I Guess Ms. USA

[John Adams]

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.

 

Here's a trick logic boy. I am perfectly willing to judge hurtful acts against people. Guess what? If one guy gobbles another guy's nob, I don't see that as particularly hamrful. It doesn't bother me in the absoute slightest. Even better, if two women want to marry, again, who gives a sh--? You see: I don't care if it's naturally ingrained or not. I really could care less: homosexuality IN NO WAY harms me.

 

The Rosa Parks analogy, if you can grasp it, was not that black people are like homosexuals per se, but that certain acts of defiance tend to act like lightening rods on social issues. This latest Ms. USA thing is a microcosm of that. You really did choose your name appropriately Stupid. You sought to convey some irony in your name and yet achieved only accuracy. Bravo.

 

 

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

 

Yeah there's never been a bad portrayal of a homosexual in the media! Good one Stupid.

[John Adams]

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.

 

That's the most insane thing I've yet read but at lest you admit you're nuts. What you and many others are actually proposing is to start legislating word-usage! No issues there.

[ExiledInIllinois]

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.

 

Sorry, I can't stay away... I have to speak my beliefs, I guess I am a coward.

 

Fair enough.

 

Notice I said steer (and I don't see any horns in that word ), not control. This is where the heart of the issue is. I believe homsexuality is a social lifestyle... It is something that one is NOT born with. And in that respect, one can steer people away from certain lifestyles. Just as one steers somebody away from doing other things that don't fit into the social mores of the times. True, that may be changing... Much to my displeasure and disappopintment. Not that I can't be tolerant of people (or my children) that embrace gay lifestyles, I can. Now if science can start proving one is born gay, I will be open to change.

 

If I can throw out another foil out there about what should constitute social "limits." Try this on for size:

 

Opening this door throws down a lot of timeless social mores. Our we to believe that the individual is now able to fly by their own "moral compass?" When we get to the point that a million people can do a million different things that is legally and socially accepted, what kind of order do we have? What is stopping somebody from marrying their relative say for benefits. Again, if there is social medicine in this country... I have no problem I have an easier time accepting the word "marriage" in a gay civil union.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That's the most insane thing I've yet read but at lest you admit you're nuts. What you and many others are actually proposing is to start legislating word-usage! No issues there.

 

There is religious connotations there... And I respect that.

 

Edit: I am sorry... I better start clarifying my posts and not just replying as I do... Assuming one can understand...

 

When I say "religious connotations", I mean with regards to the word marriage.

[John Adams]

There is religious connotations there... And I respect that.

 

Edit: I am sorry... I better start clarifying my posts and not just replying as I do... Assuming one can understand...

 

When I say "religious connotations", I mean with regards to the word marriage.

 

Some religious connotations and some not. Religion can't legislatively co-opt words.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Some religious connotations and some not. Religion can't legislatively co-opt words.

 

I agree.

 

Disagree, it is always dicey when you start offending one's religious values... Especially the MAJORITY. And we are talking DEEP social mores here.

[Alaska Darin]

I agree.

 

Disagree, it is always dicey when you start offending one's religious values... Especially the MAJORITY. And we are talking DEEP social mores here.

Yeah, God forbid you people face your own hypocrisy. Quick, tell everyone how you love the sinner but hate the sin - all the while treating the "sinner" as a lesser person because they're different.

[StupidNation]

Here's a trick logic boy. I am perfectly willing to judge hurtful acts against people. Guess what? If one guy gobbles another guy's nob, I don't see that as particularly hamrful. It doesn't bother me in the absoute slightest. Even better, if two women want to marry, again, who gives a sh--? You see: I don't care if it's naturally ingrained or not. I really could care less: homosexuality IN NO WAY harms me.

 

Because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean there is not a right or wrong, or that it doesn't harm society. Last time I checked you or me isn't the indicator of what is the best law or the right law, but objective reason outside of one person's feelings.

 

The Rosa Parks analogy, if you can grasp it, was not that black people are like homosexuals per se, but that certain acts of defiance tend to act like lightening rods on social issues. This latest Ms. USA thing is a microcosm of that. You really did choose your name appropriately Stupid. You sought to convey some irony in your name and yet achieved only accuracy. Bravo.

 

Oh no genius, that Rosa parks analogy is always used by the immoral showing an intrinsic link between "isms" that are wrong. It has little to do with defiance. People have, and do, equate racism with homosexual struggles. If you aren't aware of that don't discuss things... I mean are you honestly that stupid? Type in "rosa parks homosexuality" in Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search

 

What do you see you moron?

