Prop 8

[JohnG]

but he never loses hope, bless his little pumpkin head.

[Demsey]

Quotes himself. Such the wannabe.

[downtown]

I started the thread IN the bin because discussions on religion or homosexuality are seldom conducted with any sort of rationality or intelligence, so why pretend?

[AllergyDoc]

And your thread goes down in flames in classic RWG1 fashion...

And I had more to add to the discussion.

[JohnG]

Quotes himself. Such the wannabe.

Oh no, I think I will go swallow my tongue.

[onzenuub]

Oh no, I think I will go swallow my tongue.

At least someone swallowed something today

[JohnG]

And your thread goes down in flames in classic RWG1 fashion...

And I had more to add to the discussion.

Hey, we can mix the fun with the seriousness.

What were you going to say Doc?

[Demsey]

Yes please Doc.

Since when was a RWG freight train taking a dirt road an obstacle? As 'downtown' alluded, it was predestined and obstensibly conceived as a train wreck just looking for a set of tracks anyway...................

Continue.

[JohnG]

Shut up noob.

[downtown]

AD added plenty to the conversation, but quantity isn't quality. All I've really got from you is:

-gay is unnatural and equitable to alcoholism

-to be gay means you are undeserving of equal treatment of straights

-your sister may be gay and you think less of her for it

-the homosexual agenda is polluting the minds of young children, who should be raised ignorant of homosexuality

Each of your points is based on fear, hate, and ignorance, not empirical evidence or rationalist thought. Citing tradition isn't citing fact. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces from right-wing sources are alarmist and based out of fear. The article about the Mass. school, frankly, doesn't give any detail about the negativity of educating youth but calls out the stupidity and arrogance of the parents who had to be removed from the school's property.

There's a difference between your criticism of homosexuality and my criticism of the christian right. Your attitude is based on [censored] myths and ancient desert prejudices and mine is based on calling out the right for the ridiculous hypocrisy of their opinions and policies. There's a difference between prejudice and judging. I'm not pre-judging the christian right, I'm taking what's out there and saying that it's [censored]. You're taking what ''could'' happen if gays were allowed to marry and this ''slippery slope'', which frankly you don't day descends into what and what that means for society (but you know it's not good!). As far as I know, California didn't fall into anarchy while gay marriage was legal and Canada's still on the map.

I don't think I'll ever understand the actual reason why folks hate the gays other than superstitious fear and personal insecurities.

[JohnG]

I don't think I'll ever understand the actual reason why folks hate the gays other than superstitious fear and personal insecurities.

Well then you will have fat chance of convincing them that you are correct. Calling people fear mongers and bigots is not going to help others open their minds. I agree with what you say about gay rights and same sex marriage. But I find your rhetoric less than charming.

When it comes to the art of persuasion, a little humility and sensitivity towards views that differ from your own is AT LEAST as important as the rationality you so arrogantly boast of possessing.

[onzenuub]

Well then you will have fat chance of convincing them that you are correct. Calling people fear mongers and bigots is not going to help others open their minds. I agree with what you say about gay rights and same sex marriage. But I find your rhetoric less than charming.

When it comes to the art of persuasion, a little humility and sensitivity towards views that differ from your own is AT LEAST as important as the rationality you so arrogantly boast of possessing.

John you where going to see the tv, so go on.

[JohnG]

John you where going to see the tv, so go on.

I just watched the second episode of The Unit.

Greg recommended it to me. Oke?

[onzenuub]

I just watched the second episode of The Unit.

Greg recommended it to me. Oke?

What Unit ?

[JohnG]

[dred30]

I live in Florida and we had the same type of amendment to vote on, Amendment 2.

The beautiful thing about living in a Democracy is that everyone has the right to voice their own conflicting opinions with conviction.

There is no inherent constitutional right of marriage so Florida and California did the correct thing by putting the vote to the people.

