pfflam, your "note" cracked me up hard! I almost spit Pepsi all over the Cinema 23", almost. As to the "Queer Studies...", man you got me on that one. I fess up that I wasn't aware of such a thing. As I posted before, I admit that I kneejerked somewhat on the title. Guilty as charged.
I'll take a gamble here and say that MOST AI'ers subscribe to the "think different" mantra. I would think this implies that Apple users tend to be more open minded and better educated than their greater numbered PC using bretheren. Well, it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world, does it?
The main reason the government is sticking its nose into this is from Religious pressure. The Religious Conservative Christian Right. What a hypocritical group of folks their so called leaders comprise. There's a very good reason the founding fathers wanted religion and state separated. Granted, they never could have imagined the social environment we're in now. They were wise and far sighted beyond their individual human failings.
Screw you, Nick. I am sick of your shit. Now gays aren't oppressed? Gays are oppressed and repressed left and right in our backwards, religion-encrusted
Sure, we were never enslaved, but that doesn't mean that we are not victims of this society, that we have not be abused for no good reason, that we don't deserve to protest for equality, just like any other group trodden upon by the white, male, heterosexual majority.
Kirk
Is that an offer?
To suggest homosexuals are oppressed the same way many minorities are is just nonsense because unless you broadcast your sexuality, no one can act on it. Like I said you are welcome to show me the "gay" drinking fountains or even the gay equal to Jim Crow laws.
As for abuse, there are plenty of members of every group who have been mistreated by society. There have been a few hate crimes against all members of society. Only if a gang of four black men beat up one white man, it doesn't make nationwide news. Don't think that doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
So as for being sick, you are welcome to gag at my posts. I know I am correct on this issue. If marriage were such a wonderful right, hetersexuals in both the U.S. and Europe wouldn't be abandoning it in record numbers. Marriage is just as much as series of legal entanglements as it is a "right." People who are hetersexual and homosexual do want the rights, but don't want the entanglements. As I have said, homosexual marriage will not address that for anyone.
Heterosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'marriage' and homosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'civil unions'.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
All it shows is that the only right homosexual can claim to have been denied is a right given to a man and a woman. People are even quibbling about the word. It isn't even like a seperate drinking fountain. It would be more like calling what comes out of the fountain water for a man and a woman, and aqua for homosexuals.
That is the type of quibbling that is going on in the discussion between marriage and civil unions.
The point is that homosexual couples don't have the opportunity to abandon it whether they wanted to or not.
If in 50 years time we can cite statistics saying 'gay people turn their back on marriage' that's still an advance.
As I mentioned, marriage has more entanglements than rights. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals want the rights without the entanglements. That is the true civil rights agenda if ever there were one.
If we pursued that then we could end several forms of welfare corruption, overturning of prenuptual agreements, lower the rate of divorce, advance rights for father and homosexuals.
People want the rights, it doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual.
All it shows is that the only right homosexual can claim to have been denied is a right given to a man and a woman. People are even quibbling about the word. It isn't even like a seperate drinking fountain. It would be more like calling what comes out of the fountain water for a man and a woman, and aqua for homosexuals.
That is the type of quibbling that is going on in the discussion between marriage and civil unions.
Nick
But if it really is the same thing, why can't it be called by the same name?
Anyway, the discrimination isn't in what the stuff that comes out of the drinking fountain is called, it's the fact that 'men and women' and homosexuals can't drink out of the same damn thing. That's the problem here.
Feel free to insult that which you don't understand. Fear is what you act on with your name calling.
Nick
Just like all your posts . . . false righteousness and pompous swagger . . . full of emptiness
You don't know what gay people deal with, not so much today, but in the past it was serious oppression . . . constant fear of discovery and general social censure
Don't mistake the visibility of Gays in the media as acceptance . . . just because queer eye exists on TV doesn't mean that my gay neighbors aren't still ostracized by the average semi-rural population of kindly-lovin christians here in Wisconsin . . . and believe me, if you look like a lesbian you will still hear the epithets hurled from passing cars
and what is all this twaddle about "entanglements" . . . as if your silly vocabulary actually touches bases with real concepts as expressed in logical argument
I still can't agree with gay marriage. It's just not right. I don't like to see this happening.