 

Yeah there's never been a bad portrayal of a homosexual in the media! Good one Stupid.

 

Did I say that? Of course not jacka*s, but pretend I did. My point was to see the media hiding or refusing to report on stories of homosexual abuse, and when they do it's not the same bloodbath if it's a "hate" crime against homosexuals. The few media outlets that do are small and insignificant.

 

You really live in a fantasy world.

[StupidNation]

By the way, I thought you weren't going to post here again because we are all just too stupid for Stupid?

 

I wasn't getting into homosexuality as intrinsically disordered as a discussion, just pointing out the hypocrisy of others and the media with an agenda which is a different issue. I said I wasn't going to debate the issue and won't simply because it's like discussing nuclear physics with elementary school children. I'm not saying I'm superior, and you're a caveman, but it would be tantamount to having me teach epistemology and dialectics to people who probably could care less while drinking beer and watching more TV than reading books to edify.

 

Just because you think what you said makes sense doesn't make it true. That's why I said I was done discussing the issue of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered.

 

Now if you want to know why I should care it's readily prevalent in today's world with more younger people wearing feminine make-up, more people choosing to be "different" and "special" by being the uber-queer person. It affects society and infects society. To say that there is no influence is to lack eyes and judgment.

 

Sorry, I was raised in a small town in upstate NY, and I'm in my early 30's. I never saw one kid in my school or schools around me looking like an absolute flamer, now it's becoming fashionable. If you think the favorable "queer eye" shows, and media treatment has no influence that's like saying music and pop-culture has no influence.

 

No father would rationally enjoy their son telling them "Dad, I'm queer" and while it doesn't affect me personally defending culture for principle's sake used to be honorable. You see that's the insanity of it all... I'm defending moral principles and to think our father's father would have found such discussions insane in the 40's and it's now considered vogue to defend public homosexuality as part of the liberty message shows how far these things do affect people.

 

Our culture as a whole is less intelligent but more educated with information that has little value to no value to the intellect as true knowledge. If defending those principles is against liberty, what the hell do you think liberty really means?

[John Adams]

Because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean there is not a right or wrong, or that it doesn't harm society. Last time I checked you or me isn't the indicator of what is the best law or the right law, but objective reason outside of one person's feelings.

 

Objectively, if you put your rooster in your boyfriend's mouth, IT DOES NOT HARM ME and IT IS NOT WRONG. There is no argument otherwise. You'd like to rely on some retarded "natural law" argument again but as rational beings, we can (and should) deviate from that when it is wrong. If we were subject to it, we'd be killing the mentally disabled and screwing whatever woman we wanted.

 

Oh no genius, that Rosa parks analogy is always used by the immoral showing an intrinsic link between "isms" that are wrong. It has little to do with defiance. People have, and do, equate racism with homosexual struggles. If you aren't aware of that don't discuss things... I mean are you honestly that stupid? Type in "rosa parks homosexuality" in Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search

 

What do you see you moron?

 

Stupid, Rosa Parks came up in THIS thread. Don't go out to the Internet straw idiots for people misusing an analogy. Stay on target mister logician.

 

Did I say that? Of course not jacka*s, but pretend I did. My point was to see the media hiding or refusing to report on stories of homosexual abuse, and when they do it's not the same bloodbath if it's a "hate" crime against homosexuals. The few media outlets that do are small and insignificant.

 

You really live in a fantasy world.

 

I have read a million stories about scary man-boy stalkers. Maybe you can't read.

[John Adams]

No father would rationally enjoy their son telling them "Dad, I'm queer" and while it doesn't affect me personally defending culture for principle's sake used to be honorable. You see that's the insanity of it all... I'm defending moral principles and to think our father's father would have found such discussions insane in the 40's and it's now considered vogue to defend public homosexuality as part of the liberty message shows how far these things do affect people.

 

I find it endlessly amusing that you think you have mastered the art of argument and yet rely on such awful premises to make your case.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I wasn't getting into homosexuality as intrinsically disordered as a discussion, just pointing out the hypocrisy of others and the media with an agenda which is a different issue. I said I wasn't going to debate the issue and won't simply because it's like discussing nuclear physics with elementary school children. I'm not saying I'm superior, and you're a caveman, but it would be tantamount to having me teach epistemology and dialectics to people who probably could care less while drinking beer and watching more TV than reading books to edify.

 

Just because you think what you said makes sense doesn't make it true. That's why I said I was done discussing the issue of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered.