The thing that people leave out is that there are thousands of laws on the books in the U.S. that protect the rights of civil unions and domestic partnerships and as long as these rights are protected this is really a mute conversation because the one thing is that everyone has a constitutional right to is equality without discrimination and equal protection under the law.

AD added plenty to the conversation, but quantity isn't quality. All I've really got from you is:

-gay is unnatural and equitable to alcoholism

-to be gay means you are undeserving of equal treatment of straights

-your sister may be gay and you think less of her for it

-the homosexual agenda is polluting the minds of young children, who should be raised ignorant of homosexuality

Each of your points is based on fear, hate, and ignorance, not empirical evidence or rationalist thought. Citing tradition isn't citing fact. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces from right-wing sources are alarmist and based out of fear. The article about the Mass. school, frankly, doesn't give any detail about the negativity of educating youth but calls out the stupidity and arrogance of the parents who had to be removed from the school's property.

There's a difference between your criticism of homosexuality and my criticism of the christian right. Your attitude is based on [censored] myths and ancient desert prejudices and mine is based on calling out the right for the ridiculous hypocrisy of their opinions and policies. There's a difference between prejudice and judging. I'm not pre-judging the christian right, I'm taking what's out there and saying that it's [censored]. You're taking what ''could'' happen if gays were allowed to marry and this ''slippery slope'', which frankly you don't day descends into what and what that means for society (but you know it's not good!). As far as I know, California didn't fall into anarchy while gay marriage was legal and Canada's still on the map.

I don't think I'll ever understand the actual reason why folks hate the gays other than superstitious fear and personal insecurities.

Edited November 10, 2008 by dred30

[downtown]

everyone has a constitutional right to is equality without discrimination

[Demsey]

I live in FL too dred. I did what I do every election and mid-term election, get the sample ballot in the mail, run down the proposed amendments, waterway acts, school district acts, judges, and other local government appointments etc. and decide which way to go.

When I realized the rehtoric of Amendment 2, I just rolled my eyes and decided to leave myself out of it. I just did not vote on the amendment as I had no good opinion of it one way or the other. I really, really, really didn't care, as I really, really, really don't think it means a toss either with regard to the civil rights of citizens. Other than the semantics of it, what's really at stake? Like, what? Filing income tax jointly? A deduction for a 'spouse'? The division of property if someone dies intestate? The custody of chidren? Come April every year I wish I WASN'T married. My wife owns a business, and it's very tax convoluted. I want no part of it. She's a tax wiz and accountant, and although she has NEVER been fined, she almost NEVER doesn't get notices from the IRS all Summer long asking her to produce documents and information that I am not privy to. We file separtately and itemize our own deductions; her, her business and me the mortgage, kids, property tax, home equity, medical deductables................blah. Regardless, if two people can not iron out a plan that will entitle them perhaps not the 'rights' of being married, but use civil law to offer them the same 'advantage', then so what? I'm happily 'married', but not as much as I am happily 'committed to someone'. The institution of marriage is bullsh*t. It's just the "law" and "government" getting involved in a spiritual union of two separate human beings.

I'm 49 in 2008. If I were 25 in 2008, I wouldn't even consider it. I would just commit to the woman, have the kids, and not worry about her having it 'just slip her mind' when it comes time to pay her automobile insurance premium, gets in a fender bender, and the other guy's lawyer finds out I have deep pockets and just because of a day we spent together with friends and family in a church in St. Pete and henceforth share the same name, he's coming after it. PHOOEY!

The homosexual revolution is pretty much complete in 2008 save for this issue. No one really gives a sh*t. I know I don't. I watch "Will and Grace" like it were the "Cosby Show", like it were "Leave it to Beaver" and go to Key West and hire the gay dive boat captain. Whatever already. I really don't know if I'm a homophobe. No one ever spelled out the term as it applies in a practical sense. I've never 'feared' homosexuals in public, in South Beach, on South Beach or in social situations, but then again I would fear going to prison. I think that's a 'rape' phobia though. I have a deep seeded fear of being raped by a big man named "Mamma". Yup.