Fair enough, it is your right to disagree. But....how does gay marriage affect *you*? Marriage is a legal contract between two people....it's their business, and not yours, or mine, or the government's....end of story. Why should gay partners who are committed to each other be denied the rights of married couples? If anyone is trashing 'institution of marriage" its people like Britney Spears....
Just like all your posts . . . false righteousness and pompous swagger . . . full of emptiness
You don't know what gay people deal with, not so much today, but in the past it was serious oppression . . . constant fear of discovery and general social censure
Don't mistake the visibility of Gays in the media as acceptance . . . just because queer eye exists on TV doesn't mean that my gay neighbors aren't still ostracized by the average semi-rural population of kindly-lovin christians here in Wisconsin . . . and believe me, if you look like a lesbian you will still hear the epithets hurled from passing cars
and what is all this twaddle about "entanglements" . . . as if your silly vocabulary actually touches bases with real concepts as expressed in logical argument
EDIT: removal of causus belli
You are becoming very good at ranting.
I know plenty of homosexuals and I know plenty of what they deal with. I have a homosexual aunt and uncle. If you think that you can study music in Long Beach and also go into elementary education without encountering homosexuals, well then you don't know much about the homosexual community.
It's in my family. It's in my neighborhood. It's in my profession. It's in my major. They've been my fraternity brothers, my faculty advisors, and even my renters.
So I don't just see them on T.V. or whatever other nonsense you make up in your caricatured, stereotypical shortcuts that you increasingly call critical thought.
Sure maybe they still get some grief in Wisconsin. But so did anyone who grew up too fat, to tall, with a funny name, (try figuring out what rhymes with Nick for fun on a Friday night) anyone with buck-teeth, ugly hair, whatever. Someone will always feel the need to put someone down to make themselves stand a little taller. That is a human nature issue, not a civil rights issue.
Oh and I suppose no hateful epitaphs would fly out a car window for an interacial couple or perhaps even a minority couple under the same possible circumstances even though they already have the right to marry.
Everyone can be taunted for something. No one can make you feel inferior without your own consent. Someday your answers will address the problems instead of just insulting others to endorse solutions to nothing.
I know plenty of homosexuals and I know plenty of what they deal with. I have a homosexual aunt and uncle. If you think that you can study music in Long Beach and also go into elementary education without encountering homosexuals, well then you don't know much about the homosexual community.
It's in my family. It's in my neighborhood. It's in my profession. It's in my major. They've been my fraternity brothers, my faculty advisors, and even my renters.
So I don't just see them on T.V. or whatever other nonsense you make up in your caricatured, stereotypical shortcuts that you increasingly call critical thought.
Sure maybe they still get some grief in Wisconsin. But so did anyone who grew up too fat, to tall, with a funny name, (try figuring out what rhymes with Nick for fun on a Friday night) anyone with buck-teeth, ugly hair, whatever. Someone will always feel the need to put someone down to make themselves stand a little taller. That is a human nature issue, not a civil rights issue.
Oh and I suppose no hateful epitaphs would fly out a car window for an interacial couple or perhaps even a minority couple under the same possible circumstances even though they already have the right to marry.
Everyone can be taunted for something. No one can make you feel inferior without your own consent. Someday your answers will address the problems instead of just insulting others to endorse solutions to nothing.
Nick
that's all fine and good . . . and even witty too
however, just because interracial couples still get epithets does not back up an argument that there does not exist oppression
and just because soem fat kid with a funny sounding name got insulted growing up does not mean that things can not be brought to a better state of equity
and just because you had contact with gay people as a music student in Long Beach doesn't mean that you saw what they go through, that you felt the cold sholder
I have lived in more cities in my life then you have visitted (a little hyperbole here) and I have encountered many gay people in each city and also very close to me in my family and extended family, and they are not all of them simply looking to lay their burdens on a boogie-man phantom by saying that they have dealt with descrimination . . . it is real
I'm not advocating too much should be done about it, things will change,
but oine of those things that should change is the legality of Homosexual marriage . . . let it be, what do you care?