 

Now if you want to know why I should care it's readily prevalent in today's world with more younger people wearing feminine make-up, more people choosing to be "different" and "special" by being the uber-queer person. It affects society and infects society. To say that there is no influence is to lack eyes and judgment.

 

Sorry, I was raised in a small town in upstate NY, and I'm in my early 30's. I never saw one kid in my school or schools around me looking like an absolute flamer, now it's becoming fashionable. If you think the favorable "queer eye" shows, and media treatment has no influence that's like saying music and pop-culture has no influence.

 

No father would rationally enjoy their son telling them "Dad, I'm queer" and while it doesn't affect me personally defending culture for principle's sake used to be honorable. You see that's the insanity of it all... I'm defending moral principles and to think our father's father would have found such discussions insane in the 40's and it's now considered vogue to defend public homosexuality as part of the liberty message shows how far these things do affect people.

 

Our culture as a whole is less intelligent but more educated with information that has little value to no value to the intellect as true knowledge. If defending those principles is against liberty, what the hell do you think liberty really means?

 

Taking Philosophy 101 at your local Christian community college in Boondocks, NY, doesn't make you an expert epistemologist. You don't want to continue debating the idea that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" because your understanding of the biological sciences is terribly flawed. Invoking "natural law" is a convenient way to claim a universal code for human morality without having to resort to the unsubstantiated idea of The Omnipotent Invisible Man. It also allows you to ignore the overwhelming evidence of homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom because humans, after all, uniquely posses free will...right? But then your very claim that homosexuality is immoral hinges on the theory that human sexual inclinations are entirely chosen (i.e., environmental and not genetic or prenatal) when no credible scientist has yet to - or probably ever will - make such a claim. Evolutionary scientists don't definitively know yet why human homosexual behavior persists in spite of the obvious fact that it doesn't lead to procreation (one interesting thought, for your reading pleasure: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519...xplained.html); however, a present lack of conclusive scientific knowledge for one claim has never suddenly been conclusive proof of the opposite claim...in this case, the claim that homosexuality is non-intrinsic.

 

Paragraphs 3-5 of your post are just loaded with ugly, nonsensical bigotry toward "uber-queers" and "absolute flamers." Your reaction to a hypothetically gay son is despicable. You admit that the media can have a great influence on our perceptions, so isn't it possible that the media has influenced your own opinion of how pervasive homosexual behavior is in young people today? That is, unless you normally loiter with the young ones (a la David Wooderson) at high schools and such despite being in your early 30's? Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the overall population, so even if their behavior is immoral under your personal code of morality, I doubt condoning their behavior is going to somehow cause the vast majority of marriage-minded heteros to dump their spouses and start getting it on in a decadently gay orgy.

 

The last sentence in your post really irks me. You have the gall to question my understanding of "liberty," yet you care so much about what people do in their private lives that you want government to regulate who gets tax/health care benefits based on whom they choose to love? I don't personally believe government has ANY business whatsoever in regulating romantic relationship contracts, and that includes heterosexual marriage. I believe government's only business is in protecting individuals from the forceful behavior of others and not from one's own behavior, including personal behavior that happens to offend sanctimonious pieces of sh-- like yourself.

[Kelly the Dog]

I have actually been waiting for Joe the Plumber to chime in on this issue, and boy am I glad I did... Apparently, Sam doesn't want any strange and unusual people, aka queers, anywhere near his children.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

JOE: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

[X. Benedict]

I have actually been waiting for Joe the Plumber to chime in on this issue, and boy am I glad I did... Apparently, Sam doesn't want any strange and unusual people, aka queers, anywhere near his children.

 

Because you never know when your lesbian dinner guests might start making out in front of the kids.

[Ramius]

I have actually been waiting for Joe the Plumber to chime in on this issue, and boy am I glad I did... Apparently, Sam doesn't want any strange and unusual people, aka queers, anywhere near his children.

 

So Joe the plumber posts on PPP as EII?

[Alaska Darin]

Taking Philosophy 101 at your local Christian community college in Boondocks, NY, doesn't make you an expert epistemologist. You don't want to continue debating the idea that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" because your understanding of the biological sciences is terribly flawed. Invoking "natural law" is a convenient way to claim a universal code for human morality without having to resort to the unsubstantiated idea of The Omnipotent Invisible Man. It also allows you to ignore the overwhelming evidence of homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom because humans, after all, uniquely posses free will...right? But then your very claim that homosexuality is immoral hinges on the theory that human sexual inclinations are entirely chosen (i.e., environmental and not genetic or prenatal) when no credible scientist has yet to - or probably ever will - make such a claim. Evolutionary scientists don't definitively know yet why human homosexual behavior persists in spite of the obvious fact that it doesn't lead to procreation (one interesting thought, for your reading pleasure: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519...xplained.html); however, a present lack of conclusive scientific knowledge for one claim has never suddenly been conclusive proof of the opposite claim...in this case, the claim that homosexuality is non-intrinsic.