If the homosexuals really wanted to be progressive, they would chuck the whole concept of archaic traditional "marriage" and create a new concept to and of themselves and then lobby for rights under that institution. THAT I would vote 'yes' on.

If in 1990, I went to the state legislature and announced; " I want to legally 'get married' ", and they said "No, just go, just be, just take care of one another, know the law and your inalienable rights as citizens, and just be happy". I would have been forever grateful.

I still don't understand what goes on behind closed bedroom doors between consenting adults and why "phobia's" are part of this conversation though. It's beside the legal premise. And it's gay.

[downtown]

Well then you will have fat chance of convincing them that you are correct. Calling people fear mongers and bigots is not going to help others open their minds. I agree with what you say about gay rights and same sex marriage. But I find your rhetoric less than charming.

When it comes to the art of persuasion, a little humility and sensitivity towards views that differ from your own is AT LEAST as important as the rationality you so arrogantly boast of possessing.

I can understand how it may seem abrasive. This is the problem with the democrats and those on the left. If they just act politely then perhaps the other side will come around. It just reminds me of the term "don't be an uppity negro" a little too much. This is why I admire folks like Bill Maher, Dan Savage, and Keith Olberman. They, far more articulately than I'm able to, express how the religious right have hijacked not only the Republican Party, but the US in general, starting with Reagan. It's this folksy pride in ignorance that is exactly what sways public opinion further to the right. We've got a situation now where you're beginning to see that racism, un-structured free market capitalism, and traditional concepts of social norms and religious beliefs are beginning to show their age and be worn away by progressivism, rationalism, and secularism. The US has been fooling itself for quite sometime that it's based on this absurd notion of a homogenous population, whereby everyone is a white christian capitalist- and that's just not the case. Old beliefs, such as homophobia and racism- the traditional "American" myth that has been officially perpetuated since before Jefferson wrote that blacks were unable to think for themselves, are in their death-pangs. I also don't think American history has been always moving forward and progressing. (example: the positive civil rights act of 1866 [yes, 1866] and ensuing negative lynch laws and state-sponsored racism that followed shortly thereafter). In order to prevent a backwards spin of social and political progress, these purveyors of progress need to keep a stronger and keener eye on what they view as radicals and those who resist positive change. There needs to be an equal or opposite of the right in order to maintain at the very least a balance. Should one stand idly by because to criticize is improper or impolite?

My parents are no friends of the gays and are huge bible-thumpers, but somehow I've managed to maintain a perfectly healthy relationship with them, so don't let my actions on a replica-watch message board confuse my actions in reality.

Now,

We've got one side who's principal philosophy is devoted to condemning others who don't follow their lifestyle to literally burning in the fires of Hell for eternity. They can be nice to you. They can say with a big smile on their face that your lifestyle and beliefs are evil and immoral, but that doesn't change anything. I'm unapologetic in my convictions. It's obvious that I'll never convince a Christian that their faith is based on ancient traditions that have little to no intellectual or moral currency in society, nor is that my mission. I simply see something that's unjust and I'm calling it out. I have no investment in being nice to someone who is blindly opposed to the lifestyle of my friends and family members simply on account on 'seemin nice'. For too long the left has had to apologize to the right for having different views.

It's unfortunate that terms like bigot and fear-monger (may have made an implication, not sure if I used the term) are being used, granted. However, to avoid the terms in favor of less-honest and euphemistic terms is, in my opinion, demeaning. I hate to say it, but sometimes people or groups are bigots and fear mongers. It happens on both sides. I don't think the radical left is correct in a lot of what they say, they can be bigoted and fear promoters, but more often than not, you'll see the ''mainstream'' right principally rely on tactics of fear and bigotry. The McCain campaign was calling Obama a socialist, muslim (as if that's worse or better than being a christian), communist, unAmerican , and continuously questioned his patriotism. Recent election results overwhelmingly in favor of Obama have shown that those tactics simply don't work anymore, people are starting to wake up. It's also fair to say that the last 8 years have been a train-wreck, so I have no doubts that that greatly contributed.