If some couples find that "entanglements" are exactly what they need to show a level of commitment and to thus deepen their love then SO WHAT?!?!?!
If they want to feel the sting of divorce court . . then SO WHAT?!?!?!
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
Nope, just of losing their home and livlihood and being shut away in an institution or imprisoned for their twisted love. But I guess since that's no longer legal in California they should just sit down, shut up, and thank society for it's largesse.
this is sad but expected, after all this is the screwiest city in the screwiest state on earth, i call it the granola bar state, take out the fruits and nuts, and all ya have is flakes (AKA Holywood types).
they have befowled an instatution of 5000 plus years in a singal weekend, while marrage is a legal thing it ia a huge social and religious thing, cival unions, i think its creapy but ok, i dont give a damn what you do when the drapes are shut, but this incuranse thing is bogas, it is a known risk, like smoking or being a booze-hound
Nope, just of losing their home and livlihood and being shut away in an institution or imprisoned for their twisted love. But I guess since that's no longer legal in California they should just sit down, shut up, and thank society for it's largesse.
Uh, basically whatever?!?
My aunt and uncle have been openly gay since the 60's. They aren't institutionalized, imprisoned nor even poor.
But you keep conjuring up windmills to attack, ok?
Comments
I'll take a gamble here and say that MOST AI'ers subscribe to the "think different" mantra. I would think this implies that Apple users tend to be more open minded and better educated than their greater numbered PC using bretheren. Well, it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world, does it?
The main reason the government is sticking its nose into this is from Religious pressure. The Religious Conservative Christian Right. What a hypocritical group of folks their so called leaders comprise. There's a very good reason the founding fathers wanted religion and state separated. Granted, they never could have imagined the social environment we're in now. They were wise and far sighted beyond their individual human failings.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Screw you, Nick. I am sick of your shit. Now gays aren't oppressed? Gays are oppressed and repressed left and right in our backwards, religion-encrusted
Sure, we were never enslaved, but that doesn't mean that we are not victims of this society, that we have not be abused for no good reason, that we don't deserve to protest for equality, just like any other group trodden upon by the white, male, heterosexual majority.
Kirk
Is that an offer?
To suggest homosexuals are oppressed the same way many minorities are is just nonsense because unless you broadcast your sexuality, no one can act on it. Like I said you are welcome to show me the "gay" drinking fountains or even the gay equal to Jim Crow laws.
As for abuse, there are plenty of members of every group who have been mistreated by society. There have been a few hate crimes against all members of society. Only if a gang of four black men beat up one white man, it doesn't make nationwide news. Don't think that doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
So as for being sick, you are welcome to gag at my posts. I know I am correct on this issue. If marriage were such a wonderful right, hetersexuals in both the U.S. and Europe wouldn't be abandoning it in record numbers. Marriage is just as much as series of legal entanglements as it is a "right." People who are hetersexual and homosexual do want the rights, but don't want the entanglements. As I have said, homosexual marriage will not address that for anyone.
Nick
Originally posted by Jubelum
Nick, will you marry me?
Um, on second thought...
Grab to polygamy rights signs boys and girls, we are hitting the state capital!
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Like I said you are welcome to show me the "gay" drinking fountains or even the gay equal to Jim Crow laws.
Heterosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'marriage' and homosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'civil unions'.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Originally posted by trumptman
If marriage were such a wonderful right, hetersexuals in both the U.S. and Europe wouldn't be abandoning it in record numbers.
The point is that homosexual couples don't have the opportunity to abandon it whether they wanted to or not.
If in 50 years time we can cite statistics saying 'gay people turn their back on marriage' that's still an advance.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Heterosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'marriage' and homosexual 'drinking fountains' are called 'civil unions'.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
All it shows is that the only right homosexual can claim to have been denied is a right given to a man and a woman. People are even quibbling about the word. It isn't even like a seperate drinking fountain. It would be more like calling what comes out of the fountain water for a man and a woman, and aqua for homosexuals.
That is the type of quibbling that is going on in the discussion between marriage and civil unions.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The point is that homosexual couples don't have the opportunity to abandon it whether they wanted to or not.
If in 50 years time we can cite statistics saying 'gay people turn their back on marriage' that's still an advance.
As I mentioned, marriage has more entanglements than rights. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals want the rights without the entanglements. That is the true civil rights agenda if ever there were one.
If we pursued that then we could end several forms of welfare corruption, overturning of prenuptual agreements, lower the rate of divorce, advance rights for father and homosexuals.
People want the rights, it doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
All it shows is that the only right homosexual can claim to have been denied is a right given to a man and a woman. People are even quibbling about the word. It isn't even like a seperate drinking fountain. It would be more like calling what comes out of the fountain water for a man and a woman, and aqua for homosexuals.
That is the type of quibbling that is going on in the discussion between marriage and civil unions.
Nick
But if it really is the same thing, why can't it be called by the same name?
Anyway, the discrimination isn't in what the stuff that comes out of the drinking fountain is called, it's the fact that 'men and women' and homosexuals can't drink out of the same damn thing. That's the problem here.
And let's not give this analogy any more air, eh?
Originally posted by trumptman
Feel free to insult that which you don't understand. Fear is what you act on with your name calling.
Nick
Just like all your posts . . . false righteousness and pompous swagger . . . full of emptiness
You don't know what gay people deal with, not so much today, but in the past it was serious oppression . . . constant fear of discovery and general social censure
Don't mistake the visibility of Gays in the media as acceptance . . . just because queer eye exists on TV doesn't mean that my gay neighbors aren't still ostracized by the average semi-rural population of kindly-lovin christians here in Wisconsin . . . and believe me, if you look like a lesbian you will still hear the epithets hurled from passing cars
and what is all this twaddle about "entanglements" . . . as if your silly vocabulary actually touches bases with real concepts as expressed in logical argument
EDIT: removal of causus belli
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I still can't agree with gay marriage. It's just not right. I don't like to see this happening.
Fair enough, it is your right to disagree. But....how does gay marriage affect *you*? Marriage is a legal contract between two people....it's their business, and not yours, or mine, or the government's....end of story. Why should gay partners who are committed to each other be denied the rights of married couples? If anyone is trashing 'institution of marriage" its people like Britney Spears....
Originally posted by pfflam
Just like all your posts . . . false righteousness and pompous swagger . . . full of emptiness
You don't know what gay people deal with, not so much today, but in the past it was serious oppression . . . constant fear of discovery and general social censure
Don't mistake the visibility of Gays in the media as acceptance . . . just because queer eye exists on TV doesn't mean that my gay neighbors aren't still ostracized by the average semi-rural population of kindly-lovin christians here in Wisconsin . . . and believe me, if you look like a lesbian you will still hear the epithets hurled from passing cars
and what is all this twaddle about "entanglements" . . . as if your silly vocabulary actually touches bases with real concepts as expressed in logical argument
EDIT: removal of causus belli
You are becoming very good at ranting.
I know plenty of homosexuals and I know plenty of what they deal with. I have a homosexual aunt and uncle. If you think that you can study music in Long Beach and also go into elementary education without encountering homosexuals, well then you don't know much about the homosexual community.
It's in my family. It's in my neighborhood. It's in my profession. It's in my major. They've been my fraternity brothers, my faculty advisors, and even my renters.
So I don't just see them on T.V. or whatever other nonsense you make up in your caricatured, stereotypical shortcuts that you increasingly call critical thought.
Sure maybe they still get some grief in Wisconsin. But so did anyone who grew up too fat, to tall, with a funny name, (try figuring out what rhymes with Nick for fun on a Friday night) anyone with buck-teeth, ugly hair, whatever. Someone will always feel the need to put someone down to make themselves stand a little taller. That is a human nature issue, not a civil rights issue.
Oh and I suppose no hateful epitaphs would fly out a car window for an interacial couple or perhaps even a minority couple under the same possible circumstances even though they already have the right to marry.
Everyone can be taunted for something. No one can make you feel inferior without your own consent. Someday your answers will address the problems instead of just insulting others to endorse solutions to nothing.
Nick
Originally posted by Jubelum
THAT's not very tolerant, now is it?
LOL. May I suggest you learn something about Scientology?
www.xenu.net is a good place to start (the web site has nothing to do with me).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
If you ask me, marriage is a religious thing.
It's time the church p*ssed off and stayed out of people's private lives.
You know Ratty old friend he's got a point when it comes down to The Law, blind justice and all.
Never once did I say the mayor or the city of San Francisco has acted appropriately in this matter.
Trumped has no point, as usual he doesn't bother reading a post and just blusters on with red herring bullshit.
---------------
hardheaded:
That's an inflamatory title anyway you cut it.
"Queer" isn't a bad word to everyone. I would say that "queer" isn't a bad word to most homosexuals.
I love queers, homosexuals, whatever.
Besides, "queer" is a bad-ass word by itself. Just look at it! Lucky queers.
-------------------
pfflam:
Grover has a cult of personality?!?
I am the AI Minister of Information, after all! ;-)
Originally posted by trumptman
You are becoming very good at ranting.
I know plenty of homosexuals and I know plenty of what they deal with. I have a homosexual aunt and uncle. If you think that you can study music in Long Beach and also go into elementary education without encountering homosexuals, well then you don't know much about the homosexual community.
It's in my family. It's in my neighborhood. It's in my profession. It's in my major. They've been my fraternity brothers, my faculty advisors, and even my renters.
So I don't just see them on T.V. or whatever other nonsense you make up in your caricatured, stereotypical shortcuts that you increasingly call critical thought.
Sure maybe they still get some grief in Wisconsin. But so did anyone who grew up too fat, to tall, with a funny name, (try figuring out what rhymes with Nick for fun on a Friday night) anyone with buck-teeth, ugly hair, whatever. Someone will always feel the need to put someone down to make themselves stand a little taller. That is a human nature issue, not a civil rights issue.
Oh and I suppose no hateful epitaphs would fly out a car window for an interacial couple or perhaps even a minority couple under the same possible circumstances even though they already have the right to marry.
Everyone can be taunted for something. No one can make you feel inferior without your own consent. Someday your answers will address the problems instead of just insulting others to endorse solutions to nothing.
Nick
that's all fine and good . . . and even witty too
however, just because interracial couples still get epithets does not back up an argument that there does not exist oppression
and just because soem fat kid with a funny sounding name got insulted growing up does not mean that things can not be brought to a better state of equity
and just because you had contact with gay people as a music student in Long Beach doesn't mean that you saw what they go through, that you felt the cold sholder
I have lived in more cities in my life then you have visitted (a little hyperbole here) and I have encountered many gay people in each city and also very close to me in my family and extended family, and they are not all of them simply looking to lay their burdens on a boogie-man phantom by saying that they have dealt with descrimination . . . it is real
I'm not advocating too much should be done about it, things will change,
but oine of those things that should change is the legality of Homosexual marriage . . . let it be, what do you care?
If some couples find that "entanglements" are exactly what they need to show a level of commitment and to thus deepen their love then SO WHAT?!?!?!
If they want to feel the sting of divorce court . . then SO WHAT?!?!?!
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
Nope, just of losing their home and livlihood and being shut away in an institution or imprisoned for their twisted love. But I guess since that's no longer legal in California they should just sit down, shut up, and thank society for it's largesse.
Originally posted by Kirkland
It wasn't legal for Rosa Parks to sit on that bus where she did, either. Good thing you weren't around then.
You assume too much. Just because I point out that the marriages are illegal doesn't mean I don't support gay marriage.
they have befowled an instatution of 5000 plus years in a singal weekend, while marrage is a legal thing it ia a huge social and religious thing, cival unions, i think its creapy but ok, i dont give a damn what you do when the drapes are shut, but this incuranse thing is bogas, it is a known risk, like smoking or being a booze-hound
Originally posted by tmp
Nope, just of losing their home and livlihood and being shut away in an institution or imprisoned for their twisted love. But I guess since that's no longer legal in California they should just sit down, shut up, and thank society for it's largesse.
Uh, basically whatever?!?
My aunt and uncle have been openly gay since the 60's. They aren't institutionalized, imprisoned nor even poor.
But you keep conjuring up windmills to attack, ok?
Nick