't know if it's more the religion or the environment. I know some Catholics against gay marriage but most I know are open to it. It seems the vast majority I knowwould support.

The only problem I have with the topic of gay marriage is it sometimes lead to talk about gay sex.. Which I don't want to think about... And like abortion it can bring out the worst in people

Diesel_dyk wrote:

IMO what people in organized religions are afraid of is that if gay becomes okay, then people are going to leave those religions that teach others to hate who they are [ie catholic priests anyone???]
Maybe it's just my area, but I haven't encountered any priests like that..

About hate crimes. There just needs to be an equality in how they are decided if it is a hate crime or not. How is white on *insert race here* always seemed to be portrayed as a hate crime while an crime against a white person isn't even if by definition it is. Although I think the media has a lot to do with it .
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2010-03-09 12:44:41
Ticia
Member
+73|5621

Turquoise wrote:

Even if his excuse is true, then I'm sure his constituents also would have liked to know if their representative was gay.  I'm pretty sure if they are anti-gay in policy, they don't want a gay person in office to represent them.
Wait a second...shouldn't we vote in someone because they will defend our views even when they don't agree with it?

They got to do a poll in Bakersfield: Would you go for the gay guy who will vote like you want to or for the straight guy who supports gay rights?

The stupidity will come through.
2010-03-09 14:00:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Pubic wrote:

lowing wrote:

My problem is GAY RIGHTS. If gays are allowed this right, then all of us should be. Let us figure out why we would want to later.


Gay rights also includes shit like special legislation for crimes committed against gays. I disagree with this. murdering a homosexual should not be so special as to bring any harsher punishment or special consideration in trial as murdering a straight person.
Given the commonly-accepted definition of gay marriage then any of us, in theory, could marry someone of the same sex.  Not that we'd want to, just technically that right would be there.

You do raise a good point though, there is a very fine difference between allowing same-sex marriages, and only granting those rights to people in same-sex relationships.  The later of the two is just as discriminatory as current marriage laws or laws which advantage couples based on their sexuality, or some of the crime laws which you speak of.

Out of curiosity, do these crime laws specify that assaults etc on gays attract greater penalties, or do they simply say that greater penalties apply where sexuality is a factor?  (people have been "straight-bashed"...)
Gay Rigt activistswant them to. They want special hate crimes against gays which brings special considerations, punishment and circumstance to the facts of the case.
2010-03-09 14:01:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Diesel_dyk wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gay rights also includes shit like special legislation for crimes committed against gays. I disagree with this. murdering a homosexual should not be so special as to bring any harsher punishment or special consideration in trial as murdering a straight person.
Hey Lowing, I heard you flew into a building!? Well it wasn't me either.


On the Gay thing. If someone picks someone out of a crowd for how they look or act and assaults them based solely on that, it means that their crime is more senseless and more egregious than a regular crime and that that person is more dangerous to the public in general and therefore there their punishment should be harsher. I wouldn't call it special consideration, I would call it labelling the criminal to be a really dangerous POS to assault some stranger for no reason whatsoever.




And on the Gay thing.... religion does strange things to people. They go against their inner nature, imo there are a lot of people who live in anger and frustration because they can't or won't accept who they really are. Personally I have a good laugh every time some GOP or religious right character falls out of the closet. I have an even bigger laugh when they go to sexual orientation rehab. Its all such a load of bull. And you have to wonder why a person who is a self hater would align themself with other people who hate who that person really is. I guess its like the biggest whimp buying the biggest gun, or the guy with a really small dick buying the expensive sports car, its the "I can't be gay so I'll be the biggest gay hater out there and then no one will think I'm gay" which of course the guy really is.


IMO what people in organized religions are afraid of is that if gay becomes okay, then people are going to leave those religions that teach others to hate who they are [ie catholic priests anyone???].... I guess it all sounds kind of revolutionary evolutionary to me. The short story is that govt shouldn't be regulating morality, that's just socialism and an attempt to forestall society evolving out of the old dogma of the past. Organized religon shouldn't have its tenets encoded in our laws. If you want to follow a specific religion then all the more power to yah, others should be free to do what they want too. And the govt really doesn't need to be regulating who can and can't marry. its not like it used to be when you needed a license to have sex, which some really sensible people finally decided was none of the govts business either.
I am sure some on here wish I had.
2010-03-09 15:06:58
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

I am sure some on here wish I had.
don't flatter yerself.
2010-03-09 15:32:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Even if his excuse is true, then I'm sure his constituents also would have liked to know if their representative was gay.  I'm pretty sure if they are anti-gay in policy, they don't want a gay person in office to represent them.
Wait a second...shouldn't we vote in someone because they will defend our views even when they don't agree with it?

