|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:47 am
Oh... just to clarify, there is a difference between Special Gay rights, and Equal Gay rights. sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:54 am
FreeArsenal Beware the Jabberwock I.Am Thanks for the verses, I'm going to have to save the one from Luke for later. Very educational... I know I've stated it before, but since this thread has been empty for months, and because I hate to make such a small post, I'm going to reaffirm my position: I believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but I do not believe that the church should come into the state. So I don't believe that gay marriages should be made illegal. However, on the flipside, I believe that the state should keep it's nose out of the church as well, so I don't believe that gay marriages should be made specifically legal either. I think it should be left up to the religions, and the state should give legal marriages to homosexuals. Actually there's more going on than that in Canada. The Bible in some districts is now considered hate speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:32 pm
Protagonist Mcphee First of all, when did the media ever allow for an accurate depiction of all minorities? I mean, really, if you're looking through the media for an extremely positive view of homosexuals, look elsewhere. Does the fact that one must dig further suggest anything? Quote: Mcphee However, I still disagree with you. If you look on shows such as "America's Next Top Model", you see several very professional gay individuals who are good at their jobs and who make a lot of money. Even Will and Grace has Will, a well-to-do lawyer. He's a little effeminate, but what gay man isn't? What does a homosexual individual have to gain from acting homosexual outside of the bedroom? It is obnoxious for them to do so.
I have a friend who is gay and before he came out of the closet (I knew him before he admitted that he was gay) he used to try and act how he thought a straight male acted. Even after he came out of the closet he only told a select few people for the first year or so and still tried to act a certain way so people wouldn't realize he was gay. Simply put he acted "straight" for a long time, and didn't feel comfortable acting like himself.
You say that people acting like themselves is obnoxious? Or maybe you mean people not acting the way you think they should act is obnoxious.Quote: Mcphee And plus, just to let you know, Queer as Folk is NOT an accurate depiction of gay people. It's like a Gay soap opera-- Dramatically heightened. Well, it is one of the few depictions out there.
Willow doesn't fit the lesbian stereotype, and in fact her relationship with Tara is looked upon as just as normal a relationship as one with anyone else. The only time they make a deal of Willow being a lesbian is when she first realizes it and when her friends first find out.
However things such as this are never talked about by you. Why is that?Quote: Quote: Second, I do not believe, as a Catholic, that homosexual intercourse is a natural process. I believe that the components of our body are designed for specific functions, and that continuity of the species is a front-runner in this idea. Mcphee Sex is not JUST for the continuation of the human race, otherwise we would not HAVE condoms, or birth control. Clearly, some people just don't want to continue the human race. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The nature and properties of sex were defined long before the invention of condoms, etc. Quote: Mcphee Hm. I don't know exactly what you were trying to say here, but the government SHOULD stay out of bedrooms. When you classify someone's legal, consensual, adult sexual relationship as against God, or wrong, or disgusting, or the marriage of that relationship unlawful, you are setting a precedent for discrimination, pure and simple. That is NOT what the government should be doing. So should a government be making accomodations for a special, minority bedroom type? The laws should be centered around the majority (not saying that the minority should be outlawed by the government, just that they shouldn't get special exceptions). The majority of people are not homosexuals, so laws relating to sexuality and relationships should not be created for homosexuals.
Also gay people asking for the SAME rights as EVERYONE ELSE isn't asking the government to make accommodations it's asking the government to do their job and stop discriminating based on what they believe is right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:38 pm
FreeArsenal Xiterrose I do, and don't, agree with it. I don't think homosexual marriages should be legal, period. Whether by state or by church, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere. I wish humans had the intelligence to see how empty the Gay Right's movement really is, but they don't. Nothing against homosexuals, I just find that a lot of their arguments only center upon their own perspective rather than the perception of everyone else. But I must admit, their propoganda tactic really is working, more people now than ever are starting to support gay marriage, it's happened in less than 10 years. In 1995, I doubt any of these things can even be dreamed of.
All you've got is how you don't believe that they're born that way, which has no backing or basis what-so-ever. Not to mention even if they DID choose to be gay (which they don't) who the Hell cares? I CHOSE my hair to be red, I certainly wasn't a red head when I was born, however it doesn't stop me from getting married simply because I chose something that concerns my body, and my body alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:41 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Protagonist Mcphee First of all, when did the media ever allow for an accurate depiction of all minorities? I mean, really, if you're looking through the media for an extremely positive view of homosexuals, look elsewhere. Does the fact that one must dig further suggest anything? Quote: Mcphee However, I still disagree with you. If you look on shows such as "America's Next Top Model", you see several very professional gay individuals who are good at their jobs and who make a lot of money. Even Will and Grace has Will, a well-to-do lawyer. He's a little effeminate, but what gay man isn't? What does a homosexual individual have to gain from acting homosexual outside of the bedroom? It is obnoxious for them to do so.
I have a friend who is gay and before he came out of the closet (I knew him before he admitted that he was gay) he used to try and act how he thought a straight male acted. Even after he came out of the closet he only told a select few people for the first year or so and still tried to act a certain way so people wouldn't realize he was gay. Simply put he acted "straight" for a long time, and didn't feel comfortable acting like himself.
You say that people acting like themselves is obnoxious? Or maybe you mean people not acting the way you think they should act is obnoxious.Quote: Mcphee And plus, just to let you know, Queer as Folk is NOT an accurate depiction of gay people. It's like a Gay soap opera-- Dramatically heightened. Well, it is one of the few depictions out there.
Willow doesn't fit the lesbian stereotype, and in fact her relationship with Tara is looked upon as just as normal a relationship as one with anyone else. The only time they make a deal of Willow being a lesbian is when she first realizes it and when her friends first find out.
However things such as this are never talked about by you. Why is that?Quote: Quote: Second, I do not believe, as a Catholic, that homosexual intercourse is a natural process. I believe that the components of our body are designed for specific functions, and that continuity of the species is a front-runner in this idea. Mcphee Sex is not JUST for the continuation of the human race, otherwise we would not HAVE condoms, or birth control. Clearly, some people just don't want to continue the human race. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The nature and properties of sex were defined long before the invention of condoms, etc. Quote: Mcphee Hm. I don't know exactly what you were trying to say here, but the government SHOULD stay out of bedrooms. When you classify someone's legal, consensual, adult sexual relationship as against God, or wrong, or disgusting, or the marriage of that relationship unlawful, you are setting a precedent for discrimination, pure and simple. That is NOT what the government should be doing. So should a government be making accomodations for a special, minority bedroom type? The laws should be centered around the majority (not saying that the minority should be outlawed by the government, just that they shouldn't get special exceptions). The majority of people are not homosexuals, so laws relating to sexuality and relationships should not be created for homosexuals.
Also gay people asking for the SAME rights as EVERYONE ELSE isn't asking the government to make accommodations it's asking the government to do their job and stop discriminating based on what they believe is right or wrong.I only have one thing to say heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:50 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Centre around their own perspective? Excuse me, I believe that it also centres around science and psychology.
All you've got is how you don't believe that they're born that way, which has no backing or basis what-so-ever. Not to mention even if they DID choose to be gay (which they don't) who the Hell cares? I CHOSE my hair to be red, I certainly wasn't a red head when I was born, however it doesn't stop me from getting married simply because I chose something that concerns my body, and my body alone. Well, I base my viewpoint on Sociology and Science, as well as social philosophy. I'm not basing my opinion on anything except the difference between special rights and equal rights. In the United States, there is a law called the "child Safety act" specifically made to protect homosexuals more than any other group. This I feel is a special right, because it would punish someone more simply because the victim claims to be Gay. No one can tell how a person is gay, unless that person says so. There are already definitions of a "hate crime" in the United States; which have been exercised to use for equality, but these extra laws are seeking more to punish someone if the person they harmed just so happened to be a homosexual. I don't know if you misread me or not, but I'm clearing things up between the "gay rights" movement, and "human rights" movement. Equal rights, and special rights are two different things when we talk about laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:59 pm
A hate crime is a crime commited out of hate. If someone is charged with a hate crime and really they punched someone in the face because the person was being an a*****e, while I think the person who was doing the punching should be punished I don't believe they should be charged with a hate crime, no matter who it was they were punching.
However this happens because society continually segregates the minority, even in such ways as same sex marriage. One of my personal favorites (and this has nothing to do with homosexuality) is my friend Kailin.
He's black. What does this have to do with anything? Well we were have a diversity assembly at school and so on the annoucements they called down "All African Canadian's who wished to be involved in the assembly." this included Kailin, however he got very offended. Why? Because they called him "African Canadian" he turned and said to me "You know I've never even BEEN to Africa, not once in my life and you they don't call you Scottish Canadian, or German Canadian, or Irish Canadian, they just call you Canadian. So why the Hell do they have to set me apart simply because I'm black? I'm not African Canadian, I'm just Canadian."
This may seem like something stupid to you, but to him they were discluding him from everyone else.
In order for people to stop recieving "special" rights they must be treated just like you or me. Why MUST we distinguish someone who's black from someone who's white? I've heard so many people telling a story and if a black person is in it they'll say "then this black guy" or something like that, when it really doesn't add to the story at all.
It happens everywhere and with every minority. Until people stop feeling discriminated against they're always going to be more testy towards the majority. Whether you or I like it, or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:04 pm
Beware the Jabberwock In order for people to stop recieving "special" rights they must be treated just like you or me. Why MUST we distinguish someone who's black from someone who's white? I've heard so many people telling a story and if a black person is in it they'll say "then this black guy" or something like that, when it really doesn't add to the story at all.
True, but "special" rights still must not be used to punish someone for something they think. In the case of the "child safety act," a person who commits any violent crime against another person no matter what his purpose was, as long as the person is a homosexual (even in the case he did not know the person was homosexual) he will get a more harsh penalty. This is special protection for one specific minority without having to prove something beyond a resonable doubt. A hate crime in the United States today is only punished when proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:10 pm
FreeArsenal Beware the Jabberwock In order for people to stop recieving "special" rights they must be treated just like you or me. Why MUST we distinguish someone who's black from someone who's white? I've heard so many people telling a story and if a black person is in it they'll say "then this black guy" or something like that, when it really doesn't add to the story at all.
True, but "special" rights still must not be used to punish someone for something they think. In the case of the "child safety act," a person who commits any violent crime against another person no matter what his purpose was, as long as the person is a homosexual (even in the case he did not know the person was homosexual) he will get a more harsh penalty. This is special protection for one specific minority without having to prove something beyond a resonable doubt. A hate crime in the United States today is only punished when proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:13 pm
to be fair Miranda, some people say, "Then this black guy," as much as they say, "Then this white guy." It's a physical description to convey the scene, just like saying, "Then this blonde," or "Then this redhead." It's just to give the other person a short physical description.
But if they say it like the person is in connection with a crime because of his or her race, I'd agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:17 pm
lymelady to be fair Miranda, some people say, "Then this black guy," as much as they say, "Then this white guy." It's a physical description to convey the scene, just like saying, "Then this blonde," or "Then this redhead." It's just to give the other person a short physical description. But if they say it like the person is in connection with a crime because of his or her race, I'd agree with you.
Unless it was relevant to the story. Like blonde jokes, for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:20 pm
Beware the Jabberwock FreeArsenal Beware the Jabberwock In order for people to stop recieving "special" rights they must be treated just like you or me. Why MUST we distinguish someone who's black from someone who's white? I've heard so many people telling a story and if a black person is in it they'll say "then this black guy" or something like that, when it really doesn't add to the story at all.
True, but "special" rights still must not be used to punish someone for something they think. In the case of the "child safety act," a person who commits any violent crime against another person no matter what his purpose was, as long as the person is a homosexual (even in the case he did not know the person was homosexual) he will get a more harsh penalty. This is special protection for one specific minority without having to prove something beyond a resonable doubt. A hate crime in the United States today is only punished when proven. It's great to see an old-fashioned liberal for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:26 pm
FreeArsenal It's great to see an old-fashioned liberal for a change.
That's just as much discrimination as me calling them racist names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:27 pm
Beware the Jabberwock FreeArsenal It's great to see an old-fashioned liberal for a change.
That's just as much discrimination as me calling them racist names.I'm not saying "old fashioned" as in thinking as liberals did back then. I'm saying "old fashioned" as in being more aware that no side is totally correct, but every side has to have it's fair share of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:28 pm
FreeArsenal Beware the Jabberwock FreeArsenal It's great to see an old-fashioned liberal for a change.
That's just as much discrimination as me calling them racist names.I'm not saying "old fashioned" as in thinking as liberals did back then. I'm saying "old fashioned" as in being more aware that no side is totally correct, but every side has to have it's fair share of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
