downtown

I don't hate the christian right as people, but I have zero intellectual respect for them. There's a difference between hate and intellectual respect. But I do agree with your above post. I'm not gay, but homosexuals have never tried to take anything away from me. I am, however, an athiest/agnostic, and have had to deal with intolerance from many so-called christians my entire life. It's clear that not all christians are hell-bent on restricting the rights of others, but then again, I wouldn't classify those types as "conservative right-wingers". Being a christian, however, isn't something you're born with. It's something you choose. People choose to be intolerant and disrespectful. It's odd how I linked the two, but I haven't seen as much press from the "Mormon's for gay rights" movement, so... Hypothetically of course, if you can tell me with a straight face that the Earth is 3000 years old while holding high influence in federal and state politics and then condemn homosexuals as being 'evil' and 'deserving of what comes to them', then yes, I do think it possible that you could be a bad person. Misguided at the very least. I'd like to say that such people are merely ignorant; products of their parents and upbringing. Because ignorant means that if they were educated they could be elevated above such prejudices and absurd beliefs. It would be horrible to think that someone knew all of the above and still chose to believe that some people are less deserving of certain rights and privileges than others simply on account of birth. It isn't American. Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech. There is a line to be drawn. Positive rights are not the same as negative rights. If some ann coulter or jerry fallwell believes it to be appropriate to go onto national broadcast and say that violence or discrimination against these minority groups is morally sanctionable, then yes, I have significant problem, as I'm sure you would as well. What frightens me is not that these wackjobs are speaking their minds, but that there is a hefty chunk of the population easily duped by them. Not stupid- ignorant. The rationalist progressive movement gives rights, the christian right restricts or removes them. This is obvious to anyone who thinks rationally, and when I say "rationally", I mean people who think objectively for themselves after weighing the different points of view and not alluding to an absurd book which refers to talking snakes and flying space people. I'm sick and tired of having to constantly defend a rationalist perspective from irrationalist ''faith''. It should be the other way around. Unfortunately the C students hold all the power... The definition of bigot you gave is perfect. You're demonstrably prejudice against homosexuals. Likewise, I am demonstrably intolerant against those who make it their job to knock down others- the christian conservative right-wing movement- which has finally had their grip loosened on US federal politics tuesday. There needs to be a direct and equal opposite to right-wing christian cultism. The reason they harbor so much power is because rationalists tend not to resort to theinsidious tactics the right-wingers use. Left wing pundits and politicians aren't as blood-thirsty. They rely on ''facts'' and ''books''. Ridiculous , I know. The reason I'm attacking right-wing christianity so viscously here is because that's more-often-than-not the voice of intolerance. In order to preserve their perfect christian nation, whereby all non-christians and gays are either removed or reduced to second-class citizens, they devote tremendous amounts of time and energy to affecting politics, directly and indirectly. So you're wrong when you claimed I'd love to have them off the air. I think it makes great comedy. Couldn't write half the [censored] they come up with. BUT, I would like for them to have significantly less influence over their listenership. Try and wade through what Old skool wrote so clearly and succinctly. He presents points I'm not clear enough to think of at the moment.

"the gays would have us believe" Clearly not alarmist or paranoid language. I stand corrected. Perhaps you should examine the situation though a more objective viewpoint. Being a drunk is not comparable to being a homosexual. I feel really bad for your sister because it will be unlikely she'll see any sincere support from you because of your bigotry. She's being treated as a bad person because she's following her heart and would rather be who she is than live a lie. I do agree with old school, when homosexuality is DISCUSSED in school, it's to counterbalance the negative messages that children are receiving from home. By avoiding conversation on body parts or sexual acts, the concept of homosexuality can be discussed in classrooms objectively without alluding do anything which may trigger parental consent, yes. What then should a teacher do if they're discussing life skills, current events, or relationships say when the students ask about homosexuality? Gay isn't a secret, it will come up. By addressing the issue rather than making it a taboo, especially in youngsters, they would be far less likely to hold negative opinion, like yourself, of homosexuality. Education is the way to prevent gay-bashing. Education is the way to allow those who ARE gay, to live without fear of bodily harm. How can you possibly deny being a bigot when you freely admit you think of gays as lesser? I do have a problem with the christian right shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who don't want them, yes. Its dangerous because it RESTRICTS the ability of others to do so as they choose, versus ENABLING others, as the so-called gay agenda does. If you really have a problem with the way your children could possibly be taught, perhaps you should register them in a private religious school, I'm sure those are hotbeds of acceptance and understanding. I see the connection you're trying to make with the alcoholic gene, but I'n not understand the parallels. Alcoholism is clearly a negative personal attribute, but homosexuality? Are homosexuals bad people? Why should homosexuals ''control their urges''? You're skirting your actual opinion of homosexuality here. Why can't homosexuals be homosexual, why must hey pretend? I suppose you'll never truly understand until you're a member of the oppressed.