 

Paragraphs 3-5 of your post are just loaded with ugly, nonsensical bigotry toward "uber-queers" and "absolute flamers." Your reaction to a hypothetically gay son is despicable. You admit that the media can have a great influence on our perceptions, so isn't it possible that the media has influenced your own opinion of how pervasive homosexual behavior is in young people today? That is, unless you normally loiter with the young ones (a la David Wooderson) at high schools and such despite being in your early 30's? Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the overall population, so even if their behavior is immoral under your personal code of morality, I doubt condoning their behavior is going to somehow cause the vast majority of marriage-minded heteros to dump their spouses and start getting it on in a decadently gay orgy.

 

The last sentence in your post really irks me. You have the gall to question my understanding of "liberty," yet you care so much about what people do in their private lives that you want government to regulate who gets tax/health care benefits based on whom they choose to love? I don't personally believe government has ANY business whatsoever in regulating romantic relationship contracts, and that includes heterosexual marriage. I believe government's only business is in protecting individuals from the forceful behavior of others and not from one's own behavior, including personal behavior that happens to offend sanctimonious pieces of sh-- like yourself.

Beautiful.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Because you never know when your lesbian dinner guests might start making out in front of the kids.

Have you see the stuff those kids can find on the internet? Of from sexting?

 

Let them see it, let them learn from it and LET them DECIDE for themselves!!!

 

They will do it anyway whether you like it or not !

[Bill from NYC]

Nobody should be surprised that the ban on gay marriage continues.

Now, before I go any further, my position on the issue is this: Although I think that gays are making a huge mistake wanting to be married, I give the issue lukewarm support.

 

The thing is, we live in a country where the "liberal" supreme court justices voted to seize homes of black people, in order to build yacht clubs for white people. Nobody seemed to care about that, right?

 

I respectfully disagree with my good friend John Adams about the "harm to others" issue, or at least the way he presents it. Imo, people can find harm in almost anything. Guys go to a bar and drink 12 beers and 12 shots of whiskey, then they complain that a person is "killing them" when they light a cigarette, right? The majority cheered at that ban, except of course the bar owners who should make that decision in the first place.

People who say that cigarettes increase all of our healthcare costs are correct. Did the gay sex role in AIDS increase our healthcare costs? That too would be correct. My point is that Americans, being brainwashed by politicians who are stealing from us, like bans.

 

Things that allegedly cause global warming (which I doubt even exists) will be taxed and or banned. Same with "non-diet" soda. I barely drink alcohol at all these day but to those who do.....taxes will double and triple. Some football stadiums are already banning tailgates, another pastime that will come to a screeching halt. Maybe the Senate has time for a few more "decency hearings" like they did after 9/11 so they can talk some more about Howard Stern.

 

I link the gay marriage issue as one which compares to steroids in baseball. Who freaking cares?

I do however have an issue with those who demonstrated at churches after the vote in California. They should have demonstrated in the black and hispanic communities, where the vote was approx. 70/30 against gay marriages. Instead, they picked on those whose religion shaped their stance. That was cowardly, and didn't help their cause.

 

End of rant.

[X. Benedict]

Have you see the stuff those kids can find on the internet? Of from sexting?

 

Let them see it, let them learn from it and LET them DECIDE for themselves!!!

 

They will do it anyway whether you like it or not !

 

Just for the record, if my lesbian dinner guests ever make out in front of my kids, I'll handle that as a teachable moment.

[RkFast]

Just for the record, if my lesbian dinner guests ever make out in front of my kids, I'll handle that as a teachable moment.

 

Ive had this happen to me and it did not go over well...with anybody, including some gay folks in attendence besides those two parkating in "how much spit can we swap and how much can I feel your breasts before dessert arrives?"

 

And the only "teachable moment" was teaching these incosiderate azzholes to save their PDA for somewhere where there arent kids around.

 

Man + woman or woman + woman. Keep your !@#$ing hands to yourself.

 

Go ahead...flame me for wanting people to show some manners and decorum.