I also believe that christian conservatives can 'not' hate gays. I'm not, however, addressing them.

It's very frustrating that people are using the Bible of all things as a moral compass for homosexuality. The same book which tells people to turn the other cheek and do unto others as they would do to you, help the poor, etc. all things the right seems to campaign vehemently against. Bumper stickers that reads NRA Member side-by-side with a bumper-sticker that reads What Would Jesus Do? He wouldn't have a [censored]in gun or hate gays simply on principle, that's for sure! My point is, there seems to be very little 'thinking for ones' self' and more 'blindly listening to what your pastor and your parents' said back in '75 about gays'. I'll take a quote, not sure where I heard it, but "Christians need to be more Christ-like".

Ideally I'd be friendly and ''aw you hate gays? that's cool!" but that would violate my principals just as much as a social conservative allowing a gay to marry in their backyard would violate theirs. It's unfortunate that I've left so little wiggle-room, but I'm still young so there's hope. I'm slightly jaded.

[jake48]

This is why I admire folks like Bill Maher, Dan Savage, and Keith Olberman...

Now that's some real funny stuff right there. You think these guys are articulate? Do you really even listen to these guys? Are you trying to say you have never heard one of Olberman's psychotic hate filled diatribes? Never heard one of Maher's vain attempts to explain to anyone who will drink his cool aid that he is the arbitrator and keeper of the truth as it relates to all things religious? And Savage - a syndicated sex columnist? - now that's someone I look to for my truth in religion....

You need to get out a little more if you think sighting these guys as the basis for you take on religion gives you some kind of credibility.

Really - that's some funny shiat!

Talk about ignorance - the trio you hold up as intellectuals couldn't make one brain between the three of them.

Edited November 11, 2008 by jake48

[AllergyDoc]

AD added plenty to the conversation, but quantity isn't quality. All I've really got from you is:

-gay is unnatural and equitable to alcoholism

-to be gay means you are undeserving of equal treatment of straights

-your sister may be gay and you think less of her for it

-the homosexual agenda is polluting the minds of young children, who should be raised ignorant of homosexuality

Each of your points is based on fear, hate, and ignorance, not empirical evidence or rationalist thought. Citing tradition isn't citing fact. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces from right-wing sources are alarmist and based out of fear. The article about the Mass. school, frankly, doesn't give any detail about the negativity of educating youth but calls out the stupidity and arrogance of the parents who had to be removed from the school's property.

There's a difference between your criticism of homosexuality and my criticism of the christian right. Your attitude is based on [censored] myths and ancient desert prejudices and mine is based on calling out the right for the ridiculous hypocrisy of their opinions and policies. There's a difference between prejudice and judging. I'm not pre-judging the christian right, I'm taking what's out there and saying that it's [censored]. You're taking what ''could'' happen if gays were allowed to marry and this ''slippery slope'', which frankly you don't day descends into what and what that means for society (but you know it's not good!). As far as I know, California didn't fall into anarchy while gay marriage was legal and Canada's still on the map.

I don't think I'll ever understand the actual reason why folks hate the gays other than superstitious fear and personal insecurities.

Sigh...

Back to the name calling again. So full of righteous indignation!

All you've done is switch gods, from the gods of your parents to the gods of relativism.

"Sexuality is fluid"

"masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological"

Is this what they're teaching in college these days? No wonder you're so screwed up. Or is that a result of being raised by "Bible thumpers," the dirge of civilization (according to you)? It sounds like there are some serious issues there. Maybe some couch time for you? Therapy to help you work through your hatred for anything having to do with religion? Oh, just Christianity most likely, based on your obvious contempt for it. Hate the Jews, too? They go back further than the Christians and they don't think homosexuality is "normal" either. Then there's the Muslims. They don't like homosexuality, either. But you don't dare pick on them, though, not in "university." It's not "PC." You've made them a protected class.

"normal" vs. "abnormal"

I've taken plenty of anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc., and I have to say, Mr. College Boy, no way is it, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, "normal" to have an erect penis shoved through the sphincter muscles, past the anus, and into a rectum so that ejaculation onto a pile of feces can occur.

But just to prove it, I'm setting up a double-blind study, to be published in The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, vol. 6. We're looking for study subjects. Need some extra cash? You wouldn't mind, of course, it being normal behavior and all. Perhaps your sexuality would be flowing that way during the study.

Worst of all? You're boring.

[Demsey]

I've taken plenty of anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc., and I have to say, Mr. College Boy, no way is it, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, "normal" to have an erect penis shoved through the sphincter muscles, past the anus, and into a rectum so that ejaculation onto a pile of feces can occur.

THAT'S IT! Thow in the big guy named "Mamma", that institutional smell of things being heavily painted over annually and you have my "homophobia".

Good post Doc. It had real flow of pentameter, direction and conviction.

The best part? Now that you have gotten it out of your system, tomorrow you will be toe tapping into work, a whistle on your lips, and the people you work with, and perhaps your patients, whom you thought were getting on your nerves will seem like geniuses.

Gotta love a good unmoderated internet forum. Good for the soul and at a better premium than 'couch time'. Meh, works for me.

Cheers! Good to read your posts again....................

[downtown]

I guess AD's against blowjobs?

[jake48]

AD - I have seen you around the boards and took note that you were always kind and gracious in your posts and I see that you have done your best here. Thank you...

On the first page of this thread I commented "Isn't it amazing that when self professed "tolerant" people are exposed to a point of view different then their own, they immediately become intolerant and try and belittle the opposing point of view though the use of name calling?

Recently here in Los Angels there have been numerous protest re: Prop 8 were thousands have shown up condemning those who voted for Prop 8. These protesters exude the vial hatred and judgment they themselves claim Prop 8 supporters are guilty of.

Five pages later here and it seems there were plenty of people willing to illustrate my point by exposing their own refusal to engage in any meaningfully exchange of ideas without the name calling.

For me, I am not surprised that the topic of Religion was used to obscure the truth that biologically and physiologically there is no way any reasonable person can conclude that anal intercourse between two men makes any sense. After all - isn't the fact that men who are attracted to this type of sex what makes them gay? So how is it again that two men who want to get "Married" can be considered equal to that of a heterosexual marriage?

As far as the religious factor involved in this argument, as trite as it may seem given that the thought comes from a celebrity, near the end of this interview, I think Ben Stein sums it up quite poignantly:

[downtown]

Sigh...

Back to the name calling again. So full of righteous indignation!

All you've done is switch gods, from the gods of your parents to the gods of relativism.

"Sexuality is fluid"

"masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological"

Is this what they're teaching in college these days? No wonder you're so screwed up. Or is that a result of being raised by "Bible thumpers," the dirge of civilization (according to you)? It sounds like there are some serious issues there. Maybe some couch time for you? Therapy to help you work through your hatred for anything having to do with religion? Oh, just Christianity most likely, based on your obvious contempt for it. Hate the Jews, too? They go back further than the Christians and they don't think homosexuality is "normal" either. Then there's the Muslims. They don't like homosexuality, either. But you don't dare pick on them, though, not in "university." It's not "PC." You've made them a protected class.

"normal" vs. "abnormal"

I've taken plenty of anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc., and I have to say, Mr. College Boy, no way is it, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, "normal" to have an erect penis shoved through the sphincter muscles, past the anus, and into a rectum so that ejaculation onto a pile of feces can occur.

But just to prove it, I'm setting up a double-blind study, to be published in The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, vol. 6. We're looking for study subjects. Need some extra cash? You wouldn't mind, of course, it being normal behavior and all. Perhaps your sexuality would be flowing that way during the study.

Worst of all? You're boring.

Just as well, I'm not here to entertain you. Though, if you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying so much.

Is marriage a 'normal' institution or is it a social tradition? Is monogamy normal or is it, again, a social tradition? If so, why do you find yourself checking out other women, sexually, even though you're happily married? If monogamy was hard-wired into our genetics, meaning one partner, the same partner, for the rest of your life why would people get divorces? At one time divorce was a huge moral hurdle, but today it's common. Point is, even if something is ''abnormal'', like you claim homosexuality to be, why is it a negative? We've established that your point is that homosexuality is negative, I'm more interested on hearing why.

Although, I will say it is normal to want to pleasure the person you love or are attracted to sexually and receive sexual pleasure in return. Sex in general is good, apparently. Anal sex is enjoyed by many straights, male and female, many don't enjoy it. If the only purpose of sex is for procreation, how is it possible that you still want to have sex after your prime? Is that normal? If you've taken so many science classes, which I'm sure were very in-depth with human sexuality and sexual psychology, you'd probably know about the male prostate and it's relation to the g-spot. It may not relate to human reproduction, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in creating social and ethical policy. I've never mentioned once that everyone enjoys anal sex or that everyone is gay. I did mention that human sexuality is fluid, as you've quoted above. It's possible to be attracted to a member of your same sex. Does that mean you're gay? I don't know, thought probably not. I didn't coin restrictive sexual terms like gay or straight. You've also backed my point up by saying that you were concerned that a child could be taught to experiment sexually by a teacher. Does this mean that a child can be taught to be attracted to men? If so, does that imply that perhaps a solidly defined line of sexuality is hardwired into our genetic code? None of us can answer these questions without giving personal opinion.

Simply because a heterosexual doesn't want to have sex with another man doesn't mean that the act itself is abhorrent. The context that you're using 'normal and abnormal' here is maybe being misunderstood by both sides?

Jake seems to have a misunderstanding on what homosexuality even is, so I'd press him or her to read further into it and self-educate. Desire for anal-sex does not make one gay. No Jake. Sorry.

Hate and disagreement are significantly different. Now, onto the topic of other misogynistic, socially backward, ancient and superstitious religions. I don't hate christians or jews or muslims. I disagree with them on some points of the human condition and morality. I didn't mention Islam or Judaism because they have very little impact on public policy and represent an insignificant portion of the population, I didn't think it relevant, and assumed that my condemnations of intolerance would cover them also. I guess one can't make assumptions. I can respect the moderates who choose not to force their own belief system on others, be them jew muslim or christian. IDK, really. Believe whatever the [censored] you want to believe. I'll also refrain from going on an anti-muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or any other religious rant simply because i don't think its necessary. I could, but I won't. Youtube Pat Condel for someone who share's similar beliefs to myself concerning those religions. In public conversation I'm even more critical of contemporary islam than I am of contemporary christianity, simply because islam has not been able to modernize half as well as christianity has to western moral ideals. I'm not a cultural relativist, for the tenth time. I believe one culture can have a better set of morals and values than another. We don't institutionalize public stoning of women, execution of homosexuals or mandatory prayer, though some cultures do. Do I think we're better? In the mentioned respects, yes. Is that because of christianity? No, it's in spite of it.

If homosexuality is pushed to the corners of mainstream society, where it's not ok to be gay, they'll be increasingly pushed into the underground like it was in the '80s, where they'll be forced by social stigma to sexual promiscuity. Many young gay men are sexually promiscuous, it's a fact and it's dangerous for spreading STDs. But does that mean it's the fault of these men, or can blame be shared by larger society, which places a sigma on homosexuality? If homosexuality is embraced, celebrated and accepted into mainstream society, as it was in ancient Greece and Rome, you'll find a decrease in homosexual promiscuity and in increase in monogamy. The arguments for gay adoption seem not to center on the couple themselves, but on how larger society would treat the youth. It's unfortunate, it really is.

My final point before I'm done: It's not enough to just disagree with something like homosexuality just 'because'. Not when it impacts so many lives. Keep religious marriage to the church and allow gays and non-religious a legal equivalent.

Edited November 11, 2008 by downtown