Would you hire a gay, AD? Would you be accepting of your son or daughter if they told you that they were gay? The dehumanization of homosexuals by the christian right still baffles me. You're basing this opinion on what? Personal experience or a book? I'm still waiting for AD to address my questions. I will agree, though, that gay marriage threatens straight couples. If they see gays getting married, they'll obviously think marriage is tainted and want out. Common sense, right? I'm still not sure how simply allowing gay marriage means a teacher will tell people's children to shove a [censored] down their throats. Seems like an alarmist and paranoid argument. If straights are truly comfortable and happy with their marriage, this shouldn't really be a blow. If people are to fault for anything, its jumping on the marriage bandwagon when they shouldn't be.

I agree with all of the above. The entire institution needs to be dismantled and rebuild with a modern secular interpretation.

Versus the conservative christian agenda of pushing your beliefs down the throats of others. The only reason you don't see homosexuality as normal is because it's featured in the bible as being a sin, or because you yourself are too naive to realize that love has no gender. "Teaching the homosexual lifestyle in schools is a "minor thing"? You're either naive or purposely deceptive. You know how they got it by the parents in MA? They skirted the parental notification law by leaving out discussion of bodily parts and sexual acts. That way parents didn't have to be notified that their kids were being told homosexual relationships were "normal." god forbid we teach our children tolerance and acceptance. I'm being neither naive nor deceptive when I say that I, and many more, truly believe that the only way to a better society and better relationship statistics is through open discussion by way of agreement. I'll also note that a closet homosexual christian republican is far more likely to be living a dangerous sexual lifestyle than an openly gay monogamist. So I'm not too sure what you mean by 'gay lifestyle', but your implication is negative, which means your perception of the gay lifestyle is also quite negative. Define what you believe the gay lifestyle to be, because I don't see it much different than the heterosexual lifestyle, except of course, for the fact that many have to hide it because they fear discrimination at the workplace, social settings and schools. Do you sincerely believe that by openly discussing homosexuality or allowing them to get married your kids will grow up gay? Your mailman will suddenly become gay? You? A youth who grows up in a sexually repressive atmosphere, gay or straight, is more likely to have a morally ambiguous sexual lifestyle. Inversely, a child who grows up in an accepting environment, one where people don't call them things like ''unnatural'' or ''wrong'' would be more likely to grow up and pursue far healthier relationships. "This is the gay agenda: force the gay lifestyle down the throats of the "straight." If they don't like it, shut them up. Silence them. How? Call them names. Bigot. Homophobe. Whatever. Make them afraid to speak their mind. Force them to teach it in the schools. Force the Boy Scouts to allow gays in. (Tried that, but it failed)" By definition, someone who dislikes or discriminates against someone else based on sexual orientation, is a bigot. Yes. This isn't the gay agenda, its the progressive and rationalist agenda. And yes, force those who discriminate to become accepting through means of education. I bet you know plenty of gays and don't even know it. I also believe it would be wrong for the government to force the Church/Temple, etc. to marry people it doesn't feel like marrying, but if the Church decides to violate principles of human equality which the state recognizes, then they should cease their tax-exempt status and no longer be under the crutch of the state. I refuse to tacitly financially support institutions who discriminate by way of sexual orientation. "It's not normal and the vast majority of the world knows this" Is this supposed to be an argument? "It's not normal because we said so!" It sounds like you're explaining that there is a social stigma attached to homosexuality without explaining how. Blacks were considered inferior to whites because lots of people said so, too. But are they? Is your implication that homosexuality as ''abnormal," also "inferior"? "Gays in California have all the rights of the "married" already. They have civil unions. Not enough, though. They want to be accepted as "normal."" The ridiculousness of this statement had me chuckling. "Those faggots want to be married? Well [censored] them! They can't have my bible or my gun!" What is the gay agenda's insidious telos, if you sincerely believe there is one?

That type of "juvenile logic" also dictates that comparisons between two legally consenting adults are not comparable to incest or bestiality. I've made this point three times but you still don't comprehend. I fail to see how this would impact your own marriage. I expect you to return to my previous points which, instead of addressing, you've discounted. I'll make the point, again, that throughout history, men have been placed above women, whites above blacks and birth over personal equity, yet these so-called traditions, have been overcome with progressive and modern social standards. Unless you can make a valid argument without alluding to bestiality, incest, or rape which have literally nothing to do with homosexual marriage, I'll concede. But you can't. I don't want to think that you're a straight-up bigot, so you'll have to prove me wrong. And please, explain your interpretation of the history of marriage, because as a married man who's currently doing a masters in historiography, I'm rather curious. The last point I'll make here, is that there is not one rationalist argument against allowing homosexuals to participate in the institution of marriage that don't have to do with idiotic or ignorant comparisons to barnyard animals or rape or incest. If that's the only arsenal that the anti-gay movement has, history stands a better chance.

You're right, it's pretty obvious that you're not a constitutional lawyer. Your argument goes from rational to a reference of anal sex and how 'wrong' it is. It's basic intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the conspiracy theory of an insidious 'gay agenda' as if the gays are obsessed with restricting the rights of straights. I'm not calling you stupid though, because I don't think most bigots are. Ignorant perhaps. I'm also curious to how "equal but different" laws which in reality do not give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples, as mentioned before, could be considered good enough. Let's get this straight; they're good enough for closet homophobes but not for the actual people they impact- monogamous homosexuals. Also, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance. I refuse to stand by and allow those who use the mask of a ''different point of view'' try to RESTRICT the equality of others based on a bigoted and outdated self-professed tradition. If we're discussing traditions that are old and proven, let's discuss the wonders of slavery or gender inequality. Also, what does it even MATTER to you if loving adults are allowed to get married? How will it impact your marriage?

Ok, Luthier, I'm going to assume that english is not your first language, so bear with me here. The problem with your argument is that it compares a legally binding institution between two loving and and consenting adults (who are people legally enabled to sign legal documents) to barnyard animals. No rational person could make the same argument because it's bigoted, absurd and a mask for homophobia. Comparing gay marriage with bestiality is incomparable and unintelligent. As for the introduction of polygamy because of gay marriage? I'd be interested to know what this assumption is based on, sincerely, because I'm having a hard time understanding the comparison between, again, the legal union of two consenting adults with one adult and the subsequent power relationship between him and having numerous wives. I just don't follow your comparison. Also, the widespread paranoia that as soon as the legal institution between two monogamous adults is reinstutiuted into public law, everyone will automatically try to teach their children to be gay. I have an underlying suspicion about that as well; if you truly weren't homophobic, what would it matter if your child were gay? I'll grant that most conservative parents who are tied to traditional notions of sexually repressive religious tendencies will never be convinced that homosexuality is "ok", but I will question as to their motives for preventing people, who they don't know, from enjoying the same freedom that they do. It just doesn't seem very "christian" to me. Also, the matter of homosexual being natural is an absurd notion. I'm not a cultural relativist, but the idea that homosexuality is somehow against the laws of nature is an un-thought out theory. I hate to say, but if it exists within the human condition without coercion, as you attest there is none- a person is born gay, then how can it be called "unnatural". You're contradicting yourself by saying that people are born gay but it isn't normal. And to compare homosexuality with a disease, as most opponents do, is also a proven social error. I will agree, however, that the creation of two "different-but-equal" institutions of marriage will hurt marriage overall. Because there are two different methods of civil union, you'll see more straight couples participating in the "less-equal" method, thus a decline in actual "marriage". If there was one institution of marriage, couples would have no reason to take a separate route other than to simply live together, which is also becoming more popular. Any religious attribution to the intolerance of homosexuality is moot. Time is the only factor that can "progressify" the conservatively backward religious intolerance that is rampant throughout the US. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for years, and you don't see the degradation of any moral fabric, much less teachers preaching the benefits of homosexuality over heterosexuality in elementary schools. Any cases of this in the news are clearly isolated cases and have not been instituted on a grand scale. Events such as this are going to occur whether there is gay marriage or not and I don't see it as being a significantly different controversy than teachers openly discussing God in the classroom and explaining how athiesm or agnosticism lead to moral decline. All fears are based on bigotry and fear, conscious or not. I'd press you to try to understand your own perceptions of sexuality rather than what you've heard on the 11 o'clock news.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose. Why did Californian's vote to abolish the right for two people to get married?

I'd take you seriously if you could construct a proper sentence.

That's kind of a non-answer. Are you telling me that Bush's administration had nothing to do with two outrageously expensive and illegal wars?

I suppose what bothers me is the fact that the Joe-the-plumbers are hell-bent on securing the rights of the wealthy over the rights of the middle class and the under-class even though it goes against their own best interest. Anyone cruising this forum is obviously well-to-do but clearly not at the top of the economic ladder, which confuses my as to why they would not support tax plans which only serve to benefit them and those who need it the most rather than the wealthy. They're obsessed with protecting the wealth that they one day COULD have but WONT, and in doing so constantly vote against themselves. All this crap about wealth redistribution being dished out by the right is exactly the kind of ammunition that the left should be using. Obama isn't going to round everyone up and throw them in communist re-education camps and to suggest in any way that his tax plans are going to somehow hurt the poor or middle class is absurd and ill-considered.

And somehow you're the only one in the room who was able to decode his obviously well thought out deception. Well done.

Military service and having a vice presidential candidate you'd like to [censored] are extremely unintelligent and unmethodical reasons to cast your ballot. But i'd agree that indyberetta expresses what a lot of ignorant and misinformed Americans actually believe. It's unfortunate that such a low amount of intelligence can contribute so greatly to the running of the country. Actually I probably just answered my own statement; it's the fact that a great many Americans are as poorly thought out or misinformed as beretta would allow for the last 8 years of republican dominated government. Although the recent victory lends me some optimism, I still have doubts as to the overall intelligence of the American people. Most seem willing to do what campaign commercials tell them, a few willing to read and self-inform and others, albeit a minority, are willing to engage themselves actively and intelligently in the democratic political process. Hopefully Obama will engage the youth and informed population to reach out to folk like indyberetta to come to a collective agreement that ignorance isn't going to help America remain strong and that to truly remain at the top of their game they'll have to re-invent themselves into a more progressive and forward-thinking community. I suppose only time will tell.

That's very true that Mr.Obama will likely get blamed for much of the economic blunders of the Bush administration, but only by conservative pundits and no-nothing-Joes. I'd also argue that the couple years of what you call economic growth (although many americans will disagree with you), was a result of the Bush administration's policy of favoring the wealthy and large corporations. If anything, the couple years after his election was a result of the Clinton administration's economic policy, which I dare say saw exponential economic growth, moreso than the Bush administrations. So yes, we will see in 4 years if Obama can manage to undo the corporatism and financial recklessness of the republicans. Let's not forget the ridiculous expenditures of the Bush administration and the shift from a balance budget to one your children will be unlikely to pay off.

Do you have anything original to say or are you just going to stick to republican talking points?

It's ignorance and anti-intellectual thought like that which makes me both fear and pity the US.

Yeah, the wealthy can complain all they want, but democracy has spoken.

I was wondering why so many here are against Obama, but then I remembered the likely economic demographic of this forum. I love the forum, don't get me wrong, but I'm pretty sure most people here have a disposable income and are more concerned with that than positive social change. Most wealthy individuals trend towards Republicans.

glad to see the financial crisis isn't affecting everyone

its true. there's a positive correlation involved with that. if you wear herringbone you're more likely to wear a genuine.

yeah. live and let live.

Omega is issuing a new limited edition planet ocean 45.5mm for Quantum of Solace rather than a special 300m pro. linkeh

yeah, my father was a shipwright by trade. many yacht hulls have been copied. i can remember a brand of fishing vessels called Deltaga that had been copied in the 80s by private builders. most of the time they came out better than the 'genuines'.

i teach in an inner-city high school. to me, those who can afford to collect replica watches are far and above those who can't even afford to food on the table much less those who buy yachts and jets. i personally have a couple of replicas because i think they look great and i like the idea of having a mechanical watch on my wrist. i'd take a rolex if offered to me, but the monetary value placed on some of these things are unspeakable and in my opinion, robbery. i think those in the upper-middle class forget too easily that there are people struggling to make ends meat. (mind you they're bush republicans, so who's surprised?) if people have enough time to criticize those who collect watches that look like theirs, they've got either too much time on their hands or a problem with vanity. i'm fairly sure i saw the word ''wannabe'' in there somewhere. its hard for me to wrap my head around people like that.