They got to do a poll in Bakersfield: Would you go for the gay guy who will vote like you want to or for the straight guy who supports gay rights?

The stupidity will come through.
Well, first of all...  Why would you support something you disagree with?

Politicians who get elected should represent the people, however, pretending to be anti-gay when you're actually gay yourself is the height of deceit.

You can't be anti-gay if you're gay yourself -- unless you hate yourself, and then you should seek therapy rather than election.
2010-03-09 15:59:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am sure some on here wish I had.
don't flatter yerself.
No worries, I don't. Watching you work up into leather over my  honest posts, is flattery enough.
2010-03-09 16:39:13
Ticia
Member
+73|5621

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Even if his excuse is true, then I'm sure his constituents also would have liked to know if their representative was gay.  I'm pretty sure if they are anti-gay in policy, they don't want a gay person in office to represent them.
Wait a second...shouldn't we vote in someone because they will defend our views even when they don't agree with it?

They got to do a poll in Bakersfield: Would you go for the gay guy who will vote like you want to or for the straight guy who supports gay rights?

The stupidity will come through.
Well, first of all...  Why would you support something you disagree with?

Politicians who get elected should represent the people, however, pretending to be anti-gay when you're actually gay yourself is the height of deceit.


You can't be anti-gay if you're gay yourself -- unless you hate yourself, and then you should seek therapy rather than election.
Why would a filthy rich politician who hires illegal immigrants ask for all mexicans to be deported?
They all have glass houses but if you are elected on ideas that are not your own, well own up to that. I don't ask for the ones in power to lead perfect lives, i just want them to do as i say when i voted for them.

And there are a good amount of gays who are against gay marriage,i don't think they need therapy just a good shove.
2010-03-09 16:47:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Why would a filthy rich politician who hires illegal immigrants ask for all mexicans to be deported?
They all have glass houses but if you are elected on ideas that are not your own, well own up to that. I don't ask for the ones in power to lead perfect lives, i just want them to do as i say when i voted for them.

And there are a good amount of gays who are against gay marriage,i don't think they need therapy just a good shove.
If you have someone who is extremely hypocritical in office, that usually implies they are doing a lot of things behind closed doors that are against your interests as a voter.

In effect, Ashburn showed he has no sense of shame.  When someone shameless is in power, that's a very very dangerous thing.
2010-03-09 16:50:20
Ticia
Member
+73|5621

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Why would a filthy rich politician who hires illegal immigrants ask for all mexicans to be deported?
They all have glass houses but if you are elected on ideas that are not your own, well own up to that. I don't ask for the ones in power to lead perfect lives, i just want them to do as i say when i voted for them.

And there are a good amount of gays who are against gay marriage,i don't think they need therapy just a good shove.
If you have someone who is extremely hypocritical in office, that usually implies they are doing a lot of things behind closed doors that are against your interests as a voter.

In effect, Ashburn showed he has no sense of shame.  When someone shameless is in power, that's a very very dangerous thing.
I'm sorry i thought you were american you would be familiar with it by now. My bad.

Last edited by Ticia (2010-03-10 12:28:02)

2010-03-09 23:26:37
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

No worries, I don't. Watching you work up into leather over my  honest posts, is flattery enough.
lmao...

work myself into a leather? hehehe. You have read books and stuff yeah? I think you mean 'lather'.

Please check your expressions before you use them, or learn better English. I know you're American but that's no excuse these days.
2010-03-10 12:13:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

No worries, I don't. Watching you work up into leather over my  honest posts, is flattery enough.
lmao...

work myself into a leather? hehehe. You have read books and stuff yeah? I think you mean 'lather'.

Please check your expressions before you use them, or learn better English. I know you're American but that's no excuse these days.
Sorry, I type fast, and proof read fast.  thanks for correcting my grammar. I will let the point stand, however.
2010-03-10 15:00:04
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6982|NJ
OH man going to grammer mistakes. That's so last year... No lowing is getting old and he's working himself into leather(tanning everyday).

I kid cause I care.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard