ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I don't care that she said it. This is not a case of the PC police saying, "You can't say things like that in public." To me, this is a case of people expressing outrage about her exact opinion on the issue--this is about the issue, not her right to opine on it. Perez Hilton just set Ms. California up as the lightning rod for this issue. Similarly, there were a million instances of discrimination and defiance before that one woman refused to go to the back of the bus--it just turned out that Rosa Parks's one moment of defiance focused the dialog. And that is what I have a problem with. I have to admit it is very shrewd and it will work... People will be afraid to speak their real mind, no matter what position they hold. It closes constructive dialogue IMO. That is a selfish and distructive "trump" card the gay community is holding and they will use it at all cost in order to get what they want... Even if they don't realize the full social and political consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Why is it that the lady from California is getting pilloried for her view when during the campaign, Obama and Joe Schmoe both expressed opposition to same sex marriage and didn't get the same schit? It's because everyone knew they were lying when they said it, and people expect that from them... The problem in this country is saying anything with conviction will get you in trouble. But the politicians get rewarded for lying to us. Strange days we live in, strange days indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 The problem in this country is saying anything with conviction will get you in trouble. Look at the ridicule that I am getting ( ... Not that I have ever proven myself ridicule-free .. ). JA and the likes, liberal and conservative can't contain themselves. I never once said anything bad or hateful... Maybe hurtful... And to that, I say I am sorry. I am very tolerant... I just don't see it coming from the other side, the shoe is on the other foot and that side is proving to equally and more disingenuous... And what scares me is that I fear there is not even a moral basis of any kind to fall back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Look at the ridicule that I am getting ( ... Not that I have ever proven myself ridicule-free .. ). JA and the likes, liberal and conservative can't contain themselves. I never once said anything bad or hateful... Maybe hurtful... And to that, I say I am sorry. I am very tolerant... I just don't see it coming from the other side, the shoe is on the other foot and that side is proving to equally and more disingenuous... And what scares me is that I fear there is not even a moral basis of any kind to fall back on. Stick with the "I don't want my kids to be harmed by seeing two people of the same sex holding hands" argument. That's the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Stick with the "I don't want my kids to be harmed by seeing two people of the same sex holding hands" argument. That's the best one. Man you guys are stumps... Where do you come up with this sh*t. I said, that I would personally accept them. There is no harm with a same sex couple holding hands or whatever... I could care less if my children see gay actvity. I might be little dissappointed if the advance were to happen to say a teenage child... But, I would get over it. Marriage = defined limit. Now, if you want to call it "civil union", more power to them. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Tolerance is a virtue of the soft-minded and ignorant when it comes to acts. Acts of the will can be judged and should be judged. What cannot be judged is the intention unless it is explicit or implied. We are to tolerate people, but not their actions. That's why the Rosa Parks analogy is illogical and flat-out stupid. Homosexuals are not persons who are intrinsically linked to homosexuality, they are people who do homosexual acts. You cannot equate the person with the act, whereas in race you can. Ergo, the analogy is stupid. The key here is that there is no evidence of homosexuality linked to the person, just circumspect studies typically done with an aim to prove their pre-disposed beliefs. There are no facts. I'm only getting into the act of tolerance and analogy, not the act of homosexuality. I mean it's funny that views against public homosexuality, using natural law as an argument, are excoriated publicly and through the media, whereas those who hold aberrant and evil views are given a free pass and championed through the media. It's not a coincidence. When the movie L.I.E came out movie critics loved it and it got rave reviews. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242587/ But when people say homosexuality is intrinsically disordered where is our outlet to publicly disseminate our views? No, the intolerant gestapo of the left is far more violent than the claims of intolerance of the right. The use of liguistic gymnastics is now the ploy of the immoral with buzz phrases rather than rational discussion: phobia, hate, tolerance, etc.. Yet strangely when they attack pro-lifers physically, or those speaking out against homosexuality I never see the media brigade. When I see the outcry against L.I.E from the media let me know, until then they will see evil when a teacher or cleric does it, but not when it suits their agenda. If anyone thinks the media is neutral on this issue look up the Jesse Dirkhising. Here is a boy that was raped, beaten, and starved to death by homosexuals. Yet, not a peep out of the media. Reverse the situation and make it a "hate" crime. It would be on newsstands, TV, and everywhere else. This is not a coincidence. Here is a story on the 13 year old: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29026 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 L.I.E. got pretty good reviews because it was considered pretty good film-making, writing, acting, editing, etc. That's what reviews are. They are not about promoting or rejecting the subject matter, it is the treatment of the subject matter. The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal Lecter got great reviews, too. Was that making any statement on whether cannibalism is good or bad? They don't call him stupid for nothin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Look at the ridicule that I am getting ( ... Not that I have ever proven myself ridicule-free .. ). JA and the likes, liberal and conservative can't contain themselves. I never once said anything bad or hateful... Maybe hurtful... And to that, I say I am sorry. I am very tolerant... I just don't see it coming from the other side, the shoe is on the other foot and that side is proving to equally and more disingenuous... And what scares me is that I fear there is not even a moral basis of any kind to fall back on. Yes you have. In post #85 of this thread, you recall the stereotype of the dangerous AIDS-infested homosexual as a reason for denying the opportunity for gay couples to have the same health care rights as heterosexual couples. In post #126, you use another tired stereotype of the homosexual relationship - based purely on the carnal - as a foil for heterosexual relationships that are implied to be based on more "noble" concepts like love. In post #180, you express emotions of anger and disappointment upon the theoretical discovery of a relative's homosexuality. And pretty much all of your posts in this thread make reference to some nebulous contempt for gay marriage because it personally makes you feel disgusted and uncomfortable. You have also repeatedly failed to articulate how condoning gay marriage will unravel the social fabric of our country, why the gay marriage issue alone deserves so much focus if one assumes social standards happen to be in a grave state of crisis at all, or whether gay marriage is even "immoral" by any universal (read: non-religious) standards of human ethics. And perhaps worst of all, you continue to invoke a "tyranny of the majority" rationale (example: post #138 of this thread) for using government to deny gays the same rights as heteros...the very antithesis of thought upon what this once great country was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Tolerance is a virtue of the soft-minded and ignorant when it comes to acts. Acts of the will can be judged and should be judged. What cannot be judged is the intention unless it is explicit or implied. We are to tolerate people, but not their actions. That's why the Rosa Parks analogy is illogical and flat-out stupid. Homosexuals are not persons who are intrinsically linked to homosexuality, they are people who do homosexual acts. You cannot equate the person with the act, whereas in race you can. Ergo, the analogy is stupid. The key here is that there is no evidence of homosexuality linked to the person, just circumspect studies typically done with an aim to prove their pre-disposed beliefs. There are no facts. I'm only getting into the act of tolerance and analogy, not the act of homosexuality. I mean it's funny that views against public homosexuality, using natural law as an argument, are excoriated publicly and through the media, whereas those who hold aberrant and evil views are given a free pass and championed through the media. It's not a coincidence. When the movie L.I.E came out movie critics loved it and it got rave reviews. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242587/ But when people say homosexuality is intrinsically disordered where is our outlet to publicly disseminate our views? No, the intolerant gestapo of the left is far more violent than the claims of intolerance of the right. The use of liguistic gymnastics is now the ploy of the immoral with buzz phrases rather than rational discussion: phobia, hate, tolerance, etc.. Yet strangely when they attack pro-lifers physically, or those speaking out against homosexuality I never see the media brigade. When I see the outcry against L.I.E from the media let me know, until then they will see evil when a teacher or cleric does it, but not when it suits their agenda. If anyone thinks the media is neutral on this issue look up the Jesse Dirkhising. Here is a boy that was raped, beaten, and starved to death by homosexuals. Yet, not a peep out of the media. Reverse the situation and make it a "hate" crime. It would be on newsstands, TV, and everywhere else. This is not a coincidence. Here is a story on the 13 year old: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29026 This seems to be the crux of your entire argument: that homosexuals choose their behavior because they have chosen to be gay. You can't prove that to be true at the moment based on our current understanding of the biological sciences, just like I can't prove the opposite at the moment (but who knows what scientists will discover years from now). Reason, however, should guide us to 2 key points: 1. Gays don't choose to be gay in the same way that (presumably) us heterosexuals don't choose our own id-like inclinations for ladies with low waist-hip ratios, symmetrical faces, smooth skin, and big ol' titties. 2. Even if gay behavior is completely chosen, why the !@#$ does it matter to you personally or to government so long as their gay behavior isn't interfering with your own individual liberties and willful pursuit of happiness? By the way, I thought you weren't going to post here again because we are all just too stupid for Stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Yes you have. In post #85 of this thread, you recall the stereotype of the dangerous AIDS-infested homosexual as a reason for denying the opportunity for gay couples to have the same health care rights as heterosexual couples. In post #126, you use another tired stereotype of the homosexual relationship - based purely on the carnal - as a foil for heterosexual relationships that are implied to be based on more "noble" concepts like love. In post #180, you express emotions of anger and disappointment upon the theoretical discovery of a relative's homosexuality. And pretty much all of your posts in this thread make reference to some nebulous contempt for gay marriage because it personally makes you feel disgusted and uncomfortable. You have also repeatedly failed to articulate how condoning gay marriage will unravel the social fabric of our country, why the gay marriage issue alone deserves our focus if one assumes social standards happen to be in a state of crisis at all, or whether gay marriage is even "immoral" by any universal (read: non-religious) standards of human ethics. And perhaps worst of all, you continue to invoke a "tyranny of the majority" rationale (example: post #138 of this thread) for using government to deny gays the same rights as heteros...the very antithesis of thought upon what this once great country was founded. You are right (blue)... I have contempt for using the word "marriage"... I have no problem with "civil union" and it doesn't personally make me feel disgusted... Uncomfortable, yes... But that I can get over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Man you guys are stumps... Where do you come up with this sh*t. I said, that I would personally accept them. There is no harm with a same sex couple holding hands or whatever... I could care less if my children see gay actvity. I might be little dissappointed if the advance were to happen to say a teenage child... But, I would get over it. Marriage = defined limit. Now, if you want to call it "civil union", more power to them. That's all. You mean because homosexuals are more predisposed to be pedophiles than heterosexuals? Any other fearmongering you'd like to throw out there? Marriage = word. You = coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 You mean because homosexuals are more predisposed to be pedophiles than heterosexuals? Any other fearmongering you'd like to throw out there. Marriage = word. You = coward. No, not at all... I would prefer to steer them straight. If I can't, I don't want to have a harder time at steeriing them in the direction I prefer. And please read the ToS... As a Mod, it would behoove you... Enough of the name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Marriage = word. You = coward. What about marrying cows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 No, not at all... I would prefer to steer them straight. If I can't, I don't want to have a harder time at steeriing them in the direction I prefer. I wonder if any other historical figures tried to do similar things with entire classes of people? Perhaps I'll try to steer you smart. I guess the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" needs to be caveated with "as long as Eric and the rest of the mouthbreathers agree". And please read the ToS... As a Mod, it would behoove you... Enough of the name calling. I don't have to read the ToS. You called me a stump. It's no surprise to me that you can't take what you dish out - it's just a continuation of your overwhelming hypocrisy. Now run along, there are gay people who YOU need to steer straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I wonder if any other historical figures tried to do similar things with entire classes of people? Perhaps I'll try to steer you smart. I don't have to read the ToS. You called me a stump. It's no surprise to me that you can't take what you dish out - it's just a continuation of your overwhelming hypocrisy. Now run along, there are gay people who YOU need to steer straight. Aha, you used "steer" twice, another cow reference. Was the castration part intentional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 I wonder if any other historical figures tried to do similar things with entire classes of people? Perhaps I'll try to steer you smart. I guess the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" needs to be caveated with "as long as Eric and the rest of the mouthbreathers agree". I don't have to read the ToS. You called me a stump. It's no surprise to me that you can't take what you dish out - it's just a continuation of your overwhelming hypocrisy. Now run along, there are gay people who YOU need to steer straight. I apologize to all, especially you Darin. Everybody knows my take... I am still open minded to the whole lifestyle, I draw the line at the word "marriage" for reasons that I may not be conveying correctly. It is what is. Again... I stand firm at denying them the word... I don't believe it is in within their rights... So I will let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Just one more thing to clarify... I thought we were talking about my children... It is them that only I can direct. I am sorry you took it to mean all gay people. Of course I can't control them (other people outside of my children). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Two old queens tearing into miss California the other night on PMSNBC. Olberman and some other gay reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Two old queens tearing into miss California the other night on PMSNBC. Olberman and some other gay reporter. I think it is so cool we have two celebrities posting on this board. Tim Graham is cool, but he doesn't hold a candle to Rush posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 And that is what I have a problem with. I have to admit it is very shrewd and it will work... People will be afraid to speak their real mind, no matter what position they hold. It closes constructive dialogue IMO. That is a selfish and distructive "trump" card the gay community is holding and they will use it at all cost in order to get what they want... Even if they don't realize the full social and political consequences. People pro-gay marriage aren't afraid to speak their mind unless they are weak. Most against aren't either. She's being villified for her opinion, not her freedom to express it. That's what happens when people disagree. They attack the other's opinion. She's being judged for hers. As you're judging me as wrong for mine. And although you are right that the majority of US citizens think the way you do, it's like I said: the tide is turning and when enough people like you die off, the tide will have turned and today's children will look on you in the exact same way that many today look at their racist grandparents: ignorant and pitiful. You cannot steer the sexuality of your children. Forcing that kind of issue is a sure way to !@#$ up your kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts