Gay Basketball: NBA & Warriors hold 1st Gay Night [Interbasket.net]
Props to the NBA and Warriors for putting on this event.
Email
PrintComments
Point of order
Doesn’t the article say that this is not the first gay night in the NBA? Perhaps you meant just for the dubs. nitpick nitpick nitpick.
Also, I would think Atlanta would be the ideal place for this, considering they boast the highest gay population in the nation (i read that somewhere recently…i think?). That being said, it said we’re holding an open gym…any 7 footers out there want to try out?
I wonder if WNBA teams have done something similar....
Locally for me, the Minnesota Lynx are quite aware that gay folks represent a significant part of their audience. They may not have done a “gay night,” but I know they advertise in ways that are conscious of that.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I call BS. Sports teams have singles and couples night (Giants has a singles get together once a year and it’s for straight couples).
So kudos for the Warriors for at least thinking out side of the box. (Sort of speak).
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
THey don’t have straight night, though. You can be gay and single or gay and in a relationship. Are they next going to have sado massochist night, wanting to rob the cradle night or a-sexual night? This is just mindless political correctness night, which is fine. It’s their business. The Warriors franchise can do what they want.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Mindless Political Correctness Night
We missed you there, Natty! It was awesome: tofu dogs, organically grown wheat (non-alcoholic) beer, cosmetics-free cheerleaders with unshaven legs and armpits… you would have had a blast!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 27, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Game ended in a tie, btw. It was mandated by the “MPC” police, to avoid hurt feelings on either side.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 1, 2010 4:52 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. We need to be more accepting of others.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 24, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
how does this help achieve that? (thats a serious question, I think there probably is an answer, I just come up with one)
Thing A
Read on Sam, it’s been addressed further down in the thread.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 8, 2010 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
What's sexist...
is that they don’t have the same rights as heterosexuals and they’re generally mocked by society. That being said they can’t even have a basketball night? C’mon now.
They do have the same rights as heterosexuals. Just like someone with a biological urge to sit at the back of the bus demanding the “right” to have the government teach school children that the back is the front, homosexuals simply choose not to behave as everyone else, thereby curtailing some of the same recognitions and benefits of traditional, tried and true behavior.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Just like someone with a biological urge to sit at the back of the bus demanding the "right" to have the government teach school children that the back is the front, homosexuals simply choose not to behave as everyone else
Hm. Last I checked, some of the people in the front kinda liked the back entrance, and some of the people in the back preferred the front…
Wait, what were we talking about again…?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 27, 2010 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
that’s pretty good satire. can you believe there are people out there who are foolish enough to argue that?
Just like someone with a biological urge to sit at the back of the bus demanding the "right" to have the government teach school children that the back is the front,
Guess they are smart enough to know front and back is dependent on direction?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps. I would hope school children in Massachusetts being inundated with political dogma are smart enough to understand the difference between a father and mother raising their own children being central to marriage and a cheap substitute, i.e. a couple dudes or a couple chicks wanting to live together, get special recognition for their love (as if real love needs special recognition) and get government benefits.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
a couple dudes or a couple chicks wanting to live together, get special recognition for their love (as if real love needs special recognition) and get government benefits.
Did your religion instill all this hate in you? Why can’t you see the good in people instead of looking for the bad? Do you understand how suicide bombers are created from religious indoctrination? Do you think they realize that they are indoctrinated?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
LOL Everyone that disagrees with your political dogma is a hater, huh? If I’m indoctrinated, then I must be completely unreasonable. But as it turns out, you’re the one without an argument. Do ya’ think it’s possible that indoctrination can come from political sources as well?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’m pretty sure Skep was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the “indoctrination” angle. The other possibility — that you chose to have such extreme and hate-filled views on the subject — is even more depressing.
Obviously we’re all products of our upbringing and education — Skep, you, and everyone else. You’re not “the one with an argument.” The debate is not “a guy with trendy politically motivated values versus a guy whose values are based on natural laws” (the way you framed it to BSD). There’s no way to have a dialogue if you’re going to have such a fundamental lack of respect for other people’s views, and gross overestimation of your own. Again, take a page from your pal Toddaverth’s handbook.
There will be no extra point!
My view that a gay union is not worthwhile to society is not hate-filled,anymore than my view that huge pensions for government workers being useless to society is hate-filled. What is hateful may be my lack of respect, as I can be impatient with foolishness. That said, Skep has no argument, in that he simply uses strawmen. If you can’t address the issue directly, using misdirection, what have you got? Nothing. I respect BSD’s attempts more, despite them being transparently political and not based on reason. I call them as I see him. I’m a blunt guy, which makes me kind of a jerk sometimes. That’s my style all the time, even with friends (although I am more diplomatic). I don’t know that it’s entirely disrespectful, as telling people my view is just plain honesty. Politics is such a hot topic, people get offended. That’s the reality. I don’t know how to talk to people like Toddaverth, by the way.
He is so diplomatic at times, I get disgusted as an English major, as in, “Say what you mean, dude!” I always say what I mean, so I come across as mean with some sensitive issues. If we talked in person, I might speak in a soft voice but say the same thing, if I thought about it. On the internet, there is no soft voice to make a blunt argument, so it comes across as harsh no matter what I do.
I understand that people want me to be more tentative and unsure of my views, because it sucks debating with a guy like me unless you really are confident and know what you’re doing and have a case. I can’t do that, though. I am sure of my point of view, and if people had good arguments, I would address them as such. They don’t, and that’s the reality, as far as I’m concerned.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Re: despite them being transparently political and not based on reason.
Let’s knock off the ad-hom nonsense. You don’t know my ploitics. If I were a Democrat or Republican or subscribed to any prescriptive political ideology, you’d probably have met me in one of the “Sam and Nauticus vs. Skep, Sleepy et all . . .” political threads. I don’t have a horse in that race.
To be completely honest with you, the only reason I engaged you in this conversation was because I am facinated by the protection of marriage talking points you had lobbed out there. I hear them all the time but they are never accompanied by any reasoning or evidence.
All I was after was the rational structure on which your conclusions are built and some of the proof that you claimed to have. You were unwilling or unble to provide any of that. So we’re done with that discussion.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 1, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you make broad claims about my arguments that simply aren’t supported themselves. Which claims of fact that I made do you doubt, by the way? I can provide support for them, e.g. that France has rejected the idea of “gay marriage” based on secular and philosophical arguments.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Re: Which claims of fact that I made do you doubt, by the way?
Zero. Why? Because they are not claims of “fact” they are claims absent of supporting evidence or reason. Claims with absent of logic or supporting evidence are not “facts”.
Which claims did I question? Go back and look through our discussion and you’ll find that I cut and pasted your claims that I questioned into blockquotes and asked a series of very direct questions bout those claims that you did not answer.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 1, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
Your questions were drivel, as I pointed out. I’ll let everyone else read through our discussion and decide for themselves, if that is the case.
For example:
Question: 1. Is it “good” for society to alienate a group of people who’s behavior does not materially harm anyone? What sort of proof are you referring to?
What a mindless question, as I argued before. If we alienate people as we do what’s right, so be it. If we alienate more than half the country demanding that we do something so foolish as to have the gov’t adopt a dogma to appease a bunch of entitled whiners, that’s just pathetic and wrong. I’ll stay on the side of right, and let the idiots be alienated and the rational people rally toward the good side. You can be Neville Chamberlain, dishonest with yourself, appeasing the bullies and manipulators. I’ll be whoever I am, avoiding such nonsense.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Re: Your questions were drivel
Again with the Ad-Hom. I’ve already addressed you’re quibbling about the word alienation in response to the first time you tried that distraction tactic. You also completely avoided the question about the proof you claim you have which has nothing to do with alienation.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 1, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
“Your questions were drivel” is ad hom? You apparently have no idea what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is to attack the person. I attacked your questions here.
I didn’t avoid the question. I attacked the false premises, like the delusion that alienating a group of people is relevant to the debate. First of all, this is “argument from consequence,” where you try to reason that something bad might happen if people agree with me.
Alienating people is the price you pay for standing up for yourself or your values. There will always besd selfish and foolish people who demand that you take their side, or they’ll take their marbles and go home (or threaten to commit suicide or something like that, as in the movie 8: The Mormon Proposition).
In American, you have a right to your ideas, you have a right to have an impartial government that doesn’t arbitrarily take sides but takes sides based on the law, which is based on reason and principle. I have every right to believe that a gay union is inferior to a marriage and as such, should not receive the same designation. If that alienates people, so be it. I’m not going to be frightened off by whiners or emotional blackmail.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You didn’t attack the substance any of the questions. You called the question a name which is really just attacking me. It’s pointless to argue because we’re not even having the same discussion about the discussion that I tried to have with you in the first place.
Your strategy lacks any substance. It’s not a unique strategy. I guess it’s not a bad strategy if you don’t care that you can’t actually persuade anyone of your point-of-view.
There was an opportunity for you to try and convince some people that did not already agree with you to jump to your side of the fray had you tried discuss this honestly.
I’d be willing to bet Brit did bring some silent neutral parties to his side by being honest about where he was coming from and directly addressing a lot of his statements. You and he are arguing different points, but his is was also initially slammed by many people. Do I agree with him? No, but I do respect his honesty and, much more importantly, I think he did enough to convince more than a handful of other people of his point-of-view. Your strategy does not lend itself to that. It’s just a circular stalling tactic that keeps the discussion from progressing beyond the initial assertion phase.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Mar 1, 2010 10:27 PM PST up reply actions
I guess it’s not a bad strategy if you don’t care that you can’t actually persuade anyone of your point-of-view.
This is the key weirdness for me here, just as it was when Natty spammed one thread with 1500+ posts of his lunacy (well, OK: only about 800 of them were his…)
Hateful, simple-minded rhetoric + no attempt to persuade + no attempt to listen + no attempt to reflect + no attempt to dialogue = pure mental m*sturbation. Cut the crap, Natty. No one wants to hear it, then or now. There are diaries (and, you know, kleenex) for this kind of stuff.
There will be no extra point!
Lots of people post a lot. I post more, because I type 80+ words per minute. I listen perfectly well. I just don’t agree. You’d like me to think that the points of the Left on this subject are substantive but they are mindless drivel, so I treat them as such. No one has any good arguments for calling two different things with profound differences by the same name. That is what is lunacy. You think it’s weird that I argue against a completely psychotic political dogma. I’ll take weird over psychotic any day.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Do I agree with him? No, but I do respect his honesty
Haha, Brit is one step above Natty on the evolutionary ladder. He does understand that the revolution has begun but he still doesn’t want to let the colonies go .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
Uh-oh — don’t you start in on evolution now…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 2, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
I have every right to believe that a gay union is inferior to a marriage and as such, should not receive the same designation.
You only have the right to believe that a gay union is inferior to a marriage , you don’t have the right to tell them they can’t marry on their own terms. Would you want them telling you what terms you can marry under? Once you understand this basic fact the problem will be solved.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Again with this dishonesty. I am not telling anyone on what terms they can marry on. I am saying that a gay union is NOT a marriage, and linguistically, it’s just imbecilic to claim it is. You can’t impose New Speak from 1984 as a form of mind-control in a country where free speech is considered sacrosanct… unless you’re an extreme Lefty.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I am not telling anyone on what terms they can marry on.
Then just state that you feel gays should have the right to marry whoever, however, and whoever they please and this discussion will be over?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
They can marry however they please, and they can even have gay unions. That said, linguistically, which is the issue, a gay union is not a marriage. To say, “They can marry whoever they please,” is akin to saying, “You can write any picture you want.” It’s balderdash. You can’t “write a picture” anymore than you can “marry the same sex.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
sorry guy
ideograms, the basis of the Chinese written language, is a manner of ‘writing a picture’.
You have the same right as any of us to cling to an ideology based on faith, but rationalizing that belief and using reason to defend it doesn’t alter the nature of your belief: it’s based on your faith in a set of metaphysical ideals—neither the existence nor non-existence of a supreme, divine being can be proven. What you believe to be true about what constitutes marriage doesn’t make it true for others of a different belief/value system.
Your ability to type fast, cling to your beliefs and repeat the same contentions over and over doesn’t increase the objective substance of your faith-based opinion in the shared reality the rest of us inhabit—god is real enough for someone who believes it to be so, and we don’t doubt what you believe marriage to be.
by the.monk on Mar 3, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So is there an argument in here about “gay marriage?” Again, if it’s my religion, why do I have the rational arguments, while you attempt to poison the well, relying on logical fallacies to win an argument.
It just so happens, Jesus was an extremely wise teacher of good principles, one of them being that man and women are meant for each other, and that the relationship between them is unique and special. You don’t have to believe in God to believe in that good principle. As I pointed out, France, a largely secular nation, has adopted the exact same position.
While you write eloquently, it’s laughably inept. We’re not in China, by the way. That is far from standard English.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
are you saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because linguistically we shouldn’t have to change our definitions of words?
are you saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because linguistically we shouldn’t have to change our definitions of words?
Haha, Don’t try to make sense of what Natty’s saying cause for him that’s not the goal. These religious types just want to keep posting their party line till everyone loses interest then they can claim victory. Debate to learn is not their intent, their intent is programmed into them by their religion to the point that they can’t learn anymore. The best way to counter them would be to have a spambot just answer their posts with canned replies and let them do the same, over and over.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
That doesn’t even make sense, in context of what I’m saying. You continue to argue from a hidden premise, unable, apparently, to grasp my point.
My whole point is that the gov’t can allow “gay marriage”, as long as they don’t call it “gay marriage.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
NO
like i just said elsewhere, did you know that the word "d’oh" is in the most respected dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary……so we can add and change definitions of words to fit fictitious yellow people, but cannot slightly alter a definition to fit humans?
by your logic, we should have “rights,” african-american rights," “women’s rights” and “african-american women’s rights.”
there is no way to justify that. none. you can falsely justify it in your head, but your fooling yourself and yourself only.
This is a racist and sexist argument, as you are implying that women and African Americans are inherently going to behave in ways that are not beneficial to society, while others will behave in beneficial ways?
A “gay marriage” is based on sociologically irrelevant behavior, while real marriage is the backbone of civilization. That’s the issue here.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
This is a racist and sexist argument, as you are implying that women and African Americans are inherently going to behave in ways that are not beneficial to society, while others will behave in beneficial ways?
while you are implying that only gays are harmful to society and giving everyone else a free pass? Women, african americans, gays, why should any of them or any of us as a whole be considered not benificial to society? There’s good and bad members of every group, even the priesthood so instead of a blanket “you are not worthy of my marriage status” how about getting to know them then deciding on an individual basis whether or not they are good candidates for marriage?
Don’t you get it?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
First of all, I said “not beneficial,” which is not the same as harmful.
Gay people are plenty worthy, except for the fact that they choose not to behave in ways that results in the best family. What I don’t get is that you don’t get that gays, by definition and therefore universally, have a biological urge to behave in ways that do not result in the best situation for children.
Those other groups, like African Americans or women, have no such biological issues.
I find it ironic that you are asking me, “Don’t you get it?” That is ridiculously ironic… not in a clever or profound way, either, but in a mindless, completely clueless way.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I said "not beneficial," which is not the same as harmful.
If you think they are not harmful then not wanting them to be free to marry like you are married is just hating?
Children don’t have to be part of a satisfying marriage, some folks don’t want kids but they still deserve to marry in their own church. Children are just a smokescreen to the gay marriage question.
You saying you don’t get it doesn’t surprise me cause you are not interesting in getting it, your job is simply to promote your religion?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
If you think they are not harmful then not wanting them to be free to marry like you are married is just hating?
“Gay marriage” isn’t harmful, but the government adopting your gay dogma is. There’s a vast difference between gays wearing rings, having ceremonies and living together and the government adopting your 1984 New Speak.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
ANSWER THIS, NATICUS2
should a couple be allowed to marry if they have no intention to reproduce?
Why should the gov’t stop them? They can do what they want. How many times must I explain, my issue is with the gov’t adopting gay dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
my issue is with the gov’t adopting gay dogma.
how is the government adopting “gay dogma” when it allows gay marriage. I’m pretty sure that’s “gay marriage,” or maybe “gay rights.”
You’re not following me at all, are you? It’s not about allowing anything. It’s about what the government does or does not do. Which part of marriage is the government preventing? The ceremony? The rings? The sex? Which part is illegal? NONE.
What you are demanding is that the government give a gay union the same status and designation as a real marriage, based on your baseless belief that there are no relevant differences. In your opinion, fine. You’re entitled to that. But the government is not entitled to your opinion. It’s beholden to the laws and principles of the Constitution, and your gay dogma is not on that table.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
and in our declaration of independence
all MEN are created equal. things change, dude. it’s called life, history, evolution, whatever other words you seem to be very scared of.
Things change; therefore, you (and not me) should have the right to change them. That’s convenient for you.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
things change, and therefore we should adapt to add equality, the same way we did with gender and race. this has nothing to do with me. I gain nothing from there being gay marriage. however, you also lose nothing from gay marriage. like any case of equal rights, in increases quality of life for some, while decreasing it for none.
What you are demanding is that the government give a gay union the same status and designation as a real marriage, based on your baseless belief that there are no relevant differences. In your opinion, fine. You’re entitled to that. But the government is
You are confusing “the people” with naticus, and forgetting that in a free country the “govt” is the PEOPLE? You are only one of many people, to a gay their marriage is the real marriage and yours is not, that’s what makes a free country free. We should all be able to marry as WE choose not as NATICUS chooses for us? As long as you fail to understand that you will fail to be a useful citizen of a free country?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, the law determines what the government can and can’t do. In principle, the gov’t shouldn’t adopt ANY dogmas.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Actually, the law determines what the government can and can’t do.
and the government determines the laws. it’s circular.
True, they make the law… sort of. Let me quote St. Augustine: an unjust law is no law at all. Theoretically, laws are based on reason and principle, which are not man-made. In the United States, we have the Constitution, which was written by some of the greatest minds of our generation, in response to 1000’s of years of oppression and unjust treatment of the people by government. That is the highest law of the land, and I pray we aren’t stupid enough to just stomp all over it.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
and again
we have the declaration of independence, also made by some of the greatest minds of our country, which states all MEN are created equal.
so yes, let’s stay stagnant, and let all the other nations progress while we sit on our butts thinking that everything we thought last year will always be the case.
The word men is a reference to all mankind, which includes women, if you understand outdated English. It is understood as such by Dictionaries, law-makers and historians alike.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
if that were really the case
there wouldn’t have been such a hold-up on women’s rights. if they wanted to make it clear that it was about all humans, they would’ve said “mankind,” or “humans,” not the ambiguous “man,” that, coming in a sexist society from all men, seems pretty clearly to mean male.
as a whole, your argument is an epic case of false dichotomy. There is no evidence to suggest that gay couples raise children more poorly than straight couples. Being gay and being a good parent are not mutually exclusive.
You have no idea what a false dichotomy is, do you? I’m not offering two choices, when there is a third or fourth. Either the gov’t adopts a gay dogma or they don’t. One is against the principle of separation of Church and state. The gov’t should not be arbitrarily siding with the Left, based on trendy new morality where all behavior is the same.
A radical restructuring of American social norms is not a power granted to the gov’t, nor is imposing 1984 New Speak on America’s children.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Either the gov’t adopts a gay dogma or they don’t.A radical restructuring of American social norms is not a power granted to the gov’t, nor is imposing 1984 New Speak on America’s children.
Haha, Is he the whipping pup for the paranoid fringe? If I ever get a dog I’m gonna name him gaydogma, he can hang out with straightcatpa :>)
Don’t look now natty but 1984 is old news , come and gone and the world did not fall apart.
So let’s pin down this gay night thing. You’ve said they can marry? What conditions do you place on it? Be specific please.
You able to let them have a gay night ? Could you possibly enjoy it too for a couple of hours, and maybe learn something new?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Don’t look now natty but 1984 is old news , come and gone and the world did not fall apart.
1984
is not news. It’s a book.
You’ve said they can marry?
Well, they can marry in that they can do what the law demands, the same law that applies to every person in the country. That’s equality under the law. No straight person can go in and say, “I’m straight, so you have to give me a special right.” You either follow the law or you don’t.
That said, a gay couple can have everything that a marriage entails (minus the opposite sex, which is their own choice). They can have a ceremony, have legal recognition, wear rings, live together, have a contract to will property, etc.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You have no idea what a false dichotomy is, do you? I’m not offering two choices
actually, i’ve been studying false dichotomy for the past six months. you offered two choices, that are not mutually exclusive. In reference to gay marriage, you are saying it is bad to have children raised poorly. these two are mutually exclusive. they are not related. false dichotomy.
So you’ve been studying false dichotomies for six months and still don’t understand them, apparently. You have poor reading comprehension. I have offered no such false dichotomy.
What I have explained is that statistically (and statistics are not based on any of the logical fallacies), children raised by their biological parents are better off. That’s simply a fact.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
that is irrelevant!
the majority of non-biological parents are heterosexual. step-parents and straight couples adopting are much, much, much more populous than gay couples with children. so you’re making a claim that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with gay marriage.
So you’re saying that gay people are not comparable to straight people? Well, in that case, they shouldn’t be able to get married at all. You ought to think about this stuff, before you post. Your premises are crazy and inconsistent.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
when in the world did I say that?
you made a claim that homosexual parents are bad, because biological parents are better than non-biological parents. I pointed out that 90% of non-biological parents are straight, so how can you actually know the quality of a homosexual parent?
Those statistics were mostly about straight people. You claimed it doesn’t count toward gay people, as if gay people aren’t the same as straight people when it comes to raising children.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
no
re read what I wrote. I claimed that you can’t assume that just because a large group of people (non-biological parents), that includes a small group of people (homosexuals), is often detrimental (raising children poorly), means that the small group of people fits these tendencies.
It is like saying “on average, basketball players are abnormally tall. point guards are basketball players. therefore, point guards are abnormally tall.”
The statistics show that people are more sensitive and much less likely to abandon their biological offspring. Are gay people.. uh… people? Yes. Case closed.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
1) you’re still not understanding what i’m saying.
2) I want to see some actual stats of this.
3) far and away, the main cause for offspring abandonment is poverty.
4) when you adopt a child, 90% of the time it comes to you with severe mental trauma or issues. this obviously plays a factor.
5) a HUGE factor is that non-biological parents are usually step-parents who have no interest in having a child. the reason for non-biological parenting failure is people don’t WANT to be parents. as long as a homosexual couple makes the conscious decision to have children and raise them well, they are in no worse a position than a heterosexual couple.
now it is time for philosophy class. goodbye.
1. I understand what you’re saying far better than you do, it seems.
2. Here is a paper on it that includes information on poverty as well. Obviously, statisticians are smart and take into account many factors. The conclusion is still what Darwin would predict: biological parents make the best parents.
90% of the time? ROFL. What a LIE.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
By the way, only 50% of gay males want children and do not get “domesticated” by getting “married,” unlike straight males:
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of “committed” gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men’s Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17. (qtd. from frc.org).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The statistics show that people are more sensitive and much less likely to abandon their biological offspring.
So now you’re hating on adoption? Some couples can’t conceive but you don’t want them to take in kids who need a place to live because they will be less sensitive and more likely to abandon them? Would you prefer the little tykes are left to die in the streets?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
If presenting facts about abuse rates is hating on adoption, then yes. But I don’t think accepting statistical analysis from qualified professionals is hatred. I think it’s rather reasonable and has nothing to do with emotions.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
If presenting facts about abuse rates is hating on adoption, then yes.
So you really do wanna leave the little orphans out in the streets cause adoptive parents aren’t perfect?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
As I said, if presenting facts about adoption is hate, then I feel hatred. But that is a big if. Again, with you dishonest strawmen arguments. Does it ever stop?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
so your problem is with adoption, not same-sex marriage….again, I don’t see you calling for a law saying that heterosexual couples can’t have non-biological children….
No, my problem is not with adoption per se. Adoption is the result of bad things like biological parents abandoning their children or dying or abusing their children. It would be a tragedy if adoption became the norm.
That said, there are some adoptive parents that are very special make excellent parents. My ex-girlfriend, for example, is a wonderful mother to her adoptive children, each of which, ideally, would have been raised by loving, biological parents.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
but they weren't
so why is your ex-girlfriend fine to have non biological children, when perfectly functioning gay couple isn’t?
I never said gay couples can’t adopt children. That’s not the issue.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
gay couples have an extremely hard time adopting children
because adoption agencies tend to lean towards married couples, which, surprise! gay couples can’t be.
so…..?
Take it up with them individually. The ends don’t justify the means, and the gov’t adopting a dogma is an unjust means.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
the gov’t adopting a dogma is an unjust means
the government adopting a dogma is an improvement, which, in order for us to remain one of the greater nations, we must do. being stagnant does nothing.
we pride ourselves as the greatest nation in the world, yet while other countries create equity for all, legalize gay marriage and accept and fight climate change, we ignore all of those, fight a war with smaller countries and justify it despite having no reason for it, and call ourselves an always progressing wonderful nation.
sounds like that 5th grader who hit his growth spurt early and beats up on little kids while never doing his homework.
What you believe to be true about what constitutes marriage doesn’t make it true for others of a different belief/value system.
Isn’t that basically the whole argument Natty is making? Look, I side with most of you guys and against Natty on this one, but I think the attempts to “prove” him wrong here have been pointless and border on hypocritical.
Thing A
but I think the attempts to "prove" him wrong here have been pointless and border on hypocritical.
did you read enough to see that we are being permissive( everyone can marry their own way) and he’s being restrictive
( everyone can only marry Natty’s way) That’s the only real issue. Did you risk your life defending his right to oppress others? Remember restricting freedoms is oppressive, permitting freedoms is not.
All his phobias and smokescreens are just his tactics to promote his religious agenda which is his only real interest in any debate. Be aware of your surroundings Sam, don’t just assume that everyone around you always has your moral compass?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
point taken
I’ve recently been struggling with my own (probably misguided) justifications for “don’t ask, don’t tell” so I’m probably a little too accepting when I recognize the similarities in Natty’s anti-gay marriage argument. I do still think the urge of those in favor of gay marriage to quickly dismiss the opposition as hateful, bigoted or just wrong can, itself, be hateful and bigoted, but I do see what youre saying Skep.
Thing A
I’ve recently been struggling with my own (probably misguided) justifications for "don’t ask, don’t tell" so I’m probably a little too accepting when I recognize the similarities in Natty’s anti-gay marriage argument.
Hi Sam, Keep in mind the military is not the same as civilian society, the stress level is much higher and the stakes much higher so it will require more effort to solve the military position than it will to just let people feel free to enjoy themselves at a basketball game.
This doesn’t need to be a solve everything night , seeing our gay brothers and sisters enjoying themselves at a game is a good start?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
It’s not an anti-gay argument. It’s an anti-“gay union is the same as a straight union” argument. Everyone knows they are not the same. Many are too scared to SAY they are not the same or even to politely request that the gov’t not pretend they are the same.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
everyone can only marry Natty’s way
Again with the strawman. Everyone can marry any way they want. The only thing they can’t do is have the government recognize a gay union as being the same as a straight union. They are not the same; the idea that they are is a dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
they're six years behind Phi
of course it’s a positive change, but one has to wonder why those GS execs waited until they faced a sales slump and have to rely on heavy promos to sell tix, before acknowledging their community.
waited until they faced a sales slump and have to rely on heavy promos to sell tix
This is exactly what my first thought was.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Feb 24, 2010 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
I had that thought to
But even though the motives of businesses are rarely for the good of others, I like it when they do positive things like this more then when they do negative things.
by freerandolph on Feb 24, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
They Just Want to Promote Equality
Everyone should have an equal chance to watch crappy basketball!
They’re promoting equality of behavior, as if all behavior is the same. This is a dogma of the Left. Equality, in itself, is not good. Equality of people, not behavior, is a founding principle which has been conflated with equality of behavior.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Why don’t you explain to everyone which behavior is “more equal” than which other behavior, Brother Nat. Seems like you want to…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 27, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
The fact is, gay relationships aren’t proven to do society any good, but every nation on earth that means anything to anyone that is relevant in our world has recognized marriage, in the traditional way. That’s not a coincidence. My personal opinion is irrelevant, really.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
that’s laughable. sure i guess what you’re saying is true if you want to COMPLETELY IGNORE HISTORY. the institution of marriage has evolved overtime. i mean geez…. remember when um… remember when interracial marriage wasn’t allowed? remember when only husbands were allowed to own property? is that the traditional marriage you’re referring to? or is it the slightly more traditional marriage? which one?
That marriage has changed doesn’t mean that marriage, as in a man and a woman raising their own offspring, isn’t what has made all great nations great. Marriage, even in its changing states, always involved people raising their own children. That’s the backbone of civilization.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
That's not even an actual argument, it's a set of marketing talking-points.
The fact is, gay relationships aren’t proven to do society any good,
1. It is ridiculous it is for you to throw out a statement like “do society any good” as if it was a premise from which to argue. It’s not a “fact” it’s just a baseless assertion of opinion worded as if it were some sort of absolute truth. Is it “good” for society to alienate a group of people who’s behavior does not materially harm anyone? What sort of proof are you referring to?
2. Let’s pretend that you have “proof” that it doesn’t “do society any good”. Ok, great. So what? Lots of things don’t benefit society as a whole but do benefit a subset while managing not to harm the other members. But that’s not really your argument is it? Be honest. You are implying that it does society harm. How does it do harm and who does it harm?
every nation on earth that means anything to anyone that is relevant in our world
I would love for you to give examples of a couple irrelevant nations on earth that don’t mean anything to anyone. And no, “Raider Nation” does not count (for many reasons).
has recognized marriage, in the traditional way. That’s not a coincidence.
Right, most people aren’t predominately homosexual. Most people aren’t left-handed that’s why most things are designed for right-handed people. So what? Most nations on earth have class-based, racial and/or religious tensions, in a traditional way. Do those things “do society any good”?
If you haven’t noticed, the human race is not perfect and neither are our societies. Just because a lot of us agree on something doesn’t make it right. The majority or those in power don’t always make the best decsions, so you’re better served at least questioning what “most people” have agreed upon so you understand the broader implications. Remember the economic collapse?
These talking points aren’t actual arguments, they’re irrational, overly-simplistic statements dressed up like logic in order to mask the bigotry that underlies the assertion. If you are saying “I believe that this is wrong because that is what my moral beliefs dictate” then that’s one thing. But that’s not what you are saying.
What you are really promoting is imposing one group’s morality on another group of people against their will. I’m not saying that you’re wrong for believing that, maybe I’m wrong for not. But to dress it up as logic is intellectually dishonest. There is no “logical” argument against gay people being gay or marrying one another. It boils down to the fact that most people are predominately straight and a lot believe, for whatever reason, that being gay is morally wrong. There’s no logical process involved with coming to that conclusion.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 28, 2010 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Is it "good" for society to alienate a group of people who’s behavior does not materially harm anyone?
They are alienating themselves by being so narcissistic to think all of society should conform to their standards. Not getting recognition is not a cause of alienation. Maybe we should all start fighting for our “right” to get a Congressional Medal of Honor, despite having done nothing particularly worthy of such recognition.
You are implying that it does society harm.
The government promoting anti-family values, by implying that a marriage is as worthless to society and culture as a gay union is harmful, in my opinion. How people feel about family can either result in a prosperous nation or an utter failure of a nation.
Just because a lot of us agree on something doesn’t make it right.
That’s not my argument. When you’re willing to address what I’m actually saying, come back. For the record, my argument is that marriage has been PROVEN and been proven for thousands of years. It’s not just a tradition but a result of cultural evolution, necessary for mankind to thrive and progress. It’s not about people agreeing with that reality or not. It’s about it being a reality, period.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You didn't address much of what you initailly stated and you've mostly evaded the questions.
If you’re going to start lobbing sweeping and polarizing statements into a discussion, you should be able to defend or at least explain them.
Question: 1. Is it "good" for society to alienate a group of people who’s behavior does not materially harm anyone? What sort of proof are you referring to?
Your answer:
They are alienating themselves by being so narcissistic to think all of society should conform to their standards. Not getting recognition is not a cause of alienation.
“All of society conform to their standards”? That’s absolute fiction. In fact, that is literally what you are asking of them. They are not trying to tell you to be gay. What that group is materially seeking is protection from discrimination and the opportunity to be able to say “I choose this person to merge my finances with and be my next of kin for legal and medical purposes” regardless of what sex that individual is. If the government chooses to call the most beneficial form of that marriage then any two people should have that option. How does that harm you or society in any way? What is your stake in it? Why do you even want to have a say in how other people live? Are you that narcissistic?
You still did not answer: What proof do you have that this does not do society any good?
Question 2.: How does it do harm and who does it harm?
Your answer:
The government promoting anti-family values, by implying that a marriage is as worthless to society and culture as a gay union is harmful, in my opinion. How people feel about family can either result in a prosperous nation or an utter failure of a nation.
That is simply restating your utterly baseless assertion.
You still did not answer: In what material way do gay marriages harm you, other people or society?
Question 3. I would love for you to give examples of a couple irrelevant nations on earth that don’t mean anything to anyone.
You threw this out there, so you should probably explain it.
You still did not answer: The question.
Statement 4. Just because a lot of us agree on something doesn’t make it right.
Your answer:
That’s not my argument. When you’re willing to address what I’m actually saying, come back. For the record, my argument is that marriage has been PROVEN and been proven for thousands of years.
Ok, I’m back and willing to address what you’re actually saying. What proof are you talking about? Marriage has been proven to do/be what? All you’ve stated is that marriage has been around a long time so the only thing that proves is that it persists as an institution. So what is your argument?
It’s not just a tradition but a result of cultural evolution, necessary for mankind to thrive and progress.
How is marriage necessary for mankind to thrive and progress? You’re confusing marriage with science and medicine.
Cultural evolution means that society has adapted and become more diverse to survive. I would argue that omitting certain groups from participating in certain aspects of society is being “evolved” out of our culture. So allowing same-sex marriage seems to be part of cultural evolution. What you support is the opposite.
It’s not about people agreeing with that reality or not. It’s about it being a reality, period.
Again, that’s just an assertion without any proof or rationale. Just stating that what you say is true isn’t proof. That’s not an argument.
You still have not answered: So what is your “argument”?
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 28, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
Question: 1. Is it “good” for society to alienate a group of people who’s behavior does not materially harm anyone? What sort of proof are you referring to?
I thought I made it clear that this question is drivel. I’m not answering it, because I am not promoting alienation. Should we appease everyone and just give into any random whim, anytime anyone whines and complains about not having enough “rights?” Obviously, not, because that is mindless, absurd and worse, cowardly.
You still did not answer: In what material way do gay marriages harm you, other people or society?
Why does it have to be material? I already explained that the government adopting the view that a marriage is as worthless as a gay union effects the way people feel about family, thus weakening and ultimately destroying the backbone of civilization.
What proof are you talking about?
I thought it was clear that thousands of years of cultural evolution resulting in all relevant nations having adopted marriage as the building block of their society was proof of its value. If not proof, strong enough evidence that it is mind-bogglingly stupid to demote marriage to the status of the trendy diversity of gay unions.
How is marriage necessary for mankind to thrive and progress? You’re confusing marriage with science and medicine.
Spoken like a flaming progressive. Children actually have emotional needs, too and biological parents are naturally more inclined to fill those needs. Statistically, this is a proven fact, as they are less likely to abandon and more likely to be kind and sensitive toward their children. The reason these emotional needs are called “needs,” is because if those needs aren’t filled, children are likely to do things like commit crimes, complete suicide and have a bunch of dysfunctional children themselves. This, on a broad scale, will completely destroy a society.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I already explained that the government adopting the view that a marriage is as worthless as a gay union effects the way people feel about family,
No, You are the one choosing to view them both as worthless, while others view them both as valuable. Families can come in all sizes and shapes. People need food ,shelter, and nurturing which is not at all dependent on the composition of the caregivers. I’d rather be raised by two good moms than a bad mom and dad, wouldn’t you? You really should get out and get to know some gay people and see that they are just as human as you then you won’t fear them?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
Since I am the one advocating that marriage maintain its unique status due to its measurable merit, you can hardly claim that I am viewing it as worthless. That people are conflating marriage with gay unions, that suggests they don’t appreciate those measurable differences, which would include you. Also, I have had a couple gay friends, neither of which thought gay unions were the same as marriage. Not every gay person is that selfish and narcissistic.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Since I am the one advocating that marriage maintain its unique status due to its measurable merit, you can hardly claim that I am viewing it as worthless.
You just said that the govt. would make marriage worthless if they allowed gays to marry too. You didn’t say the govt. would make them both equally valuable ? Your argument means that you’d rather destroy marriage than let gays enjoy it too, if you think it would be worthless if gays were allowed to marry then you don’t really value marriage you just value superiority.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t say they’d MAKE it worthless. I said they wold be promoting anti-family values, implying that it is worthless.
My argument implies that I would rather destroy marriage? LOL How in the world does my argument suggest that?
I do value superiority. Of course, that should go without saying. If something is superior, shouldn’t we value it more than the thing to which we are comparing it? I mean, the fact that you would criticize someone for valuing superiority is laughable. That’s like saying, “You like things that are good! What are you thinking?!” Again, that level of irrationality must come from indoctrination.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I said they wold be promoting anti-family values, implying that it is worthless.
Yes, you are saying you feel a non gay marriage would be worthless if gays were allowed the same rights? Don’t you understand that it implies your concern is not the value of marriage but the exclusion of gays to maintain your perceived superiority ? If you truly valued marriage you’d feel that it’s value was increased as it was broadened to include all gods children?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, you are saying you feel a non gay marriage would be worthless if gays were allowed the same rights?
No, that is note remotely what I’m saying. Again, I’m telling you what the government would be saying if they adopted your political dogma. I never said I would agree with them.
Don’t you understand that it implies your concern is not the value of marriage but the exclusion of gays to maintain your perceived superiority ?
I’m not trying to exclude gays. I am excluding any behavior that is not a marriage, whether gay or not. Again, a “gay marriage” is a thing. It’s not a person. I don’t ask the government to officially declare my religion (a thing) to be equal to all other religions, and I don’t get upset that they would never do such a thing. I accept (and cheerfully so) that people not of my religious persuasion don’t think my religion is as good as theirs. I don’t demand that my Church be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the government, instead of The Mormon Church (which is wrong). I just let it be, because I don’t need that kind of power.
Why can’t the Left accept that their institution, the “gay marriage,” is just a thing and not take it personally, that the rest of humanity thinks it’s not any good. Like a church, the government shouldn’t be taking an official stand on it, to declare it to be as good as comparable institutions, especially since the evidence contradicts that notion so strongly.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You can't or won't actually explain your points.
I thought I made it clear that this question is drivel. I’m not answering it, because I am not promoting alienation. Should we appease everyone and just give into any random whim, anytime anyone whines and complains about not having enough "rights?" Obviously, not, because that is mindless, absurd and worse, cowardly.
It’s not a random whim, the law is set up to financially benefit married people. I’ve had the same job before and after I got married and for some reason I get a lot more taxes back at the end of the year. That’s a perk for I get for being straight and legally registering as such? Sweet. But I’m not going to pretend that it’s not a completely arbitrary distinction in terms of cause-and-effect. My being married doesn’t actually logically warrant a tax break. Being straight certainly doesn’t mean that I should have visitation rights in a hospital that someone else who is equally emotionally and financially invested in his/her partner shouldn’t have. It’s not whining, I’m just pointing out a law that should be changed because it doesn’t benefit anyone but harms some people. What’s the point of that? Why do you promote that?
More importantly, you said this:
The fact is, gay relationships aren’t proven to do society any good,
and
For the record, my argument is that marriage has been PROVEN and been proven for thousands of years.
So for the third time: What sort of proof are you referring to?
Why does it have to be material?
Material as in it causes you or society tangible harm. I’m talking about a legal designation not a religious one. How do same-sex couples getting married cause any actual, quantifiable damage to you or society. How does it interfere with your ability to live your life.
I already explained that the government adopting the view that a marriage is as worthless as a gay union effects the way people feel about family, thus weakening and ultimately destroying the backbone of civilization.
No. You’ve just repeated that over and over again without explaining anything. Here, I’ll help you by asking you questions that, when answered, will explain your assertions.
- Why would elevating the legal status of same-sex marriage not just simply strengthen same-sex marriage? In what demonstrable way would it weaken straight marriage? There isn’t a supply shortage right?
- Why is a gay union worthless and what is that worth measured in?
- How is straight marriage the backbone of civilization? How does adding even more couples to that backbone not strengthen it but weaken it?
I thought it was clear that thousands of years of cultural evolution resulting in all relevant nations having adopted marriage as the building block of their society was proof of its value.
You made it clear that your unwilling to define your distinction of “relevant nations”. You understand that relevant is a very broad term right? You also originally used the phrase: “every nation on earth that means anything to anyone that is relevant in our world”
For the third time: I would love for you to give examples of a couple irrelevant nations on earth that don’t mean anything to anyone.
It’s also clear that you don’t understand the concept of cultural evolution.
Read this again: Cultural evolution means that society has adapted and become more diverse to survive. I would argue that omitting certain groups from participating in certain aspects of society is being "evolved" out of our culture. So allowing same-sex marriage seems to be part of cultural evolution. What you support is the opposite.
If not proof, strong enough evidence that it is mind-bogglingly stupid to demote marriage to the status of the trendy diversity of gay unions.
What evidence? Why is it a demotion. Again, there aren’t a finite amount of marriage certificates. Why is it not simply a legal promotion of same-sex marriage? What does it do to straight marriages?
Spoken like a flaming progressive. Children actually have emotional needs, too and biological parents are naturally more inclined to fill those needs. Statistically, this is a proven fact, as they are less likely to abandon and more likely to be kind and sensitive toward their children. The reason these emotional needs are called "needs," is because if those needs aren’t filled, children are likely to do things like commit crimes, complete suicide and have a bunch of dysfunctional children themselves. This, on a broad scale, will completely destroy a society.
How do most same sex couples get children? The same way straight married couples do if they are having fertility issues. I’m guessing your statistically proven facts would bare out that a child is better off being adopted by a same-couple than growing up in an orphanage.
As far as being “sensitive and kind” those aren’t things that are “facts” that can be “statistically proven”. But, feel free to produce the statistics that say children are more likely to be abused, commit crimes, have learning trouble if they are raised by a homosexual couple verses heterosexual.
Tell me if I’m wrong about this:
You believe that homosexuality is wrong because of your religious beliefs right? You know that your beliefs are not simply beliefs but the absolute truth. So why not just say that? Why try and pass of these assertions as objectively provable? If this is off base, then please actually answer the questions instead of restating assertions. It’s all written down, you can read back through the entire discussion and count the instances where you make a claim, I ask you to give me an example or back up your assertion and you repeat your claim.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 28, 2010 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
That’s a perk for I get for being straight and legally registering as such?
It’s not a perk for being straight and legally registered as such. Where do you come up with this crap? It’s obviously a perk for taking part in a proven institution, whether you’re gay or not (as there are some gay people who do get married).
Material as in it causes you or society tangible harm.
Sounds like you’re implying that you know that it does cause intangible harm. If so, why would anyone be dumb enough to want a law passed that causes harm at all? If it causes more harm than good, how is it a just law at all? As St. Augustine said, “An unjust law is no law at all.”
-Why would elevating the legal status of same-sex marriage not just simply strengthen same-sex marriage?
Because calling them by the same name asserts that their differences are irrelevant. If their differences are officially irrelevant, clearly biological parents staying together, raising their own children means nothing. The hidden premise of your irrational demands is a change in the language that implies that everything beneficial to society about marriage is worthless. It’s a lot like the government calling lead, “gold” and passing policies that reflect this. Gold must necessarily lose value in this process.
For the third time: I would love for you to give examples of a couple irrelevant nations on earth that don’t mean anything to anyone.
We don’t know their names, because as their use for marriage declined, they declined and eventually were lost and became so irrelevant, they were forgotten. The fact that all relevant nations (in history) were nations built on marriage is the evidence in itself.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You're not even trying to have an honest discussion so we're done.
I’ll just clarify an assertion you made on my behalf.
Sounds like you’re implying that you know that it does cause intangible harm.
That’s not what I’m implying at all. I know it doesn’t cause me any harm tangibly or intangibly. I don’t know what harm it causes you because you refuse to describe it.
Have a nice evening.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 28, 2010 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
Me personally? None. But then again, I’m not a narcissist so I don’t always think in terms of “what can I get out of this” or “it doesn’t hurt me, so I don’t care.” I tend to think in broader terms, which is good for arguing law. Also, I see no dishonesty at all. I just see a guy with trendy politically motivated values versus a guy whose values are based on natural laws.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I bought my politics at Hot Topic.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 28, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
my argument is that marriage has been PROVEN and been proven for thousands of years.
So has slavery, are you promoting that too?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
Slavery hasn’t been proven at all. The feudal system was a mess, for example. We also know that slavery led to the greatest bloodshed for Americans in history, the Civil War. Anyone that thinks slavery is proven is very ignorant of history.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Straight marriage also led to the Civil War. (And the Holocaust … and Barack Obama … and athlete’s foot … and the Warriors…)
Hey, Nat: what did you do with your soft-spoken, kind, and respectful counterpart toddaverth? As far as raving homophobes go, he was so much better mannered…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 28, 2010 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
I’m a gay-marriage phobe. I’m not afraid of gay people.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’m a gay-marriage phobe
Well obviously but if you could get over it you’d have a much more tranquil life. Hating anyone and trying to keep them down is not good for the soul. If gays are willing to let you marry as you choose don’t you realize you belittle yourself by being less charitable toward their needs? and that by association you make all straight guys look like jerks?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 11:03 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, it makes life easier to just agree with everyone and do everything they want you to do, I suppose, which is why you are so tranquil and happy? Perhaps you ought to think that over. I think being true to yourself and your values brings tranquility and happiness. I think constantly worrying about what everything thinks of you is what leads to anxiety and misery.
Gays are willing to LET me marry? I am not stopping anyone from marrying. I am not stopping any gay unions. In reality, if gays had their way, they would pass a law to prevent Mormons from marrying in retaliation for us not allowing the government to adopt homodogma. I am not stopping anyone but the government from doing anything. Furthermore, I am not a jerk. I am just not so cowardly as to adopt every trendy dogma that comes around and eventually goes, like this will. Well, I am kind of a jerk. But at last I’m not a coward.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
i don’t know about this:
But at last I’m not a coward.
You ducked 10+ questions from BSD, above…that’s about as cowardly as it gets. Walk away from the discussion…slowly…
I didn’t duck them. I explained how fallacious they were and how they were the wrong questions. If I answer them, as if it’s a good question, I am conceding the underlying false premises. I’m not going to agree with false premises, playing your game. That’s not how a debate works. A debate involves recognizing falsehoods, even the ones that are implied by questions that are erroneous in their implications, and countering them.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
“In reality, if gays had their way, they would pass a law to prevent Mormons from marrying in retaliation for us not allowing the government to adopt homodogma.”
This is as classic a case of projection as one can find. You do not know how gay people as a whole would think, regardless of what your gay friend(s) tell you. So you assume the worst in them to justify the worst in you. That’s like straight from the book projection right there.
That’s easy for you to say. You don’t know how Mormons were treated during prop. 8, you didn’t see the videos of vicious hatred being spewed by the Left and continues to be spewed, if you’re paying attention. Not being a Mormon, you don’t pay attention. Do you go around telling Black people there is no such thing as racism? The gay Left HATES members of my Church with enormous passion. They are bitter and are launching propaganda (like the movies September Dawn, the recent hate-filled episodes on Big Love, misrepresenting the Church, and the more recent 8: The Mormon Proposition) as well as using legal processes to cost the Church money. I read in the papers a bunch of bullsh** about us. Have you ever had entire movies made about your minority group? There are many about us, but they are now coming from more “respectable” sources, instead of just religious fundamentalists from Oklahoma.
You don’t know the first thing about how the gay Left (and really, much of the Left in general) is anxious to take cheap shots at us every chance they get. NY Times just took one, out of the blue and off-topic to the story, just because the editor and the author of the story hates Mormons. Don’t tell me the Left is going to be fair with us, because they have no such qualms about injustices as we do toward them. We have been fair as a whole and followed the law in our advocacy of traditional marriage.
That the Left has demonized us and portrayed us as idiots, crazies, fundamentalists, hate-filled, controlling, etc. is common-place and acceptable to the Left, despite the fact that we have done everything according to law and according to Democratic rules.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
We have been fair as a whole and followed the law in our advocacy of traditional marriage.
One can advocate for marriage without being hateful towards others with a different view of marriage, that’s why your church draws negative attention. If you just treated others the way you’d like to be treated you’d have none of these problems. There’s no good reason for mormons or any other group to have any input into gays affairs, the cornerstone of a free country is letting those you don’t agree with be free too.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
Hateful....LOLOLOLOL
Pamboat below…having discussed how much she has been verbally abused below as a Gay (non open of course), then encounters a differing view and tells said person…
you have your head so far up your ass your viewpoint won’t change
So if your giving out sermons about being hateful…. you might wish to serve notice on our declaring/non-open gay GSOMer below?
Or are you running double standards here?
Especially in light of your comment…
If you just treated others the way you’d like to be treated you’d have none of these problems
Maybe you wish to double that sentiment to Pam’s offensive response below?
Surely you too are not another band wagon hypocrit as well?
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
In fairness, I’m pretty sure pamboat was simply expressing her personal opinion about a specific poster, based on specific comments that, to her, showed a distinctly head-up-ass-ish presumptuousness and lack of sensitivity.
I really don’t think she meant to disparage the entire community of people with their heads up their asses…
There will be no extra point!
if your giving out sermons about being hateful…. you might wish to serve notice on our declaring/non-open gay GSOMer below?
Well, I wasn’t answering her, I was answering Natty?
and she hasn’t told me that she’s against any group enjoying their freedoms?
Now if she told me she’s against your right to stick your head up your ass I ’d be sure to respond.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
In short...
Your a hypocrit. But thanks, you just confirmed what I suspected. “Do as I say, not as I do…and I will only ‘tell’ certain people what to say or do not others”… well carry on.. what little respect I may have had for you has now gone. You yourself do not treat everyone with the same level hand….therefore you have zero basis to lecture others on how they may speak.
Oh and from an ‘Evolution’ perspective… your labyrinthian insults are even more pathetic…you should try harder at your age, your not a poorly educated teenager.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
from an ‘Evolution’ perspective… your labyrinthian insults are even more pathetic…
Haha, I’m not sure what that means but if you tell me I’ll try to improve them?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Labyrinthine Insult..
http://everything2.com/title/The+Art+Of+Insulting+-+Chapter+V+-+Intelligence+Insults
Basically an insult with a smile…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
The truth is a sword, which cuts deep. Some take it as hate, while others take it for what it is, despite the fact that it severs them from the elitist in-crowd, where they feel warm, safe and cozy.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
and you are the ultimate bringer of truth…
like I said before, you speaking truth is not what people don’t like about debating with you.
They don’t like that I call bullsh**, when I see it. It hurts their feelings.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
They don’t like that I call bullsh**, when I see it. It hurts their feelings.
What we don’t like is you trying to make everyone live to suit you. You are so unsatisfied with your own life that you must meddle in everyone else’s? If you wanna get married get married, if you don’t fine but why should you have anything to say about if and how other folks get married? God did not die and make you boss.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
No, I don’t like when you pervert the original debate so many times you eventually confuse the other person into debating something they never even talked about.
That’s not your truth overpowering anyone. That’s your ability to continue to change and complicate the original point of contention until the other person gets frustrated and gives up, to answer what you believe (or maybe just pretend) the other person wrote though they actually did not and then start arguing that point until they get bored with their attempts to bring you back to what they actually said.
It’s annoying. And even after I write this you will probably respond with something like,
“you say it is because of that, but it is really because of (insert thing it is not because of here).”
Basically, I believe that you believe that the gay community has a lot of power in America. If this is not what you are saying, please let me know I am misinterpreting you and I will address your other points. If that is what you are saying and what you actually believe, then I don’t really even know what to say.
Logically…
if the gay community had power…
and the gay community wanted to legalize gay marriage…
why is gay marriage not 100% legal?
They managed to get nearly half of people to vote for a dogma to be adopted by the government, when no one else’s dogma is welcome as a government policy. Mormons’ and other traditional people got their power from the truth. Where did gay people get their power to influence people to vote for something so insane? That’s a great deal of power, through political friends (like Jerry Brown), judges (the ninth circuit), popular political leaders (Gavin Newsome), celebrity support (long list of people who were very active), extremely rich people (forget the guy’s name, but he gathered a bunch of Hollywood snobs together to raise money) and the entire teacher’s union, apparently (donated a million or two).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The fact is, gay relationships aren’t proven to do society any good,
In a grossly overpopulated world it would not be hard to prove that gays do us a lot of good.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
So a gay union should get the status it deserves as birth control and not marriage.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
That wasn't the point
The claim was they provide no benefits to society. and I’m saying they provide more benefits to an overcrowded world than an overbreeding ignorant hetrosexual couple provides so gay marriage could actually be promoted for a few generations for the good of the earth?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
Are you suggesting that we pass the law as means to purposely trick people that the traditional family has no objectively meaningful value, so they’ll have fewer children? What are you, some kind of evil genius? In a Democracy, the government doesn’t trick people, theoretically. The people are informed and make their own choices. If you want people to have fewer children, you’ll have to do so honestly, at least if you have any respect for people’s free will.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
So Naticus2
if a couple gets married and doesn’t have kids, they should have their marriage license revoked?
I know a gay couple who has a kid, and a straight couple who does not. you’re arguing that morally that gay couple should be married, and the straight couple couldn’t.
how’s the argument looking?
Since you’re talking small sample size, and I’m talking about principle, my argument is not looking remotely worse, unless a person lacks perspective.
Marriage as a law in this country effects 300 million people. Not only is it practical, in that it validates and reinforces filial ties, in principle, it holds up a standard and influences society to value biological parents raising their own children, which is, of course, the best case scenario. There is no better way to do things than to have biological parents raising their own offspring. The unique status of marriage helps ensure that people feel strongly about it and the implications. The last thing we need is a rise in biological parents abandoning their children, for example.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
This is a horrible argument that we need to set a standard to have children raised in married households with their biological parents. It is completely unrealistic to think that we will ever approach a time where there are no single mothers, no dead-beat dads, no unmarried parents, no married couples with no children. It’s simply not going to happen.
Furthermore, I strongly suggest that you read a book called “Mothers and Others” which examines the evolutionary importance of multiple women mothering a child, even though the child is not theirs. Historically, we are not made to have children, and look after them only by ourselves. We are made to birth children, and see that they are taken care of. In this sense a gay couple is as capable of being wonderful or horrible parents as biological parents are.
by bradyk2 on Mar 2, 2010 10:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It is completely unrealistic to think that we will ever approach a time where there are no single mothers, no dead-beat dads, no unmarried parents, no married couples with no children. It’s simply not going to happen.
We’re never going to completely eliminate any bad behavior. Does that mean we change the law to reflect pessimism and cynicism? The reason we have laws is to deal with the weakness of human nature. If humans were all good, we would need no laws, only teachers.
As far as me reading books, that’s not going to influence my views on the law. Laws are based on principle and the big picture. I suggest you look at the big picture when examining the much higher rates of abuse and abandonment among adoptive or step parents.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
laws change, history and evolution only grow
we have evolutionary and historical facts proven over our entire life as a species, and laws “proven” over 100 years…..which should we base our opinions on?
abandonment among adoptive and step parents has nothing to do with what would result from gay marriage. Step parent abuse is the result of someone remarrying an abusive spouse, not the inability to be a non-abusive parent. as for adoption, many children in orphanages have been subject to much emotional trauma in their early years, and a lot of time parents don’t educate themselves on adoption.
Step parent abuse is the result of someone remarrying an abusive spouse, not the inability to be a non-abusive parent. as for adoption, many children in orphanages have been subject to much emotional trauma in their early years, and a lot of time parents don’t educate themselves on adoption.
This is not the case. Skeptic was astute enough to know that Darwinian principles would demand that biological parents are biologically driven to take care of their own children. In fact, studies have shown that relatives of children favor, and are kinder to the children that look more like their blood relatives. It’s just a fact that we take care of our own children (with some exceptions; there are very special people who are very nurturing and do a great job with adoptive children).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
There is no better way to do things than to have biological parents raising their own offspring.
In most cases that’s true but not because the church sez so, it’s true because were are mammals with that model imprinted into our genes.
Letting gays marry on their own terms is gonna have zero effect on what hetro couples do. You are too tied to the gay thing, back up and put down the cool-aide.
Once you understand that the golden rule applies to everyone , you’ll see that you gain protection from offering gays protection? If you are walking down the street and you pass two guys does knowing if they are married in the church or not really affect your day? Could you possibly be that hateful?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
In most cases that’s true but not because the church sez so, it’s true because were are mammals with that model imprinted into our genes.
The Church doesn’t make truth. It only teaches it (or at least tries to). The important thing is that it’s true. I’m glad you see that, regardless of why you see it.
Letting gays marry on their own terms is gonna have zero effect on what hetro couples do.
Even if this were true, and I guarantee it’s not true, does that mean the government should adopt a Left wing dogma? Why not adopt a few other dogmas, like the J.W.’s belief that getting blood transfusions is wrong?
Once you understand that the golden rule applies to everyone , you’ll see that you gain protection from offering gays protection?
They are protected. They just aren’t included in an institution, due to their own choices which are made on their own biological urges. If you have a way to make it so they won’t have backward biological urges, please let us know so their choices will include them in the institution of marriage.
If you are walking down the street and you pass two guys does knowing if they are married in the church or not really affect your day? Could you possibly be that hateful?
Again, unlike you, I’m not a narcissist. It won’t effect my day. That you assume that I only care about myself, like you, is why you don’t understand my arguments.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
does that mean the government should adopt a Left wing dogma? Why not adopt a few other dogmas, like the J.W.’s belief that getting blood transfusions is wrong?
You are confusing the govt. allowing something with the govt. forcing something onto you? If we allow gay marriage we are NOT forcing you to marry a gay? If we allow blood transfusions we are NOT forcing you to transfuse? But if we dis-allow gay marraige we ARE forcing some of us to not marry as they desire? and if we dis -allow blood transfusions we ARE forcing folks to not use the medical procedures they want? It’s a pretty simple concept, choice versus force. Freedom versus oppression? There’s plenty of room in this country for everyone to be happy as long as we are tolerant of others and recognize their rights, EVEN THE ONE’S THAT DON’T AGREE WITH OUR PARTICULAR PERSONAL RELIGIONS?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
If we allow gay marriage we are NOT forcing you to marry a gay?
Another strawman argument. This is not my argument.
There is no force involved in gays not marrying, so why are you so uptight about them not getting special recognition based on your dogma? You don’t want anyone else’s dogma adopted by the government, but you want your own Left wing dogma adopted.
The government could in fact adopt the J.W.’s belief that blood transfusions are wrong without forcing anything on anyone. They could simply publicly adopt the principle and teach it in schools, not unlike with your own homodogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
It's ironic that you're pointing out fallacies
this analogy simply does not make sense. roughly 20% of the human race is born with romantic interest in those of the same gender.
blood transfusions is applying what skep said to something entirely different. blood transfusions are not a lifestyle that a significant portion of our population is born with.
Just because the analogy isn’t exact, doesn’t mean it iisn’t apt. No analogy is exact. That people tend to be born (theoretically… unproven and unprovable) with some malfunction in their sex drive is completely non sequitur and has nothing to do with anything.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
some malfunction in their sex drive is completely non sequitur and has nothing to do with anything.
actually it has everything to do with everything. comparing blood transfusions with same-sex marriage is like talking about monta ellis’ fastball. you can’t compare a basketball skill to a baseball skill any better than you can compare a god-given birth trait (you think it’s not born with? then why did pam say she wishes she were straight? if she wished so, why couldn’t she just make the choice?), to a medical practice. these aren’t just apples and oranges, these are apples and deli meat.
and please don’t ever, ever, ever again call it a “malfunction.” could you be more insulting?
So, if you lived in Sir Isaac Newton’s time, you would be sure to tell him, “Dude! Planets are not red and shiny, are not edible and do not have stems, so clearly planets can’t be effected by gravity like apples can!”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
ok i see your point
everything and anything is comparable.
well, in that case…..the human species has been known to exhibit poor parenting qualities from time to time, so I don’t think you should father any children. that’s what you’re saying here. wtf.
Well, clearly apples and planets turned out to be a good analogy.
Also, you’re just being emotional. Go take a walk and calm down, so you can stop with the emotionalism resulting in ridiculously bad reading comprehension, i.e. strawman arguments.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
They could simply publicly adopt the principle and teach it in schools, not unlike with your own homodogma.
Stick to the topic man. We don’t even have them married and you are already worried about their possible childern getting a broad education? The gay marriage issue has nothing to do with childern, it’s a totally separate debate. Education does need improvement as the fact that half the people of a supposedly free country will vote to punish the other half cause they don’t like their lifestyle proves, but marriage and parenting are not one and the same. Just out of curiosity what if we sterilized them, would you let them get married then? How about if they tattooed “the only real god is the mormon god” on their forehead?? What would it take for you to be alright with them ? You wanna line everybody up and count penis’s and vagina’s and match them all up in forced matrimony ?? Do you even know what you want???
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 12:18 AM PST up reply actions
great point, skep.
arguing gay marriage is bad because of children is not the issue. it’s gay marriage for GAY MARRIAGE.
The gay marriage issue has nothing to do with children.
Tell that to the (few) conservative people of Massachusetts, whose children are being indoctrinated with gay dogma. The parents are never told when this indoctrination will occur, because state law implies that a gay union=marriage and that it is an incontrovertible fact. Again, state dogma resulting in the violation of (parental) rights, as Thomas Jefferson and the founders forewarned.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Tell that to the (few) conservative people of Massachusetts, whose children are being indoctrinated with gay dogma. The parents are never told when this indoctrination will occur, because state law implies that a gay union=marriage and that it is an incon
Whoa, don’t let your imagination get the best of you. A broad sex education is not gonna suddenly create a classroom full of little gays. Dang boy you need to get away from that coolaide and meet some real people. You think you could MAKE the average teenage boy not like girls? All a good education will do is make these kids more understanding of others and their place in nature.
If a parent is worth emulating their values are gonna stick to the kid instead of something they might hear during a few minutes of class time. Have some faith in your faith for christsake, and think about the fact that if it’s worthwhile the kids will know and if it’s bullshit they will be better off to know that too.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
what you talkin bout, skep!?
so I grew up with sex education from day one that included homosexuality being natural, and I still am enamored with the opposite gender. does this make me weird!?!?!
you’re not gonna make a heterosexual teenage boy gay any more easily than you’re going to make him like brussels sprouts. it just ain’t gonna happen.
It’s not a “broad sex education.” They overtly teach children that a gay union=marriage. I know that dogma, to you, is a fact, but in reality, it’s just a dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
They overtly teach children that a gay union=marriage. I know that dogma, to you, is a fact, but in reality, it’s just a dogma.
In reality it’s just paranoia and an excuse to hate. Go study those kid’s reaction to the education and see if you can come back and tell me they all turned into little homos? My observation is those kids don’t care what others do as much as their parents care? The parents are the troubled one’s not the kids. The kids will say meh and go out and play the normal boy-girls thang. The only way we can move forward is with education, segregation is not fixed by not teaching about discrimination in schools, health is not assured by leaving health out of the curriculum, you don’t learn science by being denied research other than the bible, the old ways cannot move us ahead, they can only stagnate society so a little doggiema is necessary to move forward.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
Go study those kid’s reaction to the education and see if you can come back and tell me they all turned into little homos?
More dishonesty. This is like you complaining about your children being indoctrinated with Taliban dogma, and when you complain, the Tablian says, “Well, prove it turned them into jihadists!”
It doesn’t matter what they turned into or didn’t turn into. It’s still a dogma being preached by the American government. I don’t want the Leftaliban running the schools.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
It doesn’t matter what they turned into or didn’t turn into. It’s still a dogma being preached by the American government. I don’t want the Leftaliban running the schools.
Well it does matter what it turned them into because a good education likely made them smarter than a limited education but that all really has nothing to do with gay basketball night which turned into the right of gays to have a satisfying marriage debate.
The presence of homodoggiema in the classroom is another topic, maybe for private versus public schools debate? Perhaps a simple clean up after your homodoggiema sign would do the trick?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
a good education
We’re not talking about education. We’re talking about indoctrination.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
We’re talking about indoctrination.
indoctrinating them to be inquisitive? Broad knowledge is not a bad thing unless you wanna be their taliban?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
Is teaching children that a gay union=marriage with no analysis or discussion involved, teaching them to think for themselves or simply what to think? Obviously, it’s indoctrination. That a lot of Americans aren’t well educated to know indoctrination when they see it is alarming.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Yeah I went to the Philly game yesterday
And I was surprised at how many open seats there were and especially in the upper levels. It’s sad because I know they sold plenty of season tickets but people just don’t even bother to come to the games… especially when it rains I guess.
everybody should be happy about this promo
maybe sell more tickets, draw more attention to warriors, increase fan base? worst case scenario it’s like every other game…
yay, more reasons for Cohan not to sell.
So count me as one that wouldn’t be happier with more ticket sales at this moment. Unless your a fan of losing basketball year after year.
this was in reply to enron4515 about selling more tickets.
by The Golden One on Feb 24, 2010 7:40 PM PST up reply actions
really?
the warriors have been losing for how long and cohan still has job. youre right, if this game sells well, cohan will be there until he dies.
Cohan owns the team, he stays because people keep buying tix.
It’s not because he cares about the fans or the team. His own kids got booed off the court and he didn’t flinch. For the first time he is acting like he might sell. But is asking for a ridiculous high price. The only way he will lower it is if attendance keeps dropping and he is not making as much of a profit.
by The Golden One on Feb 24, 2010 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Warriors hold 1st Gay Night?
my only question is can some of them teach Dre how to shoot freethrows?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 24, 2010 8:18 PM PST reply actions
was that a limp wrist joke?
Haha, No I’m just sayin we got basketball things like Dre’s shot that hurt us more than some group rockin the arena for one night?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 10:59 PM PST up reply actions
How about
we focus on putting a quality PRO team on the floor first and foremost.
by SmittytheCutman on Feb 24, 2010 8:51 PM PST reply actions
How about we focus on putting a quality PRO team on the floor first and foremost.
I think they are all spoken for?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 24, 2010 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
Werd
Save discussions like this for the summer.
One of the few to have appreciated Cap'n Jax. Do well in NC, get that 8th seed!
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
What I don't get is
what does supporting someones sexual orientation (straight or gay) have anything to do with sports, specially professional sports? and why single out the gay people (no pun intended)? i mean have you ever seen a “heterosexual” night at Oracle Area?
The Answer: very simple: It’s a good money making opportunity for the warriors who are low on ticket sales and are not making any profit – I mean – just notice – why aren’t the NBA champions the LA Lakers putting together a gay night? aren’t there any gay people in LA? it’s because they don’t need to – they sell out every game and they’re not desperate for gay peoples money – It’s as simple as that
SO – if I were gay (which I’m not and do not endorse it) I would totally be offended that a professional team (who’s players make millions of dollars) are putting together a night out of desperation to suck the gay peoples money right outta their pockets. And to have an open gym style basketball game before is just ridiculous!
That being said – i’m a die hard Warriors fan and will continue to be though I dont like this idea one bit
WE BELIEVE!
Well, San Francisco's reputation is actually really close to its demographic
this is an area where people like to support causes and act like they’re making a difference, and an area where there are lots of gay people. It seems like a no brainer, quite frankly.
Quick side question- did you have a problem with the various asian nights?
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 25, 2010 1:51 AM PST up reply actions
Being Asian
is not a sexual orientation – it is someone ethnicity/race – which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. So no I would have no problem with an Asian night
Like gay people, Asian-Americans are a minority group. There are clearly some nuances between the two groups — nuances that should neither be glossed over nor made too much of. In the context of this discussion, saying one minority group has “nothing to do” with the other is making too much of the differences, imo.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
if I think all the various asian nights AND gay night are all just kinda stupid does that make me a racist homophobe?
Thing A
if I think all the various asian nights AND gay night are all just kinda stupid does that make me a racist homophobe?
Not if you let them be in peace? If the special nights don’t rock your boat then it’s just not your interest so no big deal, but if you have to try and hurt their nights then you do have a problem.
I mean I think WWF is just kinda stupid but I’m not all paranoid and tryin to ban it :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
You’re against the World Wildlife Fund Skep?! I expected more from a “love all creatures” hippie-type like you. ; )
Thing A
You’re against the World Wildlife Fund Skep?
Yeah , all that wild meat running around is too tempting so I wanna ban ‘em.
Nice to see you back posting Sammy, I haven’t read anything by you for a while.
I hope you can tell me you’ve been busy doing something interesting?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
school isn’t really all that interesting of an answer, but I decided dedicating a little of the time I spent posting here towards school would probably help my GPA and job opportunities with graduation and a return to the real world looming.
Thing A
school isn’t really all that interesting of an answer,
That’s what I was hoping to hear. Education is always a good thing and when you get older you might even find it interesting :>) Have you found a field of work you think you might enjoy yet? You are gonna put in a lot of hours there so aim for something you like. .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yea, I didnt mean to say school isn’t interesting, just that its not that cool of an answer to your question. All other things being equal, I’d stay here for another year, but I think its probably about time money started going into my bank account again instead of into the UC’s. As for careers I’m still pretty unsettled. Firefighting would be awesome but the competition for the few open spots is pretty intense. (one of the few times being a white male works against me) A couple leads using my poli sci degree in D.C. have popped up recently but I’m not sure a return to D.C., or an entry level politics job with either a lobbying firm or working on a campaign are really what I want. Any suggestions skep?
Thing A
Any suggestions skep?
Hi Sam,I wish I was more up to date on the jobs situation so I could offer better advice, but I’m retired and my kids are working so it hasn’t been necessary to keep up.
I’m a surveyor and think it’s a great job but the construction sector is very slow now so I would not recommend it for someone who needs a steady job, I was lucky and started out when times were booming and work was plentiful. Once the economic stimulus money gets in the pipeline there’s gonna be plenty of construction work but that might not be for quite a few months.
I think firefighter sounds like a very fulfilling job and if you really want it I’d make that the ultimate goal even if it required some side trips to get there? Does you veteran status give you any extra credits when they rank the applicants? Could you start as an EMT and get experience that would boost you up the hiring ladder? Hospitals might be busy despite the economy’s problems? Lots of old folks coming up these next few decades might make that a steady field if you enjoy working with people?
Poli-sci and firefighting seem pretty different to me :>) That’s gonna be a definite lifestyle choice. I guess if you want to use that degree Sacramento might be the place to snoop around but I don’t know if lobbyists etc. are affected by this recession or not?
Since this is a very difficult time to look for a job maybe another year of school does make some sense? especially if your veterans benefits will pay for it? and use the time to work your way up the firefighters hiring ranks?
So you don’t worry too much about it I ‘ll tell you that I’ve noticed people somehow fall into a job that suits them without actually planning it, somehow it just pops up unexpectedly like that special girl you end up marrying. So wherever you go just keep your eyes and ears open and try to learn as much as you can and see where that takes you.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 11:09 PM PST up reply actions
Methinks he doth protest too much.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
i mean have you ever seen a "heterosexual" night at Oracle Area?
The same reason you don’t see guys night, general caucasian night, age 25-45 night. Because those groups already represent a majority of the audience. While their are probably alot of Persian, Irish, Indian, Gay, Lesbian, or whatever fans, more fans are will come out on a certain ‘appreciation’ or ‘event’ night. Me being a mostly a minority, could care less about hanging out with other people of my race, but some people enjoy it. It doesnt really bother anybody, there is a shot on the big screen and some cheesy give away and what not….
I personally like the idea. Gay people are just like everyone else (some are cool, some are jerks, etc…), just a minority and should be treated as such. Espicially in area with such a high population of that minority.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 25, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
being Caucasian – being between the ages of 25-45, being Persian, being Irish, Being Indian, has NOTHING to do with being Gay or Lesbian.
I understand that they are like everyone else – so why point out their sexual orientation and hype it up like is something special?
Thats my point
Now I’m confused. Does being between the ages of 25-45 have anything to do with being Persian?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
i mean have you ever seen a “heterosexual” night at Oracle Area?
yes. it’s called the other 41 games of the season where they have the “Kiss Cam” on the jumboscreen and focus only on heterosexual couples.
so
why don’t they turn the camera’s on homosexual couples sometimes during the “kiss cam” on the jumbo-screen – why do gay people need their own special night? that was my point
Because some drunk homophobe might throw his beer at them?
All nights like this are really meant to do is celebrate diversity. People who are gay are still fighting for acceptance and putting them in the spotlight for one moment in time hopefully will clue some people in that they are just regular folk. If even one person has a change of heart, then a night like this would be worth it.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
So when are we going to celebrate sameness, as diversity in itself isn’t good anymore than sameness is good.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
That kinda depends, no? Are we talking about organizing one’s stamp collection, or living peacefully in a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-life-stylistic place like the Bay Area?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 27, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
What if there is an array of really crappy life-styles, excessive inbreeding, resulting in a variety of genetically diseased races and such diversity of thinking that no one can agree on anything.
Sameness is underrated. I think diversity is worthless without sameness and sameness is worthless without diversity. I’m trying to say that diversity, in itself, is not worth anything. The question is, what kind of diversity do you have and what are you doing with it?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
What if there is an array of really crappy life-styles, excessive inbreeding, resulting in a variety of genetically diseased races […]
Crap, are you ranting about eugenics again?
Somehow, it’s only a matter of time before this circles back to Asian women…
There will be no extra point!
One can only hope. ha ha ha I was considering though that technically, you would have more diversity if you had more and more bizarre races, like a race with evolved to have no emotions, or universally suffered from Asperger’s or maybe all had a speech impediment. Plus, more people in wheelchairs, more bipolar or schizophrenic people and more people with ADD would represent more diversity as well. ha h a
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
one only measures diversity based on what bubble they choose to segregate from another.
You could argue that a gay white male is diverse because you’re choosing merely to look at the sexual orientation bubble. Other people may look at the race bubble, and find him in the majority.
Everyone is diverse in some form or another. similarly, when I go to a game at Oracle, and I see all different races, ages, sexual orientations and genders, I see this “sameness” because we’re all humans, and we’re all enjoying basketball. So stop bubbling whatever you want to bubble. Is Andris Biedrins a majority member or a minority member? the majority of Americans are caucasians, but the minority of world members are caucasian. The majority of Bay-Areans are caucasian, but the minority of world members are caucasian.
So I’m sorry that you think we should have “sameness” night, but everyone has “sameness” and everyone has “diversity,” it just depends on which bubble you choose to clump. I’m sorry that your in the minority by not accepting and being close-minded when it comes to people’s lives and rights.
If everyone is diverse, then diversity means nothing.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
exactly.
Gay night isn’t celebrating diversity. It’s celebrating homosexuality and equality, the same way tea parties celebrate tea, and CJ Watson night celebrates mohawks.
I know what your next argument is: no straight night? No one fails to recognize heterosexuality and its rights or equality. When we truly recognize homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals, there will no longer be gay nights.
So you’re right, we shouldn’t have gay nights – but only because we shouldn’t live in such a gross society that we differentiate homosexuals from heterosexuals. But, we don’t live in a utopian society. There is segregation, and lack of equality, and until we fail to see a difference between sexual orientations, we must continue to celebrate those that are often attacked.
Razzmataz you said it what does someones sexual orientation have to
do with it. Nothing. Gay people are not telling you that they do not “endorse” your heterosexuality, so why do you have to not accept theirs? This is just another theme night – get over it, if you dont like gay people, which apparently you dont, then dont go to it. Period. If you want to propose a gay night to the Lakers go ahead. Perhaps the Warriors can also have something as preposterous as an Irish night? Or Mexican or Filippino night? And if you want to host a straight night, then by all meas do so. The Warriors arent there for only your closed minded eyes, and the rest of your small group
again
being Irish, Mexican or Filipino is not a sexual orientation – rather it is someone ethnicity/race
which i dont have a problem with.
again – question stands – what does someone sexual orientation have anything to do with basketball? NOTHING – so why host a night like this
What does someone’s race have to do with basketball?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
Or the hotdogs and chips promotion?
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
i think the larger point
razzmataz is trying to raise (but not directly saying so) is that you can’t choose race/ethnicity but you can choose sexual orientation. razz, when did you decide to become a heterosexual? and what the hell does not endorsing homosexuality mean?
You don’t understand! Race has nothing to do with sexual orientation has nothing to do with basketball has nothing to do with peanut butter has nothing to do with a starry night sky. So, no gay night!!!
You don’t understand! Race has nothing to do with sexual orientation has nothing to do with basketball has nothing to do with peanut butter has nothing to do with a starry night sky. So, no gay night!!!
So you are saying that everything just floats around without affecting anything else?
So, what if a gay basketball player wants to eat a peanut butter sandwich and stargaze? How would you deal with that?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 28, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
I had a friend long ago who once stated, as if fact, “Adonal Foyle is the NBA’s only openly gay player”. I totally bought it. Either way, I bet Adonal stargazes from time to time.
I bet Adonal stargazes from time to time.
Adonal’s so smart he probably knows the name of every star? :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
I can tell you...
…that empirically nobody is born wanting peanut butter sandwiches. It’s a deliberate choice, and not one that our skyward staring hoopsters should be making.
This was a joke, if it isn’t evident enough.
nobody is born wanting peanut butter sandwiches.
haha, nobody is born wanting steak either, tastes evolve, some different than others, spice’s what makes this world interesting.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
asians suck at basketball.
I wouldn’t wanna tell Yao Ming that ,? he’s a pretty big dude :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
Honest and serious question I bring up...
I bring this up not to start any flame war, but because I really want to know what you all think:
Could hosting a night like this have any effect on whether players decide to sign here? Crazy question…its ONE night…I know. Its representative of more than a single night though and the Gay and Lesbian community is a big part of the Bay Area whether you approve or not. Its part of the history and culture of this place. Though I can only presume things based on stereotypes (red flag in its own right) basketball players, and athletes in general, are known to lean on the homophobic side. Sports are inherently macho, and the locker rooms and “brotherhood” seem to, in general, promote that homophobic mentality.
I have no idea who on the Warriors team would be truly against Gay Rights if any at all, but I could take a guess based on personality, background etc….hypothetically, could a night like this weigh in on whether a player would want to sign or resign here if something like this goes against their deep rooted beliefs?
An example that pops in my head is perhaps DWade, who is a very religious Christian man (take that for what its worth considering the allegations stemming from his relationship with his ex), and I remember when Tim Hardaway made his anti-gay comments, reporters would egg Wade into answering “how would you react if one of your teammates were gay” and Wade completely dodged the question 3+ times.
So would something like this be a factor at all? Akin to weather preference? We all know how SF, and in turn, the Bay Area is perceived by people who don’t live here and are a bit more ignorant, and I never hear the same things about LA or New York even though they are very gay friendly as well…. Or is this post pretty much a waste because money talks? Or the minor detail that we’re a laughing stock organization?
Lastly, I noticed there was no player meet and greet before or after the game….
My icon is a testament to the Dubs ability to play defense.
Well, we don't really have a shot to sign anyone at all
so that’s moot. We do have a few religious players on our team, like Corey Maggette and Kelenna Azubuike. I don’t know whether or not they approve/disapprove, but they are there.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 25, 2010 1:55 AM PST up reply actions
False Dichotomy
Saying someone’s “a very religious Christian man” doesn’t necessarily imply anything at all about his or her attitude toward gays. There are subsets of Christianity with very different stances on gays.
Not to mention: Dwyane Wade plays in fricking Miami. Not exactly Omaha, or Indiana.
From the perspective of a midwestern fan of the league, I’d say the bay area has as good a shot at appealing to players as, say, Phoenix which has historically done pretty well in terms of free agency. There’s a nightlife, there are things to do outside the arena. Selling Oklahoma City would be another matter.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I’d say the bay area has as good a shot at appealing to players as, say, Phoenix which has historically done pretty well in terms of free agency. There’s a nightlife, there are things to do outside the arena.
and players are people so they probably would appreciate the best weather and climate in the USA?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 8:04 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly.
I write this from my house before heading out to the hardware store for a sock full of some sort of environmentally-friendly deicer to lay across the ice dams, from which all those danged icicles are hanging. One of them goes all the way from the roof to the ground out there….
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
re: the best weather and climate in the USA?
Partly cloudy with a chance of gay?
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 26, 2010 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
Partly cloudy with a chance of gay?
Rudy would just add to the great atmosphere
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 26, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Could hosting a night like this have any effect on whether players decide to sign here?
Hardaway’s retired so I think not?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
Well...
…not to be overdramatic about it, but I tend to put my social values horse ahead of my NBA entertainment cart. That’s sort of a fractured saying… what I mean is this: if a player, prominent or not, feels disinclined to sign here because we hosted a gay night, I’m really not that broken up about it.
So much for peace and love eh? Just as long as you agree...otherwise its flame time....sad!
I am pretty disgusted as per usual, at certain comments made here by people who happen to disagree with others who may object to openly promoting a particular group of society. The great proponents of ‘Accepting’ and ‘respecting’ individual groups… yet if someone has an opinion against these groups…they are jumped all over and called ‘hater’ etc etc etc.
The good old fashioned…‘My way or the highway’ approach…
I am quite frankly, as I have said before, getting sick to death, of more and more ‘communities’ that are becoming more and more individualistic. I dont want to hear about the ‘Gay and Lesbian Community’ anymore than I would wish to hear about the ‘heterosexual community’. In short…. the evening is completely and undoubtably sexist, UNLESS, GSW then holds a ‘Heterosexual night’. Then its a very slippery slope… what if there is then a legal challenge made by a far right wing christian group to have a Christian community night or a ‘whites only’ night?
Unless you are going to allow ‘community nights’ for ANY group… then you cannot hold these individual nights…and quite right…I would have these banned in a heartbeat.
I have said before I am completely against ‘race nights’ and now I am also against sexual orientation nights. These things have no place in sport…. I want to be able to sit in an arena and not ‘HAVE’ to know what certain fans sexual orientation is, simply by seeing where they are sitting… it is frankly none of my business and it should not be anyone elses business either… What if a season ticket holder in a section that is designated the Gay and Lesbian section, happens to disagree with a gay lifestyle….?? Will they be reseated?
The fact is there will be MANY, MANY gay and lesbian people ALREADY attending Warrior games and NONE of them are holding up placards, wearing pink, etc etc highlighting their sexual orientation and bravo for that, just like heterosexual couples. Are there seriously Gay and Lesbian couples that feel they may be somehow chastised for their sexual orientation at a modern day basketball game???? Please… no one cares and more importantly…having a specific night, simply shines a spotlight on them? Why, unless they simply like the attention of being different….in which case, they are making more about their sexuality than anyone I else…..i.e attention seekers.
BUT…as per usual, you get a small minority/activists that insist on shouting their ‘individuality and seperation’ from the majority of society, which I find frankly pathetic.
Is it really going to be that long before we have the ‘Black’ section, the ‘Gay section’ the heterosexual section….to sit in???? The ‘progressive’ thinking could very well turn us full circle,so that instead of their being buses for Blacks and whites only as there were in the 50’s and 60’s…..we will get buses, sections of arenas and train carriages for ‘Gays and Lesbians’ only, because they feel safer or whatever, amoungst their own community… THAT..is already starting to happen at certain venues and I find it depressingly sad that supporters of that, do not see the hypocrisy of what they are doing.
I know several gay couples from my time in SF and I am very proud to say that not one of them ever endorsed the marches, for gay rights or anything, mainly because they actually felt they were no different to anyone else and therefore why do they need to be treated any differently? They happened to want the right to marry, which I have also supported, but most interestingly, they stated that this should not be a church based wedding as the bible is pretty clear about its teachings about gay and lesibian activity. (THEIR VIEWS/words) So to be married in a church would be pretty hypocritical as the book can hardly be ‘re-written’ to simply suit a particular group….but this should not affect their right to be married.
As per usual, all of this comes down to ‘Its my right’ when in fact the world would start to be a much better place, when we start to become far less self centred about what we want as individuals and what we can do together to all get what we want….IF POSSIBLE? and if due to living in a democracy, there are more people against your view than for it…. then so be it…. its part and parcel of living in a democracy. But then there will always be the childish that will continue to push and push and push for what they want, until they get it…which is frankly exactly what every child does…
In answer to the point above about Dwyane Wade and his ‘avoidance’ of the question about having a gay basketball colleague…if I were him… I would have told the journalist..
“I could not care less what a players sexual orientation is… and frankly, neither should you”.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
Um...
Is it really going to be that long before we have the ‘Black’ section, the ‘Gay section’ the heterosexual section….to sit in???? The ‘progressive’ thinking could very well turn us full circle,so that instead of their being buses for Blacks and whites only as there were in the 50’s and 60’s…..we will get buses, sections of arenas and train carriages for ‘Gays and Lesbians’ only
Come on dude, really?
Come on what?
You dont think thats possible? They already had a ‘Gay and Lesbian’ section…specifically highlighted by T-Shirts.. there has already been motion in the past for ‘Gay and Lesbian’ carriages of public transport…holiday resorts, etc etc. So yes… I do believe there is a chance we will see more of this and I personally disagree with it…no matter what the orientation is…
So yes… REALLY…if you choose to read carefully, I said it ‘COULD’ happen…and if it did…it would be a terrible day….
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 6:11 AM PST up reply actions
Just as a hypothetical case...
What if….because of these anti-gay adverts on a bus…
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2009/12/anti-gay-ads-on-dcs-metro-buse.html
The LGBT Group insisted on buses to be provided that ‘didnt’ have these adverts and thus made them suitable for Gays and Lesbians to travel on without feeling offended..maybe with ‘pro-gay marriage’ adverts…
Do you not see the slippery slope of how quickly such things ‘could’ happen…now they may happen for the supposed ‘right’ reasons…but you then still end up with ‘Christian’ buses and ‘gay friendly’ buses. So it really isnt that far fetched after all eh?
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 6:29 AM PST up reply actions
Examples.
This slippery slope: Provide examples of where it’s occurred. ’Cause last time I checked, segregation of the sort you describe was hardly the result of people promoting their basketball teams to different sets of people.
In fact, last I checked, it was people making arguments exactly like your own that were behind it. You know? So are you saying you speak from experience, or what?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Read more carefully...
I VERY CLEARLY (just to be clear) said it ‘could’ happen… not that it HAD happened…
If you cannot realise from my post that I am actually against ALL discrimination (positive or negative), segration or individualistic promotion… then it is pointless even discussing this with you.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
Look. You cannot speak for a community when you are not in the community. I don’t care if your gay friends tell you one thing. They don’t represent the entire gay community. I’m sick of the “I have black friends” “I have gay friends” arugment.
As a gay female, I think this is awesome and here is why: I grew up being harassed and made fun of, being beaten, and being bashed. Still to this day I go to a regular “straight” bar and I’m called a “gay bitch” “dyke.” Here lies the problem. The gay community is constantly on their toes. They never can feel totally safe. I walk out in public and I’m afraid to hold my girlfriend’s hand. I’m afraid of the looks, I’m afraid of the comments. You don’t know what people are capable of doing.
You know why people have gay nights? gay bars? gay parades? gay friendly towns? because they know they will feel safe. They can be who they are and not have to worry about the person sitting next to them in oracle arena giving them a look or make a comment if they kiss their partner.
And white Christians? I hardly believe they have gone through any of this type of treatment. Let’s face it, the whites have been dominant throughout history. so no its not ok for whites to say to have a white night. A white night for what? They have been patted on their backs all their lives. They have gone through nothing. (as a community not individually)
So if i don’t feel safe on a bus that has ANT-GAY messaging then I don’t want to be on that bus.
I agree with you in your statements of wanting things to not be segregated, but this isn’t about segregation. This is about being quiet so no one notices you. No one is going to notice the gay community or the different cultures, if we just hide in the background and hope to get noticed some day. We have to stand out and be noticed. If nothing is said or done, kids will grow up with the same experience I had. How do you expect our voices to be heard? What’s sad is that because we don’t want to be washed away behind the scenes you think we are “attention seekers.”
by pamboat on Feb 25, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
A few points...
Much as you personally want to shout from the rooftops about your sexuality….not ALL Gays and Lesbians feel the same way. That may not sit well with you, but its as much a fact as living in a democracy where we have to abide by democratic vote and if we lose well then so be it.
Also…if you dont feel ‘White Christians’ have faced times of great hardship… I suggest you revise your history knowledge a little and go back further than 500 years… As an example ‘White Christians’ had many very nasty things done to them for hundreds of years, including having your genitals cut off, I consider that…‘Hardship’…. but anyway..moving on..
I appreciate you sharing your own experiences..but you are also painting a ‘generalistic’ view of everyone at Oracle… and thus your as much of a bigot as those you are accusing of potentially looking at you with disapproving looks, as you look at everyone as a potential ‘hater’ or someone that might make a comment. Not everyone is like that you know?
You are allowing the minority and I am sorry but it is a minority, that may abuse you verbally or worse, to then give you your raison d’etre to feel that you ‘have’ to have your own area to feel safe…
The thing that amazes me, is how you feel you are so different to anyone else. There are kids a school and in early life, who are beaten, sworn at, Spat at…..for being Irish, Italian, Pakistani, Chinese….skinny….fat….spotty, freckles…. big ears…. little penis….big nose…. ALL of which have faced the same abuse that you have….and yet somehow you think it is worse for you? Do we therefore need schools for fat kids only…. bars for people with big noses? cinemas for people with big ears…. of course not…. ITS CALLED LIFE…. you deal with it…. and move on… its not fair…its not right….but it is never going to change… But you are actually no different to many heterosexuals that have been abused for the colour of their skin or the shape of their bodies…
Strange as this may sound….there was a time in society when people ‘eating’ each others faces in public was also ‘commented’ on… or frowned at… and this had ZERO to do with sexual orientation, but public decency of the time and age…… now… I could care less if a couple kiss…be they straight or gay. BUT…if they choose to get a full on romp going in the seats at Oracle… then hell yes I am going to tell them to go get a room..again..gay or not..
So in short… I’ll return it to you… ‘Do You know why so many people have a dislike or opinions against gay people?’ because many feel that the shouts are always “we want this…and we want that…” which becomes tiresome at best. There are more column square inches devoted to Gay and Lesbian articles and events in San Francisco and across the US…than there are about famine in Africa…kids having limbs hacked off my machette by rival tribal gangs… civilians being killed by landmines and regime torture in some countries, where people are treated truly disgustingly….so to claim that not enough is being done already…is frankly ….. well you know what it is.
I wasnt actually speaking FOR a community… I was giving an example of some members of that community who I know very well and they have given me their opinion….whether you agree with that..is neither here nor there…it wasnt an arguement is was a quote…and no they dont speak for the whole Gay and Lesbian community…but then neither do you.
As to this….
This is about being quiet so no one notices you. No one is going to notice the gay community or the different cultures, if we just hide in the background and hope to get noticed some day. We have to stand out and be noticed.
Maybe no one ‘HAS’ to notice…maybe we can all just accept that we all live our lives differently, but how we do so..is a private matter for individuals and is no one elses business.. so no….in many peoples opinion… you DONT have to stand out… as you SHOULD be like anyone else… there will always be people who disapprove…and they are entitled to that opinion as much as you are entitled to feel safe when going out…
But sometimes…shouting too loudly…will actually do more harm than good and alienate some people who before could not care less what you do or who you do it with…to a view of…‘I am sick to death of reading about gay rights’…
So yes… sometimes it is a little more effective to be more subtle..than overt!
I used to work the doors of a nightclub when I was at college in the early 90’s and one of the nights was known as Vague. It was openly billed as a Gay AND Heterosexual night… so maybe it would be better for more events that show unity….. rather than individualism ? So how about the the next sexual orientation night be geared to BOTH straight and gay??? Or simply ‘Sexual Unity Night?’…. Same purpose…. less division…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
lol
I didn’t realize white people had it so rough…over 500 years ago, sort of..haha. You do a disservice to your argument by comparing 21st century problems to…what, the 1600s? Not to mention your hilarious advice to just carry on and play it cool, since not everyone is anti-gay. Come on man, what world do you live in? Yeah you’re safer walking down the streets of San Fran. But even there, you’re not completely safe. Take the pulse of society, especially right now…consider that emotions are running high with the marriage debate. Consider how much work, time, effort, what you loving call being “overt,” that the LGBT group had to get to even to GET TO THIS POINT. You’re glossing over a few facts of life and being a bit naive about stuff…and it detracts from your overall point, which is a good one: Unity Night
There’s a long road between “whites only” and “unity night”…and we’re in the middle of it. I guess theoretically you’re right that we could revert back to whites only, but the way we’re being mixed up and globalized and all that, I don’t know how likely it is. Trim some of that weird “I’m tired of you fighting for your rights” rhetoric and I think more people will be on board.
“Much as you personally want to shout from the rooftops about your sexuality”
um.. i’m not openly gay…. so no.. only my close friends know I’m gay.
There are too many large assumptions and so many ignorant points in this post I’m not even going to try, because you have your head so far up your ass your viewpoint won’t change. At least not on our beloved golden state of mind blog. I feel a little bit sorry for you. good luck brit. you’ll need it.
There are too many large assumptions and so many ignorant points in this post I’m not even going to try, because you have your head so far up your ass your viewpoint won’t change.
Haha. Welcome to the wonderful world of GSoM, my friend.
Stick around, pamboat! You’ll find there a more than a few members with their heads at least partially dislodged from their arses…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
I know.. I’m more of a lurker here but this one i just couldn’t NOT say anything. Geezus. anyways back to my GAY WORK where i’m so ANNOYINGLY GAYY!!!!
Ah and there is the revertion to insults....
the classic ‘I dont agree with you, therefore I shall insult you’…
… knock yourself Pamboat… the stupid thing is… you insult someone that actually is quite supportive of gay people and their rights, I just have a different view as to how this should be pursued…and happened to ‘disagree’ with some of your points..
So because someone disagree’s with your points, you feel then insulting someone is the way to increase peoples respect of your views…then I dont think it is me that needs the luck Pam… as I am not in the minority….
Your words…
I grew up being harassed and made fun of, being beaten, and being bashed.
That line right there is the story of every kid that has ever been bullied…and yet now look at you…
You accuse someone who is not even your enemy of being ‘ignorant, head up ass, sorry for you’…
Hypocrisy at its finest… Good Job…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Ahhhh so someone can revert to insults...
and then when that is pointed out, its pompous?….Run along…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 2:08 AM PST up reply actions
what's funny is
you think nothing you are saying is insulting. that’s the saddest part.
No what is truly funny...
Is how You manage to get away with telling someone their head is up their ass… while others here get comments deleted and banned for far less… The saddest part, is you preach one thing then do another…again to someone who actually supports gays and their right to marry…..
You want equality….??? You want your rights?… You want to be treated fairly and with respect… then I suggest you learn how to talk to people the way you wish to be spoken to… otherwise your no different to the people you accuse of treating you harshly…
Maybe if you had stopped to ask what exatly I meant by something rather than instantly respond with the insults… you MIGHT have been surprised at the response..
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
I suggest you actually have some thougtful opinions
before demanding that everyone respects yours. The lecturing nature of your posts has this “holier than thou” aura that makes people respond negatively. No one likes to be talked down to- you come off as extremely pompous.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 26, 2010 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
I suggest you read Monks post...
Not once did I ‘demand’ any respect my opinion, I simply asked not be personally insulted for my view…
The whining nature of your posts, where you feel people can post what they like with no repurcussion is becoming equally dull…as is the constant arrogant critique…
There is an old saying…‘discuss the post… not the poster’… something you would do well to heed..
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
The whining nature of your posts, where you feel people can post what they like with no repurcussion is becoming equally dull…as is the constant arrogant critique…
You don’t think your big, long post above comes off as arrogant, critical and whining? I’m responding to your whining, opinionated, non-argument based posts.
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 26, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
Oh...so now you want to discuss something...
You want pompous and condescending…ok…
“why dont you be a good lad and run along…matters of this nature are way above your understanding..” Hows that for pompous?
So now people are not permitted long posts where they wish to challenge an opinion with their own? and simply having an opinion is now arrogant? Nicely glossed over the fact that I didnt actally personally insult anyone in my post…..the good old fashioned..“Do as I say..not as I do…” nice…. you hypocrit.
Anyway…. whatever my opinion may be… I really could not care less what your views are about my posts, as you rarely partake in dialogue but see fit to insult and have a go a posters writing style, manner, etc….everything but the the actual content…
While at the same time dimissing other posters …. well why dont we all abide by Reverand Randy’s rules eh?…
I personally find your responses in this post trolling at best……you see the enormous difference betweenYOU and someone like Monk… is the fact that while he may not agree with someones views he can debate them with that person in an eloquent manner, something which I admire…as to your efforts…. not so much… so keep having your snipey little digs from behind your little screen…. to use your own words….
“You aren’t worth talking to…”
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 27, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
To add..
You want to lecture me on how to address people when you come out with statements like this:
“Your morality is inconsistent, you aren’t worth talking to”
I dont think that last part could be any more pompous if you tried…Again…take a sip of your own medicine…but not from the hypocrisy cup…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
So you think it’s worth discussing issue of morality with people who don’t have consistent morality? That’s interesting. Why do you think that?
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 26, 2010 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
Game...
I know mate…it wasnt meant to be a lecture… but when someone comes out with a comment that ‘White Christians have never faced hardship’ is complete nonsense, so I was simply trying to shed a little light on what might have been forgotten..
As to the rest… thanks for taking the time to actually trying to understand the point I ws trying to make about a single night for all and I like your ‘Unity Night’ idea..very cool…
As to the walking down the street thing… The world I live in, does not even look at a single person when I walk down the street and woner if they are gay or not… maybe us Brits are a little strange like that?
As to Rhetoric… again… its more just a suggestion that one way is not the ONLY way to skin a cat…(no cat or anima was harmed in the use of that statement)…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah her response certainly doesn’t get us any closer towards Unity Night. lol make this happen Brit, at least you and I can rock the open gym and ball on the Oracle floor. I’ll make sure to bring the “we are NOT gay” shirts haha…
You probly live in or near a major city I’d wager? Who doesn’t. I just don’t think it’s the reality. I know that it’s anecdotal, and not representative of a whole city, but here in Dallas my lady works for a social work agency that helps kids (12-16) with drug addiction, truancy, etc. You would think: social workers, major city, real liberal ideals, right? Wrong. All of her coworkers are apalled by gay people, and insist that they need to be separated from the rest of the group. We’re talking kids with serious problems, black white latino whatever, and they’re concerned about moving out 3 gay kids. No protest from the kids, mind you, these are the adults who are disgusted by these gay kids.
My g/f of course is Californian, like I am, and really hates the place she works. She hates Texas in general (that’s a whhhhhole ‘nother post for another night) but i think her job (SOCIAL work) represents the majority of society, who want gays separated out. If this is happening in a social work setting, one that common sense might consider a haven for everyone, imagine what the rest of us are like? I just don’t believe, either from my own eyes or otherwise, that what you’re talking about is the reality yet. Cue “wouldn’t it be nice”
Indeed sir....
No the world is not perfect…but equally (aside from Texas) there are not Torch mobs roaming the streets looking for gays to harrass…
I am still a little confused as to how someone who is not ‘openly gay’ has been such a target for anti-gay hatred…. I guess others ‘Gaydar’ is better than mine..
Oh…and make sure my shirt is xxl please… I like a loose shirt to shoot well in…. :)
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
From what I can tell
you don’t hate gay people, but you need to look at society through another lens. There’s a lot of discrimination (no, not any torch mobs) against homosexuals and if it’s too subliminal or not blatant enough for you to notice, don’t assume it’s not there… Don’t mean to come off as a condescending douche if I am, just trying to help.
by enron4515 on Feb 25, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not a douche at all...nicely worded.
I find the observations that I dont realise that there is ANY discrimination as frankly laughable as I have never stated as such. I simply dont believe that some of the hatred is any worse than other races at times.
I simply dont want to see sexual orientation nights at a basketball game…and bang….I get jumped all over and insulted because I simply have a differing view on how things might be better achieved… I just also dont happen to feel that some of the hatred that is shown toward gays is any different to hatred shown toward Mexicans, Blacks, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, etc etc etc. Yet some try to claim its worse for gay people, which again…is nonsense in my opinion.
But…the thing I DO object to…are people who moan about how harshly they have been treated by others and yet when someone says something they disagree with, they go on the ‘insult’ offensive. That’s crass immaturity at best and obviously that it is not aimed at you enron.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 2:18 AM PST up reply actions
you have the advantage of us
master at arms, sir. Amerikans have the fortune to live and work in a relatively liberal (meaning free, not the sectarian political propagandistic slant) society, but there’s been a longer, more open dialectic in many western Euro societies about sexual ‘preferences’ (it’s not scientifically established how much same gender attraction is a predisposition not completely up to an individual’s conscious choice, or if it’s completely cultural and voluntary). So we amerikans can tend to get emotional, defensive, insulting, bring religious beliefs into it with socio-political discussions.
You have also been graced with a first-class education, have travelled widely with a fairly open mind, all of which can come through in your rhetoric and be perceived as ‘pompous’ by those who perhaps have more provincial or limited conceptual or linguistic capabilities. In other words, sometimes you’ll push the wrong buttons without malicious intent.
Repressed minorities often have to keep rage and outrage in their emotional/conceptual arsenal as a matter of self preservation. In an ideal world where we would not feel typecast, scorned for who we are, we would neither have segregation imposed on us nor make too much fuss about voluntarily separating ourselves. Part of the conflict comes down to competition over finite resources/territory, how the elite ownership class loves to encourage it between segments of the masses beneath their heel, and propagandize and discriminate to exacerbate the perceived differences. In the matter at hand, the owners of a mega-media entertainment franchise want to maximize how many ‘market segments’ they’re reaching and exploiting.
by the.monk on Feb 26, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Eloquent as ever sir...
Many could learn as well as I, from your delivery.
Bravo.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Eloquent as ever sir...
haha, he just said you watched too many episodes of mr. belvedere?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 26, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Hahahaha
Very very very good… did that take long?
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
No the world is not perfect…but equally (aside from Texas) there are not Torch mobs roaming the streets looking for gays to harrass…
So the dragging death of a gay youth a few years back does not count?
And to further illustrate what GameSix was saying. I have very recently seen two guys stick there heads out of a car window and scream “fag” and spit on a guy just because he “looked” different. So yes there is a whole lot of intolerance out in the world.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
@pamboat
Big props and a huge “rec” for standing up and being heard. Awesome post.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 25, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Respect.
The dude you’re arguing with has never been in your position of being marginalized based off of one’s sexual orientation. Which, you know, is not his fault because he is heterosexual. But when he refuses to take your word for what you go through and decide that his experiences as a straight person can speak for yours, that is when you should realize that you shouldn’t waste words on him. Try someone else, he’s not gonna listen, he’s just going to come back with a bigger font size.
Peace.
by belilaugh on Feb 27, 2010 11:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Firstly...
I never stated that I was speaking for anyone, so get your facts right first.
Secondly… the hatred that was described was described in such a way that it was as if no one else faces that kind of hatred, which is frankly BS, as there are many people who have been beaten, spat at, kicked, called names…
Thirdly.. I still struggle to quite understand how so much hatred can be going on, toward someone who is not ‘openly’ gay… that must mean there are a lot of psychic haters out there??
So I will always listen but I will only discuss issue with someone who will be equally open to hear another persons point of view without the need to insult them, simply because they disagree. That’s frankly pathetic at best, irrelvant of your sexual orientation…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 3:28 AM PST up reply actions
I still struggle to quite understand how so much hatred can be going on, toward someone who is not ‘openly’ gay… that must mean there are a lot of psychic haters out there??
As stated earlier, you don’t have to be “openly gay” as in wearing a shirt with big bold letters on it. But if you’re a guy holding another guy’s hand? What would you have them do? Be repressed and not do that because of all the hate out there? Also there is the simple fact of “looking different” as I stated before that if your gay or not, certain folk will paint you with a wide brush and direct there phobia towards that person or group of people.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 1, 2010 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
So now its a discussion about being openly gay?
For me personally, if I see two guys walking hand in hand…that’s pretty ‘open’ in my opinion… it’s not exactly hidden or discrete is it? If you hide the fact from your work colleagues for example…and then you bump into one while shopping and your holding another guys hand…what are you going to say…“Oh…er….hi…er…..my hand was cold….we are not gay …er…we just like…holding hands…”
All I said was…. If your not openly gay…how the hell can anyone tell your gay and thus subject you to such a lifetime of torrid abuse? Now I have NO DOUBT, someone who IS openly gay does indeed face hatred from certain quarters…BUT NOT ALL! Certainly around SF the hatred would very much be in the minority and in many other parts of the world..
Again I merely questioned the ‘colour’ added to the story… I also happen to personally object to being assumed to be anti-gay simply for disagreeing with Pam’s viewpoint… such venom is again…frankly immature.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
So now it’s a discussion about being poenly gay?
I don’t know, I was just responding to something you said and quoted you as saying such. If what you said is not what you intended, my bad. It can be real tough to decipher intent on the net.
Oh and I don’t get where anything I said is dripping venom, I was in fact trying to have a discussion and state instances of hate and discrimination that I have personally witnessed, sense you were the one talking about having an open discussion. But if that is not the case, I will remove my head from the brick wall I seem to be walking into.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
I should have clarified...
The ‘venom’ part was not aimed at you qin…
BTW your not a 6ft blonde female per chance are you?
Would you not agree that two guys walking hand in hand is pretty open?
But I struggle to believe that non-open Gay’s can receive the level of abuse claimed…that is any worse than other sections of society and THAT was the point I was trying to make.
Sometimes the Gay Lobby has the tendency to make it sound like they are the most oppressed people on the planet…and again THAT is what I personally object to, as there are many, many people that encounter hatred and MUCH, much worse around the world…and if someone cannot get their head around that…I suggest they get themselves a passport and go visit the world, to places like Mogadishu, Congo, South Africa even… or places like Indonesia, Myanmar, China, Iran…etc..
And when they have seen the aftermath of a gang in Africa when it has attacked an opposing village…with kiddies limbs hacked off with machette’s…. THEN…they may realise that while it is not reasonable or should be allowed…being called a ‘Dyke’ in the grand scheme of things on this planet, COULD be a lot worse……
and yet for that observation… I am called ‘ignorant’ with my head deep up my ass!… I have seen things that would probably make Pam puke her guts out on the spot… and as Monk has noted, I have been fotunate to have travelled to many different countries, so ‘ignorance’ is not something I can be readily accused of.
There are some that need to take a sip of their own medicine, as people are entitled to their views and they can also often explain as to how they came to those views…to those who are educated and mature enough to want to listen and to see if there might be an understanding of that persons viewpoint.
You may still not agree…but you may appreciate a little more how they came to that viewpoint…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 5:09 PM PST up reply actions
OK, I think if you had said this at the beginning that would have solved a lot of the bickering that this thread has caused.
I don’t think that there is a person in the world who would believe that the examples you stated are some if not THE most grievous humanitarian issues on the planet at this time.
However one can only be a master of his own destiny and deal with the issues local to them. I’m not saying we should not be outraged on whats going on in Africa and elsewhere AND be vocal with our elected officials to put these issues on the table, but you got to take on the issues that you may actually be able to do something about.
Gay rights is still a big issue here and needs to be addressed so that yet another group of people can get on with there lives.
And you would be surprised of the anti-gay sediment in SF and NY and in other places where you might think would be safe. People have been known to go to SF just to harass. And I’ve heard (but not seen) it happening in NY.
I don’t know the stats but gay youth does have a high suicide rate. Because some 14 year old was being harassed in school and being called a Dyke? I don’t know, but it can sure contribute.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 1, 2010 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well said, qln. Rec.
Brit: like qln, I think your points about the importance of perspective in this crazy world are well-observed, and well-taken. There are horrors in this world much, much worse than Prop 8. At the same time, I don’t see why one’s compassion for one’s fellow human beings needs to be zero-sum. As Portia in Merchant of Venice said, “the quality of mercy is not strained…”
The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown…
There will be no extra point!
Sleepy, Qin, et al...
You wll actually find that if we were sitting at a bar discussing such issues over a rather fine glass of wine or an excellent Belgium Beer.. that in reality…I actually look at all situations with as much logic and level headedness as I can and will always listen to anothers perspective…I may not agree…but I will listen…. I think its fair to say that Pam’s response was far from that… Yet I was the one who got jumped on…which is fine if it is kiddy hour and the lesser educated want to get into a slagging match…but I prefer adult discussion…
I have my own personal beliefs, some I will share and some I will keep private, but at heart I am a libertarian…which is a long way from being a liberal. But I have the belief that more can be achieved in unity that it can in division.
Hence why I have a personal dislike for divisional nights. To answer Qin….I cannot put all these views and the logic and basis for some of my views down all at once in my first post as the post could last for 4 pages… Also if I was to do that…I have people like Reverand Randy claiming that I am being pompous…and or ‘lecturing’.
Many here have spoken about tolerance…yet they themselves have shown their true colours to actually being quite ‘intolerant’ of others views… in which case, there is more broken glass from people throwing stones in this glasshouse thread…than their should ever have been.
So my request would always be this.. if you see a view of mine that may seem odd or strange to you… rather than throw the very childish insults out..try asking me how I came to that opinion…the response may surprise you. You may not agree…but then sometimes people will disagree…its the way of the world.
Finally…. the issues I have discussed elsewhere in the world, I have seen with my own eyes….while many have no time for people who have served in the armed forces…it has actually afforded me an insight into the world, that many here will never have the pleasure to see or understand…. and yet I am then the one accused of ignorance…how many here can hold their hand up and say they have spoken to a suicide bomber?? and listened to why he has such hatred for the United States…I’ll hold my hand up…
The truly ignorant believe it is “ALL” down to indoctrination….more BS… a summary would be that many in the world look upon the USA as the most hypocritical country on this planet and as such they do what ‘they’ believe (with some indoctrination) to fight for their cause, against a country that they themselves see as evil…as misguided as it is. The greatest issue, is that people from within their own culture are not doing enough to distance themselves from the extremists. It truly does not matter what the cause.. extremists are at the far end of the scale of a given cause.. and they are the most misguided of all souls…and yet they feel they are the most educated and ‘right’ in their views..
To that end…I personally dont actually see a great deal of difference between the most far right, christian church going lunatic, the most far left, liberal gay rights activist and the suicide bomber, in additon to all the other extremist groups from the Black Panthers to the KKK… NONE of them are discussing how people may work together for what could be a better place…but they ARE all fighting for what they want…. in short..their selfishness is overtaking the greater good…
It is from my personal experiences that I actually despair at the sheer volume of focus toward gay rights and issues in the SF and the USA…when the USA is in DIRE NEED to increase it’s knowledge and understanding of even more pressing issues outside of its national boundries….
Now while I appreciate its a pressing issue for those concerned…my comment about column inches in SF for gay issues..versus column inches for children and girls as young as 8 years old being raped at knife point by not ONE but 10 thugs wielding machette’s…. THAT’s why I get a little pissed off! When I hear claims of….‘We are not being heard enough’…. that’s when I want to turn round and say….“Your being heard…and you get a great deal of coverage…now what about that destroyed soul of 8 years old….do you want to talk to her about being called ‘Dyke’… or ‘fag’….. trying understanding her world…and then realise that while what you face is unacceptable….in the global scheme of things…. it is but a drop in the ocean…..compared to what some people face on a daily basis.”
The sooner the USA and I do address this to the populace at large… “Takes its collective head, out of its collective ass” to use Pam’s words…. THEN…the world might start to become a better place… The Britsh came to realise this once we had governed almost 3/4’s of the planet by force and occupation….and as a race we have learnt from that time… the USA unfortunately has not yet learned lessons from the past…but some day it will.
Until then…lets push for more “Unity Nights”… maybe be so bold as to get rid of ‘Gay Pride’ and have ‘Pride for All’….. where we encourage everyone to join together….rather than…‘This is our event’….. The Gay and Lesbian community in my opinion…has as much part to play in listening to others views and trying to understand them… as heterosexuals have to try and undestand the views of Gay and Lesbian people…
As to GSOM….less childish offensve comments to people of differing views….would be a great start to greater tolerance overall… ;-)
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
Hey look, middle ground.
Adding your perspective on what you have witnessed first hand brings a lot to the discussion and I must say that to have as strong a will as you must to have witnessed first hand the tragedies describes without taking a fist full of pills when you came home is in its self a feet. And thank you for being there in whatever capacity it was and doing whatever one person could do in that situation.
You may be surprised that we are not very far off on the issues and that I also lean pretty heavily on the Libertarian side of the coin.
The one BIG difference is that at any given bar it would be a nice strong IPA sitting in front of me or we could discuss good wine for a week.
I will still stand by my gay brothers and sisters when it comes to equal rights and defend them from the hate that I see and read but this…
To that end…I personally dont actually see a great deal of difference between the most far right, christian church going lunatic, the most far left, liberal gay rights activist and the suicide bomber, in additon to all the other extremist groups from the Black Panthers to the KKK… NONE of them are discussing how people may work together for what could be a better place…but they ARE all fighting for what they want…. in short..their selfishness is overtaking the greater good…
I’m 100% behind.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 2, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Middle ground indeed...
:-)
Something that Pam could do well to read and learn from…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
BTW..forgot to say..
First Beer is on me…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
I also happen to personally object to being assumed to be anti-gay simply for disagreeing with Pam’s viewpoint
Just like nauticus and his gay marriage fears, If you are against gays having a basketball night doesn’t that make you seem anti gay? in contrast those of us who don’t care about them having a basketball night don’t seem that way? There’s still folks complaining about MLK day or CaesarChavez day but wanting to not come off as racist, but if not why not just get over it?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
ABSOLUTE BS.......
I have been quite open about my wish to see an end to ‘heritage’ nights and now ‘sexual orientation nights’ which includes ‘Heterosexual’ nights…So no its got nothing to do with a ‘Gay night’ per se..
Nice try at the politcal propoganda.
I actually liked Gamesix’s idea of a ‘Unity Night’ that way ANYONE is welcome from any group…where the focus is on all groups… I want less effort on individual group nights and more ‘Unity’ nights…
and not YOU or anyone is going to make me feel guilty for that view.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Would you say that all groups in America (or Great Britain, whichever you are more knowledgeable on since you said you were British and I don’t know if you live in the Bay), no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. have it more or less equal?
Not at all...
Of course it is not more of less equal for all…. there is a huge way to go to make it more equal…but I believe there is a better way to try to ‘Unify first’ rather than segrate nights into different focus groups….in order to recognise the issues facing those groups.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
Okay, that was just so I could see where you were coming from and if it was worth it to explain this. I think I will give it a shot.
Okay, I think what I am not understanding here, is why you are assuming (or are you assuming?) that a “gay night” is open only to gay people? Because I don’t think the night is for gay people only (correct me if I am wrong, it just doesn’t seem like that would pass), it is just a night where one can just be themselves in regards to their sexual orientation, and not try and navigate through a society that does not fully accept them.
Tangent: you say that gay people in the closet experience no discrimination. But what about all the microaggressions they have to put up with every day? They have to stomach phrases like “no homo” and “that’s so gay” and constantly hear society equate their orientation with being weak and inferior and undesirable. Or what about gay people that worry how they are going to be accepted by their friends and family when they come out? Because if they did not have that worry, they would just come out, and “coming out” would not be such a big issue. And once they do come out, I think that you and I are in agreement that they do experience discrimination.
So with all that crap they have to wade through (and I did not list all of it, hell, I’m not gay, I don’t truly know, I’m just basing this off some of what I have heard), can’t you see why a night where they can relax a bit and not have to put on a front in order to be accepted and just hang out would be valuable to them?
And here’s the main point. I am a straight white male. I for some reason recall that you are a straight white male from previous posts, but I am sorry if I am twisting that, let me know. For me, because my orientation, gender, and race are considered normal in our society, EVERY night is a “straight white male” night for me. I have no desire to have a night for straight white males because I do not have to put on a front in society to avoid discrimination (I might due to religious reasons, but let’s stick with these three right now). But that does not mean everyone has this privilege, and if I live it 365 days of the year and they want one day where they can live it and be normal, who am I to say no?
The fact that I have no desire for a night for myself and you have no desire for a night for yourself should be a strong but subtle message to us that we do not want it because we already have it.
And so back to my earlier point, if they want to have a “gay night”, let them have it. It is not hurting me. Hell, I’m not even excluded from attending, which is why it is not at all analogous to a “whites-only” night as you put it earlier. But I know that if I go, I will have to act with respect towards the gay community as a whole because they are the norm, not me. Which is what they have to do every other day.
And as far as the building unity, these nights are products and results of there not being unity for certain minority groups. Getting rid of the nights will not improve unity, it will just make it a bit harder for minority groups to cope with their status as minorities. If you want to unify, go to the root of the problem which is the oppressing group (I would say majority but that is not always the case) and work on them not creating conditions that result in a need for “gay nights”.
by belilaugh on Mar 2, 2010 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ok...you do make a few assumptions..
I know perfectly well that a ‘Gay night’ is open to non-gays. Just as Asian Heritage night is open to non-Asians..
I also did NOT state that Gay’s in the ‘closet’ so to speak, face no discrimination… I just dont believe they face anywhere near the level of discrimination as open gays, or blacks in some parts, or Mexicans in some parts..etc etc. But if Pam has encontered that as she explains below…then so be it… there are evidently people with much sharper Gaydar than my own..
The thing you are missing about my view is the fact that it actually has nothing to do with having a ‘Gay Night’ or not…. I would get rid of ALL singularly labelled nights … But I would have ‘Unity’ nights.. where ALL minorities are encouraged to come to a game, whether they are Black, Asian, irish, Gay, Straight…where the focus of the night embraces ALL cultures and during such big screen videos’ etc…ALL cultures can be discussed, highlighted…etc.
The result…. exactly the same level of ‘Safe’ feeling, while actually encouraging ‘Unity’..rather than pointing out someones difference? Does that not make sense?
As to the ‘White Only’ nights…I am sure there are some very small minded individuals that may in fact wish for that. However I actually do see a time in the future when White people actually become the minority..and yes… I would be against a ‘White heritage’ night just as much as a ‘Gay night’… but I also accept that people may wish to show how proud they are of their ‘Anglo-Saxon’ heritage…and so maybe there should be one of these nights…IF all the individual nights remain?
Am I trying to spoil their fun…no…its a wider belief for me personally, this particular thread just happened to cause me to share my personal thoughts, just as I did about Asian heritage night… I simply want to see more UNITY…rather than differentiation…and dont believe that differentiation nights help Unity at all…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
“Secondly… the hatred that was described was described in such a way that it was as if no one else faces that kind of hatred, which is frankly BS, as there are many people who have been beaten, spat at, kicked, called names…”
“But when he refuses to take your word for what you go through and decide that his experiences as a straight person can speak for yours”
I think my facts are pretty accurate. They day you admit that she faces discrimination you will never understand and then accept that when she tells you she receives hatred that it is, if not true, at least just as possible as your opinion she doesn’t, then I will happily retract my statement.
Foolish...
I have never stated there is NO discrimination… of course there is, anyone who claims there is not, is frankly asinine…the point I was VERY clearly making is that there are millions of people who face the exact same hatred every single day…. so being gay is not any worse an experience than any of the aforementioned people have to face either…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
I could just quote the same lines again, but I’ll try to break it down in very plain English.
You are not gay.
You do not experience life through the gay perspective.
Pam is gay.
She does experience life through the gay perspective.
When it comes to discrimination against gay people, following the logic, at the very least Pam knows just as much about it as you, and it is extremely likely she knows more.
Pam explains the discrimination she faces as a gay woman.
You claim she does not experience what she thinks she does, that everyone experiences that.
You are making yourself the expert on gay discrimination and her the person who needs to be taught, maybe you should consider that though your upbringing as a “normal” straight person taught you that you had the default true view from which all other views were derived from or compared to, that when it comes to discrimination specific to gay people, you should listen rather than tell.
Assumption on your part....try again...
I simply have had a capable enough education to be able to discuss an ‘alternative’ view of hatred and abuse in general…if you ‘assume’ I am then claiming to be an expert, then that is your false assumption…and your error…
I never claimed she does not experience what she says she does….show me the quote where I said that? I did question how if someone is not openly gay…how the hell do so many other people know she is gay??
But I did say that what she described, was no different to what many others face on a daily basis…
My point being… that any kid that has some form of bodily difference has faced disrimination and offensive behaviour… its a fact… it may not sit well when people want to try and claim that gays get verbally or physically abused to such an extent that they are affraid to walk the streets…the point I made is….sadly…. thats no different to many Chinese, Mexicans, Blacks, Fat people, etc etc..
yet somehow that view is ‘ignorant’…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 1, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
Mind if I step in (maybe it)
Where it is true that bullying is apart of any society and that yes, kids get picked on for any number of things, it is the effeminate male or butch female that has this carried on in life at a much greater pace. About the only other thing I think that can equate is the child that is really overweight, and that issue has also been addressed.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 1, 2010 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
But I did say that what she described, was no different to what many others face on a daily basis, yet somehow that view is ‘ignorant’…
What’s ignorant is you expending so much effort to protest something that can maybe make her feel better. If you are compassionate then make the small sacrifice of not being so stressed out about it? Think global but act local is a good place to start. As sleepy said happiness is not a zero sum game, it’s not gonna take away from your happiness to let others have a bit more.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 7:04 PM PST up reply actions
The fact that you have to ask the question on why someone who is not openly gay can face anti-gay hatred just shows how little you know about this topic
Let me tell you something. I have been receiving gay hate long before I even knew I was gay. I didn’t really find out I was gay until I was about 16. With that said, in middle school and Jr. High lots of kids would make lesbian and gay comments under their breaths. I had no idea what they were trying to imply nor did I understand why. So I dressed a little more boyish what was the big deal? So i didn’t wear dresses? I wasn’t openly gay at 12 but I still received comments.
When I dated my first girlfriend we kept it a secret of course. Who was to be gay in high school? But I dated a really really attractive femme girl. So when she turned boys down and saw she spent all her time with me they started making comments, leaving threatening notes, ganging up on me. We didn’t kiss, or hold hands, but people still can figure it out. That didn’t mean I was openly gay. Openly gay is very loose word, but generally means that you can comfortable telling anyone your gay, but more specifically family and friends. Holding hands in public doesn’t always mean your openly gay too. I know that hard to wrap your brain around, but often its easier to hint at being gay to strangers than your friends and family. You care about what your family and friends think of you more than strangers, and passerbys.
I could go on with the stories, but I think think should suffice.
I also never said that no on else faces this kind of hatred. I know overweight kids, short kids, red haired kids, asian kids, jewish kids, african americans, etc etc etc face hate. youre right the list does go on.
But they problem is gays in this society do not have RIGHTS, and what we are fighting for are RIGHTS.
And yes I did say whites have not received the same kind of treatment. When I said throughout history I’m talking more of throughout recent history. I apologize for the confusion. Whites currently have many privileges. They have for a very long time and they don’t struggle to fight for rights. If whites were a minority and were taken away rights, I would gladly go to their rallies and protests, but this isn’t the case. A gay night is welcoming to all of the LGBT community and friends&family. When you hear white night, it means white only.
And to this:
Maybe no one ‘HAS’ to notice…maybe we can all just accept that we all live our lives differently, but how we do so..is a private matter for individuals and is no one elses business.. so no….in many peoples opinion… you DONT have to stand out… as you SHOULD be like anyone else… there will always be people who disapprove…and they are entitled to that opinion as much as you are entitled to feel safe when going out…
Tell that to MLK or Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk. Tell that to all the heroic activists in history that have stood up for what they believed in and made a difference.
I hate the “it’s none of my business” comment. and NO ‘;m not trying to say I’m gay and trying to shout on the roofs and rub it in your face. But “it’s none of my business” is always just another way of saying “I don’t want to know” and that to me i just ignorance. People need to know, in order to make it “normal” and in order to make it ok. We need to be educated on these things in order to make it change.
But I dated a really really attractive femme girl.
pix? ;-)
Seriously, pamboat, awesome post again.
In my ideal world, “Milk” (and/or “The Times of Harvey Milk,” the heart-wrenching documentary on which it was based) would be part of the school curriculum — not just in the mostly-tolerant Bay Area, but everywhere.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 2, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
pix? ;-)
you like’m too?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
See ... that wasnt too hard was it?
You could have done that first rather than thow the insults around? But I noticed that you still have yet to apologise for that, so I guess you think that’s acceptable?
I appreciate your candor. We had kids at our school that faced the exact same torment you are describing…and no its not acceptable. But it is simply a form a bullying… and the point I was trying to make is that it is not something specific or more importantly any worse for gay people in my personal opinion and yet some…maybe not you, would have many think that it is somehow worse for gay people. I personally just believe its cruel bullying and bully’s again in my personal opinion…should all be dealt with a lot more severely than currently…
Now, your point about the openess… I can actually get my head around any subject you may care to discuss…I may not agree with it.. but I can try to understand it…
The thing I have actually understood and you have confirmed as much above, is the mental anguish over telling friends and family your sexual orientation. That must indeed be an enormous pressure to face. The bit I do struggle with…is… what if your Mum is walking down the other side of the street and see’s you hand in hand with your girlfriend?… would it not be worse to find out this way..versus having that discussion earlier..hence ‘open’ is surely in public?..but either way…its not for me to say whether this is right or wrong… I just dont quite understand the logic…as anyone can bump into a family member in a public place, but I appreciate your perspective.
I have to disagree with your view that ‘Gays’ do not have rights….You smply CANNOT make that statement…as it is factually incorrect…so why say it? Gay’s have just as many rights as anyone in many issues. I.e. if you get beaten up…its assault… Its not ‘Assault of a gay person’ and rightly so…its simply ‘Assault’ and the law of the land will deal with the villain as such.
HOWEVER… there are specific rights you dont have…and as I clearly stated, marriage for example is one that I support…if anyone…straight, gay, whatever…wants to get married then so they should. However… We do also live in a democracy and for example.. the majority of the people in Northern Ireland had elected by vote.. to be part of the UK. Yet the terrorists of the IRA…supported by many in the US, wanted their own personal wish for a unified Ireland to overide the wishes of the democracy and they tried to get this through violence… Therefore, if a position is put to democratic vote and the vote goes against you, there does come a time when that must be respected…until such time as the democratic vote goes in your favour.
There are some other rights issues, for example; Gays in the armed forces…that DOES have some pretty major implications, not for Gay’s having the right to be in the armed forces…but its how they then behave when in those forces. It’s not right and not ideal… but a fighting unit is a cohesive brotherhood that has no place for rights…..the primary ‘RIGHT’ is to kill the enemy and keep your brothers safe and if that means laying down your life you will gladly do it. As part of that…everyone faces ‘banter’ and in short…‘piss taking’..It relieves battlefield tension…. “Oi big ears….keep your ears open for the enemy…you can hear them further away than us…”…everyone laughs… takes the tension of the situation away… and the person at the end of it…will give as good as they get… and may respond with his own observation about a colleagues teeth…or penis size..etc…Now.. there have been cases where some homosexual soldiers have complained that a comment like… “Come on you big Queen…. get your backside in that trench quickly….we’ve got no time for you to put ya dress on…”…again….such a comment will be said with a lighthearted smile on the face..no different to the big ears jibe… and yet court cases have been instigated that the persons human rights have been abused and insulted… when the person insulted should have actually just given back as much as they received…and I have seen at first hand how this works… as every single one of those guys will do anything for each other..BUT… the Gay that has gone to court and won that case…has done more harm to other Gays that have no issue with giving as good as they get…simply based on the principle of ..‘Its my right not to have the mickey taken…’.. there are some and mind you…very few places… were a person’s own personal rights…MUST take second place to the task at hand. AGAIN..this is very different to bullying…which is simply not acceptable.
Again…you personally may not understand this….but take it from my own experience..sometimes we cannot have the ‘rights’ we want ALL the time…which from a military example…leads me to your response on ‘fighting’…
If read your own words.. “We are fighting for rights”… you are actually just as hostile as those that you accuse, in the sense that your natural language is not “we are campaigning for equal treatment”…. Your own language makes it sound like you are fighting a personal war…
Do you see how the two different statements that principally say the same thing….have completely different reflection…??? I personally feel that there is actually quite an aggresive group within the gay rights movement that basically make the stand of their views so vehermently, that they will never stop until they get what they want…. all I would say is… there is equally another group of people on this planet that would gladly see gays and lesbians removed from life altogether… at some point… there has to be a meeting of the minds where give and take is given by both sides…. for example…. ‘Would you accept if it was offered to you, that you had the right to marry….but simply not in a church?’ If the far right lunatics were prepared to accept this…would that be enough for the Gay and Lesbian community? or would it keep pushing until it gets the full right to marry in a church? In which case… the opposing group will probably fight with their last breath to oppose you. Do you see how there comes a time when there must be ‘consession’ made by both parties… in order to achieve unity? Then…over time… the lines of division erode… and 50 years down the line people may easily marry in Church. Some may still see this as hypocritical…but then so be it…thats their opinion..
As to he MLK comparisons etc. I am wary of ANYONE that uses the word ‘activist’. To me…a suicide bomber is the most extreme ‘activist’ there is… in fact he is more dedicated that Harvey Milk, Rosa parks or anyone…as he is actually prepared to give his life out of HIS choice…for what he believes…. would you condone his behaviour? Or is it different? some would say…not so much… I for example would not condone it …but there is part of me that now understands WHY… certain groups have such hatred for the USA. I may not agree with it… but I see where they are coming from.
However… there are of course issues that must be resolved and sometimes protest, coverage, whatever it may be..is the way to get a message heard… but invariably its confrontational…and where you have confrontation… you get resentment from others that dont wish to be lectured on what they ‘Should’ do…or what they ‘should’ feel. More effort must be made to see what can be done in Unity…not individually.
As to the final comment about what you personally ‘hate’. Again…you have some anger issues that are no different to those that you accuse… you also ‘ASSUME’ to know what someone thinks if they say “It’s none of my business”…. I personally truly could not give a flying fig… what a persons sexuality is…How is that ignorant pray tell? Because someone truly does not care if your heterosexual or gay…they are ignorant….??? I am simply not interested in ANYONES personal sex life… you may call that ignorant…I call it respectful of others privacy….
Again…may I suggest you take a sip of the ‘tolerance’ medicine that you advocate, before you start accusing people of ignorance…you will get more respect in the long term, as a result.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
Do you see how there comes a time when there must be ‘consession’ made by both parties… in order to achieve unity?
The simple concession is just let everyone marry whoever, however and whereever they choose and then don’t worry about what others choose? If guys like Natty would mind their own business we wouldn’t need these discussions? If you are not anti gay why would you care if they have a special warriors night? It doesn’t bother me at all, just like MLK day or columbus day or anyother special day celebrating some part of our heritage.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
Dear god.......
Shows just ho much you have actually bothered to read…
Just as you seem to be be having difficulty with this…
“Its got nothing to do with a GAY night or not…..I dont want to see ANY differentiation nights…but would gladly see some UNITY nights…this latest ‘night’ just happened to be the cause for the airing of my view”
What about that are you STILL struggling to understand?
I would to see us move on from looking at the past..or differentiation…. and look more to the future in Unity…
Holy cow….
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Typos fail...
To add…you solution above to simply allow something…actually goes against the wishes of another groups views…or is that simply a case for you of…well if you dont agree….tough!?! i.e. My way or the highway….or worse still, Stalinist Russia….
We live in a democracy and the vey fundermental of such an incredible thing is the majority vote…once the majority changes it mind…then policy changes…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
The simple concession is just let everyone marry whoever, however and whereever they choose and then don’t worry about what others choose?
Or just remove government from marriage altogether and allow any couple to form a civil union recognized by the government?
Thing A
Or just remove government from marriage altogether and allow any couple to form a civil union recognized by the government?
You can’t remove govt. and still have it recognize something can you? Isn’t recognition a govt. act?
The only real question for govt. is to see that everyone is free to marry their own way. It’s not that hard a problem if they’d just do it and tell the haters to shut up, that we won’t tolerate discrimination in a free country? I guess the politicians have money to reap off of the haters though so they wanna keep it festering?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
make civil unions and marriage two separate things. civil unions would be recognized by the government, would be the only sort of union that received any government benefits and was open to all couples. any couple that desires their union to become a marriage must take that up with their own church.
Thing A
What if your Mum is walking down the other side of the street and see’s you hand in hand with your girlfriend?… would it not be worse to find out this way..versus having that discussion earlier..hence ‘open’ is surely in public
It’s definitely a risk! Never said it wasn’t. But imagine how difficult it must be to be around your boyfriend and not be able to be affection with him. You’d slip up and hold him for a moment at some point.
The gay community does not have rights. Being prosecuted for a gay hate crime doesn’t translate to a gay right.
Secondly, you cannot leave a minority right do a majority vote. It just isn’t possible, ESPECIALLY since you clearly believe that people SHOULDN’T be noticed. I’m so curious as to someone who believes gays should be allowed to marry, how you think this would ever happen when you think we should be quiet and leave everything to a majority vote. People need to be educated in order to change.
California passed gay marriage through the supreme court, and then YES on 8 campaigners brought it down. You have no idea how it feels to be finally given a right and then months later have it taken away.
I read your military paragraph over a few times, and I’m not really sure what you are talking about…I’m assuming you are not in the US??
I love that you brought up a military example because in America we have this great policy called: Don’t ask Don’t tell policy- one of the worst policies in America that is a deliberate discrimination of homosexuals in the military. If “proven” gay you are DISHONORABLY discharged from the military.
I personally feel that there is actually quite an aggresive group within the gay rights movement that basically make the stand of their views so vehermently, that they will never stop until they get what they want…. all I would say is… there is equally another group of people on this planet that would gladly see gays and lesbians removed from life altogether
I just…don’t know what to say to this….
Brit. Gay Rights = GOOD
REMOVING GAYS = BAD
YES I am going to fight for gay rights until we do get them!
"We are fighting for rights"… you are actually just as hostile as those that you accuse, in the sense that your natural language is not "we are campaigning for equal treatment"…. Your own language makes it sound like you are fighting a personal war…
It is a war we are facing! I’m not going to go out an shoot up a place? Are we really getting this petty?? The term “fighting” doesn’t always have to be a violent term
As to he MLK comparisons etc. I am wary of ANYONE that uses the word ‘activist’. To me…a suicide bomber is the most extreme ‘activist’ there is… in fact he is more dedicated that Harvey Milk, Rosa parks or anyone…as he is actually prepared to give his life out of HIS choice…for what he believes…
Fine. call them whaaaatever you want. you still had no arugment to this. Again…the pettiness with the language…and avoiding the overall point.
IF they wanted to say they didn’t care i was gay. they would said i don’t care if you are gay. not “it’s none of my business.” trust me. I’M GAY. ( I know that makes you cringe when I put that in caps) I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE. Everytime i hear that its always dripping with a negative connotation. Its like when a person tells a man whos dating a much younger woman “it’s none of my business” it usually implies i don’t want to know about it.
by pamboat on Mar 2, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Your a hypocrit Pam...
You have zero ability to discuss something without reverting to insulting anothers views an opinion. The traditional My Way or the highway’ You accuse me of not answering a point….what about you not answering on the compromise issue?
While you may find words ‘petty’ WORDS are actually what you are judged by… and to say Gay’s have no rights is frankly laughable…
Someone getting beaten up..is NOT a Gay hate crime…its Assault…simple as that… why does it need to highlighted as something different? Are you trying to make it sound different? somehow worse?
You have proven above to again have ZERO ability to recognise that I am posing questions and viewpoints from a middle ground and playing devils advocate and yet you are so wrapped up in your own narrow view that you are even prepared to insult someone who is not your enemy. That’s not exactly the most sensible policy I have ever encountered.
In short… your lack of ability to discuss without insult is NEVER ever going to win more support from anyone that is neutral but may disagree with you about certain things..
You create more phantom BS and spin above than I know what to do with… things like “You clealy believe people shouldnt be noticed…” Would you mind using the quote function to show where I said that….? Otherwise you are simply making false juvenile statements…
So as long as you want to ‘FIGHT’ for your right for something and you are too stupid not to realise that equally there is going to be someone to ‘fight’ against you…as opposed to proposing how both parties may mutually work together to find a solution…then you go ahead and keep smacking your head against the wall.
Also your final observation that I somehow ‘cringe’ at hearing that YOU ARE GAY… is the most immature childish non-sense you have typed yet and as a result I am not going to waste a single further moment of my life trying to explain how things may possibly be approched differently to achieve the same goal.
You tar everyone that diagree’s with you with the same brush…. your actually no different to the bigots you accuse…therefore I am done wasting my breath talking to you any further…. as to use your own words… ’You are clearly so set in your own ways you will never change your viewpoint.." I just managed to not insult you with my version…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions
oh why yes i shall!
Maybe no one ‘HAS’ to notice…maybe we can all just accept that we all live our lives differently, but how we do so..is a private matter for individuals and is no one elses business.. so no….in many peoples opinion… you DONT have to stand out… as you SHOULD be like anyone else
ok i should have stuck with my gut instinct and left it alone. you clearly are not understanding a word i’m saying.
FAIL
I didnt say someone ‘shouldnt’ be noticed… I clearly stated maybe no one ‘HAS’ to notice…there is a huge difference…
I frankly understand everything you are saying…I just find your inability not to insult in a discussion juvenile and therefore I have zero wish to discuss it any further with you.
I suggest you read Qin and my dialogue above to see how two people discuss something to middle ground. We may still both disagree about some issues…but we find middle ground.
ALL your interested in is getting your own way and if someone disagrees with your opinion they simple “not understanding a word you are saying”…and you then revert to insults…you are ability to discuss is frankly diabolical..
Anyway…I am done….I am just so very thankful that not all gays are as closed minded and frankly bloody rude as you, otherwise Gay rights would not stand a hope in hell.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
Brit..
telling someone who is gay they don’t HAVE to be noticed… you might as well tell them they shouldn’t be. but alas…you can never understand. thats the point i’m trying to get across.
i love how you think i’m close minded just because i am for a gay night. lol. how ironic is that!!!
let’s just let that sink in for a moment.
No......to be clear...
I think you are closed minded for the sheer volume of insults and nonsense you have tried to create from thin air from my posts…not once have you said..“Ok I appreciate your view in this” or any other concilitary tone…you avoided the question I posed you on Gay marriage and the compromise idea…and you have made it quite clear you will fight for your rights that you want until you get them….
Your narrow mindedness is your inability to realise that there are more subtle and ‘Unitary’ ways to bring people together to try to understand a view….rather than one group standing and shouting at another group…
Come back to me when you have understood how true dialogue actually progresses viewpoints to a position where actually something constructive can be achieved… better still…. go travel the world…your personal strife is pretty insignificant when compared to millions throughout the world…. THEN you may come to realise actually how many rights you actually have… versus a gay person in Iran or Saudi Arabia…..or the millions of other groups that go through TRUE oppression…
THEN…you will understand the benefit of a Unity nights…versus Asian, Gay, Irish, etc nights… but then again maybe not…and thats fine..thats your opinion…
But dont insult me simply because I disagree…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Seriously, Brit … go easy? This woman has not been insulting you. Mostly she seems to be standing up for herself and trying, patiently and candidly, to make you understand her point of view. Substance of the exchange aside, you have been much, much less civil than she has throughout this exchange, imo.
You create more phantom BS and spin above than I know what to do with…
the most immature childish non-sense
Your a hypocrit Pam…
you are ability to discuss is frankly diabolical..
ALL your interested in is getting your own way
I just find your inability not to insult in a discussion juvenile
FAIL
I think you are closed minded
Your narrow mindedness
I mean, I get it. You’re an emotional, passionate dude. I really appreciate that, most of the time. I totally understand your POV about the value of unity and the dangers of balkanization. But for you to antagonize this woman to this degree and then turn around and cry victim when she returns a small fraction of your fire is just … weak.
Give it a rest?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 2, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Oh please Sleepy... cut the pot calling kettle crap!
Do you sniff what you write sometimes??? So now you are telling me if she insulted me or not…and that she has been patient …what exactly was patient or non-insulting about this? “I had my ignorant head shoved so far up my own ass my view wouldnt possibly change….”… CUT THE CRAP SLEEPY! The woman set this blaze alight with her flame response…as nothing in my reponse insulted her personally…I may have disagreed with some of the content…but I didnt have a dig at her personally…
So dont talk to me about returning fire….she bloody lit the fire…and then threw petrol on it… and now the “Do as I say and notn as I do?” nonsense from you?
Yet to you thats perfectly acceptable??? Who gave you the right to bear judgementon whether I felt insulted or not by that comment?
The woman chose to have this fight with her flaming response for want of a better word…which at any other time would have been deleted… but not for her it seems…
Yet when two people like Qin and I can discuss something, we may not agree….but we can treat each others views with respect….
Every single one of Pam’s responses to me has basically told me I dont know what I am talking about and have no right to have any view or say on the matter and that I am ignorant….
and now you feel you have to step in to try and defend her…please…. she is a big girl…she has told everyone how terrible it has been to be insulted by so many people all her life, yet a couple of posts into her GSOM input she is already telling people their heads are up their asses….
Most civil people apologise when they have maybe in a moment of steam insulted someone…but no…she is GAY…so she is entitled to speak to me like that….or at least that’s how your coming across to me..
Its bloody rudeness…period…and that has NOTHING to do with her GAYNESS….its simply rude, inability to hold a civil conversation with someone…
Why dont you spend a little more effort pointing out that her “Head up ass” comment was not exactly the most ‘tolerent’ or ‘respectful’…the exact crap she is claiming she does not get from others….
Its not about me crying victim, I frankly could not care less anymore of Pams thoughts because of her simple rudeness…. I simply highlight the hypocrisy of claiming to have been insulted throughout life…and yet its ok for her to do it to others just because she disagree’s with them……
What is this…kinder garden? More like Double Standards….I am out of this glasshouse thread…before anymore stones are thrown by the two faced…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 3, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
So dont talk to me about returning fire….she bloody lit the fire…and then threw petrol on it
I’m pretty sure you lit the fire, BritWarriorGSW, when you disapproved of her lifestyle and wanted to deny her equality, which happened long before this argument.
I don’t see Pam telling you how to express your love….so you can say she “threw petrol” on the fire, but it beats throwing her on it, which is what you did…..
Someone getting beaten up..is NOT a Gay hate crime…its Assault…simple as that… why does it need to highlighted as something different? Are you trying to make it sound different? somehow worse?
Brit, we have a similiar thing over here for murder of a police officer, it’s treated different than murder of a normal citizen. I think the enhancements are added because these groups are particularly vulnerable to haters ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
Yep...
There are indeed grey areas where one could say something is worse or not than another…but at the end of the day…if someone is dead…they are dead and that ‘shouldnt’ be treated any differently.
I do however feel that normally with the Police situation, when an Officer has died in the line of duty, i.e ‘To protect and to serve’ then it maybe carries a slightly greater significance.
But there are sometimes claims that a person was attacked maybe because they were Gay…when in reality they might have been attacked simply to steal their wallet? It’s still assault…and it goes back to my whole original point, that I personally would prefer to start treating everyone in a more equal fashion, with less labels of differentiation..
Pipe dream? possibly… but it is from small acorns that mighty oak trees grow….
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Mar 2, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
the statutes that treat victims of discrimination
and law enforcement personnel in special categories have distinct and separate motives behind them. Deterrence is certainly part of the rationale with both, as well as making more resources available in prosecuting a crime. But in the case of minorities facing persecution and discrimination, the laws are also intended to give them recourse to state and federal authorities when local law enforcement falls short.
Local authorities, we should remind ourselves, often ignored crimes against minorities, or even condoned or perpetrated the crimes. This great country was essentially built on denying indigenous peoples, slaves, and their descendants equal protection under law—that was as ‘traditional’ as defining marriage as the union of a female with a male hominid for the purpose of procreation.
Brit, we have a similiar thing over here for murder of a police officer, it’s treated different than murder of a normal citizen.
HUGE difference skep. I get your point about some groups being particularly vulnerable, but police officers are in a different class because they represent the law and order all citizens submit themselves to in exchange for a place in the society. I’m not sure judging all assaults equally is a great idea, but I think drawing a parallel between groups and police officers is bad logic.
Thing A
but I think drawing a parallel between groups and police officers is bad logic.
Not as bad as letting your police officers become more important than the society they serve. Good cops don’t feel superior to their charges, they recognize they are part of “us”.
As someone said already the special emphasis on certain crimes facilitates multi level prosecution resources as extra insurance that justice can be served. I’ve got no problem with these kinds of enhancements as they can be applied to different crimes if the need shows up. Good law enforcement is flexible and moves with the times, it should require a re-write of the bible to change a law.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
I think because they are representations of the law and order we agree to respect their job essentially IS the society. the individuals that occupy that job are not more important than any other individual, but the office they hold is
Thing A
the individuals that occupy that job are not more important than any other individual, but the office they hold is
That’s very true, Good officers respect the job and the people respect them. and hopefully any bad officers get run off before they can do harm? It’s a job I’d certainly never want my kids to take.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 8, 2010 12:07 AM PST up reply actions
Well...
…arguing that something could happen that you have no recalled past examples of, it seems less like an argument and more like there’s some personal irritation at play. Certainly, some things have to be argued purely in hypothetical terms, but this issue isn’t really one of them. As for tethering this to some sort of philosophy, I imagine the Gay Night is for a few reasons… first off, selling tickets. Secondly, to try to present a diversified corporate image. But there also is, i suspect, a desire to see the league move towards a more liberal attitude towards homosexuality. It’s not for me to say what the majority opinion on this issue is for the players, except to say that professional athletes by and large tend to be cut from a conservative cloth, and that in John Amaechi’s book in which he revealed his sexual orientation, he recalls quite a few unpleasant anecdotes (including, I believe, a member of the Utah Jazz stating he’d disown his son if he turned out gay). The fact that there are no openly gay active players in the NBA, NFL, and MLB speaks volumes- we still live in a society in which the higher your profile in certain venues of popular life, people have very strong feelings about how you’re getting your pleasures Similarly, I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that a gay person might feel somewhat alienated, or at least uncomfortable showing any public affection for their partner at the Oracle. Gay shows of affection in a large area in which you can’t account for everyone around you could lead to an unpleasant conclusion. Iff I’m sitting next to a heterosexual couple and they’re kissing and holding each other, I think most people wouldn’t view that as anything at all- certainly not an attack on their values (I’m speaking generally, I should add- you maintain that you’re anti-discrimination both positive and negative, so I’ll take you at your word- though positive discrimination would be like being able to tell if a soup would be better with salt or without, so I don’t see the aversion to that). But a gay display of affection seems to be processed by a contingent of people as an assault on their beliefs. It’s not dissimilar to something I’ve encountered as an atheist, basically that people can talk and profess openly about their personal relationship with god, Jesus or the cosmos, but if I’m asked about my beliefs I often get an irritated vibe back, as if the minority of my opinion converts it into an effort to bother other people. In fact, the merit of a majority opinion or movement versus a minority one can’t be measured in any way without appropriate context.
What if a season ticket holder in a section that is designated the Gay and Lesbian section, happens to disagree with a gay lifestyle….?? Will they be reseated?
This is a style of argument that kind of bothers me. What you’ve done is moved from an initial theory that I think most everybody would agree has little to no chance of happening (and if you consider that seriously in the context of our socio-political climate, as well as the business end for the team, I think you can likely see why), and you’re now worrying about what the conditions will be like in our imaginary, sexually segregated basketball facility.
Is it really going to be that long before we have the ‘Black’ section, the ‘Gay section’ the heterosexual section….to sit in???? The ‘progressive’ thinking could very well turn us full circle,so that instead of their being buses for Blacks and whites only as there were in the 50’s and 60’s…..we will get buses, sections of arenas and train carriages for ‘Gays and Lesbians’ only
This I can kinda agree with. I love the idea, but breaking it into sections for seating might be an issue. What if you got your tix along time ago and you going to the game and you are in the gay section? I’m straight (not that that matters) and it wouldnt bother me as long as they were Warrior fans but I can see some people having an issue with it. A much better idea would have been having one of the club 200 bars and lounges designated for gays or lesbians….
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 25, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Unless you are going to allow ‘community nights’ for ANY group… then you cannot hold these individual nights…and quite right…I would have these banned in a heartbeat.
Look at them all as community nights for the whole human race, you are only excluded if you choose to set yourself apart from your fellow humans.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 8:08 AM PST up reply actions
Great spin...
but its still unecessary in my personal opinion.
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 9:24 AM PST up reply actions
but its still unecessary in my personal opinion.
The Warriors and the NBA are just trying to reach out to a new community to get some new fans and ticket sales. Happens in so many different ways locally and internationally. I wasnt a hockey fan till I went to a couple of Sharks games with my friends, and after a few games I got pretty in to it, and now I like the sport. If a just 1% of the people that are coming just for gay night, enjoy the product and develop and interest, than the night was a success.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 25, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Great spin...but its still unecessary in my personal opinion.
Look at it as a growing of your spirit? I can tell from the things you say that you are not a bad person so you can be an even better one?? I’d enjoy watching my fellow citizens enjoying the same game I enjoy , and consider it a step toward closeness and understanding between diverse groups? Who knows ,you might even have a great time? Some of the gay folks I know throw great parties and just about every lesbian I know well will tell you that I’ve fallen for her :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
Skep..I have been to plenty of shin-digs...
But I would prefer a ‘Unity Night’ as Gamesix called it…rather than a specific ‘Gay and Lesbian night’… but as you can see above…when you try to discuss points that someone makes that you might disagree with…. all you get is abuse back… so much for respect and understanding…….
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 25, 2010 5:08 PM PST up reply actions
That made perfect sense. Are you on LSD?
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 26, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
This was in response to Skeptik’s whole human race comment btw.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 26, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not interested in tolerating intolerance
by Reverend_Randy on Feb 25, 2010 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
Here....try lightening up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if7FuZaZ7ss
Oh and by the way… this character is written and played by Matt Lucas..someone who is GAY and able to laugh at not only himself but certain members of his own community….
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 3:11 AM PST up reply actions
Sure and there is a black dude on right wing talk radio that is always hating on black people which where I work, some of the white folk now think it’s OK to do the same thing because “one of theirs said it”.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
and this has ANY relation to Matt Lucas how?
Am I putting forward Straight parodies of gay people? Do you hear me using the N word because black people use it?… NO..so dont tar me with the same brush for petty point scoring… its juvenile.
Little Britain…does more parodies of the British society than you can shake a stick at..of all classes…creeds…etc… some of us actually have the ability to laugh at ourselves at times… there are some who could also learn to do likewise…
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 26, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
Oh and by the way… this character is written and played by Matt Lucas..someone who is GAY and able to laugh at not only himself but certain members of his own community….
I thought that pretty well summed up my response as a “well sense he said it” pov. If you think that’s petty well then good for you, that should just make you feel that much more superior. (Sorry was that petty)?
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
They did have a Mormon night the other night (which I attended, in fact). They can have a gay night to make money and to appease gay people. It’s a business. I don’t care, if they want to do that personally. I had my night for my group, which is good. That said, I think a lot of people straight people will feel awkward there and given the behavior at gay pride parades, I suspect “gay night” might also be “lewd behavior night,” although I could be completely and 100% wrong.
My suspicion is that they realized that all the hatred for Mormons could bite them, as they have had LDS night for a few years. I think “gay night” is to protect themselves from all the anti-Mormon politics going on right now in response to prop. 8.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
"lewd behavior night"
Aw, you missed that one too, Nat? Now that was truly a “Great Time Out”…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 27, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
lol
So it is your religiousnessicity that makes you a gay-marriage phobe?
They did have a Mormon night
Official GSW magic underwear for all!
Well, if prayers are “magic” to you, the traditional long locks of Jews, the yamaca, the collar of priests and invoking the name of God or Jesus, I suppose our practice of wearing special garments is “magic.” Mormons, Catholics, Jews and traditional Christians call it faith, but you are free to express your anger toward us and hatred by insulting our intelligence.
But the thing is, we have the rational arguments in this debate and always have. We have expressed them publicly through commercials and in person and WON via the Democratic process, not through using religious arguments but purely secular ones, based on parental rights, based on facts of how things have gone in Massachusetts and based on the law. (The French having taken the same position as the United States and all the “stupid” Mormons and Catholics, as well, based purely on philosophy and principle).
The Left, on the other had blatantly lied many times, uses emotionalism and argues from authority regularly. But somehow, we’re the “idiots” that believe in “magic.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Well, if prayers are "magic" to you
Prayers on your underwear? Isn’t that a bit dis -respectful to the deity? That takes "in the closet " to new extremes.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 1, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Actually
To answer your question
Well, if prayers are "magic" to you,
Yes indeed. Thanks for shoving “hateful” to the end of my post. I would’ve said the same thing about Official GSW yamacas (actually that’s kind of funny). Not sure why it’s hateful, don’t you use magic underwear? Seriously natty don’t come to a place where logic abounds and try to defend magic robes, capes, hats, undergarments, etc…because that’s what they are.
we have the rational arguments in this debate and always have
lol let me know where I can find those
Again, with the lies. I don’t believe in magic robes or anything of the sort. I have every authority as anyone else to debate against the foolishness of the far-left gay language dogma, where the government causes the American vocabulary to shrink as a means to trick Americans into believing that a gay union has no relevant differences from a straight one. You can mock me, but you have no arguments that will hold water, in favor of your desire for the government to adopt homosexual language dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
i have a baseball player buddy
who won’t change his socks if he’s hitting well. Days, weeks could go by, but he will not change his socks if he believes it makes a difference. I call them his magic socks. You call them…?
I call them socks. Magic is a belief in phenomenon that has no rational cause and effect. My belief in God is based on faith, which is in part based on hope. Hope is not irrational. My belief in God is also based on logic and experience.
I also believe that God’s ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts “even as the Heavens are above the earth.” To accept the notion that I am only a human being and don’t understand everything, allows me to believe in the existence of phenomenon that human beings don’t understand.
When I read or hear from others about miracles, that in itself is evidence and its not irrational to believe testimony from witnesses. Between my acceptance that I don’t know everything, my personal experience with what I would call “miracles,” and the testimony of witnesses, I have faith.
If there is a God, and I believe there is, and if God has an interest in humans, and I believe He does, He can use teaching tools like baptism or laying on of hands, which also result in real, measurable changes in our lives. Granted 99.9% of the time, those changes are only in our hearts. From time to time, I know there are other results of faith.
None of this is about magic. It’s about my belief that I don’t understand everything, about my experiences, about the purported experiences of others and that miracles are the work of God which have a rational explanation that is above what humans currently comprehend.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I am sorry that your god cannot accept my friends and give them equal rights. It is sad to me that people base their lives and faith around the hope of a god who can’t even let us all be who we are.
They have equal rights. God just can’t except certain behaviors. Human beings are defined by their actions alone but by their potential. Sins, as we Christians call ill behavior, can be washed away, so God can accept your friends, the moment they repent of their behavior. Of course, I can’t judge when people are not accountable for their behavior, so perhaps God does accept your friends. I don’t know the and am in no position to pass final judgment on them.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
oh.
so you’re god then, and know exactly what we should and shouldn’t do with our lives?
got it.
You guys can’t resist the urge to present strawmen arguments, can you? Try being honest in your debates and responding to what I’m saying, rather than making things up as you go along. This isn’t a remotely valid point.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
of course it's not a remotely valid point.
you said something completely incredulous, there’s no way to make a valid point when you’re responding to something invalid. you can’t apply blood transfusions to gay marriage. you absolutely, positively cannot. I’m not going to make a valid point to you making a completely invalid claim, because your invalidity just proved my validity.
First of all, as an English major, I’m offended by your misuse of the word incredulous. What you mean to say is that YOU are incredulous toward what I am saying.
I’m not applying blood transfusions to gay marriage. More bad reading comprehension. I am comparing the government adopting one dogma (that a gay union=marriage) to another dogma (that getting a blood transfusion is immoral).
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
point taken.
and as a humanities major, I am offended by your frequent use of the fallacies of strawman, personal attack and false dichotomy, as well as your reluctance to read and stay on track, and your complete inability to find a synonym for “dogma” every once in a while.
More poor reading comprehension and horrendous analysis. If you’re going to understand humanities, you’ll need to do better.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
my professors seem to think i'm doing just fine
luckily they’re the ones giving me grades, not you :)
The power of the mind! I too am smart enough to know how dumb I am. The difference is I haven’t confused that with blind allegiance to a spaghetti monster. I’ve seen too much to believe that “god” (whatever that entails) has any interest in wtf is goin on down here. I know you’ll explain it away w/a talking point like “mysterious ways” or “closes a door while opens a window,” but that just doesn’t wash w/some of the things I’ve seen other people go through.
I’m not naive though; I know that this benevolent spaghetti monster provides solace and the belief in him keeps a lot of people in check. And I’m also baptized a Catholic, so as long as I renounce my sinful ways on the ol’ death bed, I’m OK! Rules are fun. So enjoy your sphagetti monster, but when he whispers to you to put on a crusade against decent people (sinners, as you put it) who want to experience the joy of marriage, then that’s where the derision comes in. Aren’t mormons after like 10+ wives themselves? Y’all are just being greedy.
by GameSix on Mar 3, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So you’re saying all religious people are stupid, and you are smart. O.K. gotcha. Whatever.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Where did I say that?
My opener is that I’m smart enough to know I’m dumb. I’m saying that all people are stupid. In fact, I think we agree on this point. You go from “If there is a God” (I’m with you there) to “God just can’t except certain behaviors.” That’s funny.
Your position: Look, I don’t know if a God exists, but no wait yes I do and gay people getting married ANGERS HIM.
My position: Look, I don’t know if a God exists, so I won’t pretend to speak on His behalf.
You claimed to be smart by implication and it’s obvious you think religious people are stupid. Again, whatever. This is a waste of time. Think what you want. I don’t care. Go give your secular sermon to someone else. I’m not interested.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Go give your secular sermon to someone else. I’m not interested.
that confirms my observation above?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
Ducking arguments, check.
Straw man, check.
Putting words into my mouth, check.
I’m not interested.
/takes ball and goes home
I rather enjoy a good debate. If I stop debating with someone, it’s due to them being imbeciles, bigots or some combination of the two.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I rather enjoy a debate in which neither debating party is an imbecile or a bigot, both parties have an emotional IQ higher than that of a fencepost, and both parties are interested in a real dialogue and synthesis of ideas.
Strangely enough, Natty, the “debates” you start never seem to fit these criteria. Go figure.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 4, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Well, if this is a critique of the things I’m saying, clearly you will explain my purported logical fallacies and defeat me with ease, right? Right? Oh, yeah, I forgot that your method of “debate” is to do “drive by” broad generalizations and not actually debate at all.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Exactly! Your predictably hateful opinions don’t deserve any better.
I suspect some of the kids who are taking your bait right now don’t remember the last 1500-post hate-spam-fest. Poor young Brady, for example, seems to think he’s dealing with someone who can be reasoned with, on an empathetic, human level, rather than a “debate-bot” programmed to provide a predictable counterpoint to every point.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 4, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
Logic is rather predictable, which is why my arguments are so consistent. I’m not random, going with every whim that I think will score me points. I stick with logic. That you think it is hatred just shows how irrational you are. What have I said that shows hatred toward gay people? Nothing.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Haha. Yup, call me Mr. Illogical. That’s how I’m known around these parts.
I love logic, especially in relatively closed, quantifiable worlds like hoops. In the real world, I find logic untempered by love and compassion kinda lame.
Your logic isn’t half as good as you think it is, and it’s quite obvious that your love and compassion need work.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 4, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
How would you know if my logic is good or not? You won’t even bother to debate me. You just say I’m hateful and irrational. If I am irrational, something about my assertions should be wrong.
- that a gay union has no relevant differences to a marriage is a political dogma.
True or false?
- The American government should not adopt dogmas, based on the same principles that separate Church and State.
True or false?
- The government is not currently curtailing any freedoms. They are simply not including gay unions in a government policy that has been designed for and formed for the purpose of marriage, including and perhaps especially the filial ties associated with real marriage.
Where am I going wrong?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Not sure how I got three "1"’s in there, but they should read 1, 2 and 3. Wow, that is absent-mindedness displayed in full glory.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Haha. How can you talk logic with a guy who can’t even count?
Seriously, Nat. You’re not getting me to bite on question 1, 1, or 1. I’ve been down this road before.
As I noted above (way above) … what puzzles me most is how apparently uninterested you are, amid your “debating,” in persuading anyone, or arriving at any kind of compromise, or synthesis of ideas. I’d be surprised if any of your readers or collocutors in these threads came away feeling much but frustration and annoyance. Isn’t a huge part of the success of Christianity based on its seductive and persuasive marketing? I know very little about Mormon-ishness, but I have noted that all the LDS-types who ever knocked at my door have seemed super-kind, courteous and soft-spoken. Did you miss the memo?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 4, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
How do you compromise with people who want their gay dogma adopted by the government? There is no middle ground. You either accept the government adopting dogma or not.
Also, it’s no surprise that you won’t engage me. You claim I am illogical, but you clearly lack the understanding of logic to back up your claim.
Also, the Church is diverse. This is an example of diversity gone wrong, an obnoxious, obsessive compulsive debating Mormon. Everyone is different, even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “the hate-filled extremist cult” behind a lot of funding for prop. 8 campaigning.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
an obnoxious, obsessive compulsive debating Mormon.
Ha, finally, a glimmer of self-awareness. Now if you just omit the second “m” from that last word… ;-)
I keeed. You’re obviously a pretty brainy kid, Nat. You just to work on the cardio stuff a bit.
Also, it’s no surprise that you won’t engage me.
Aw. How will you know unless you show me the ring…? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
I suspect some of the kids who are taking your bait right now don’t remember the last 1500-post hate-spam-fest. Poor young Brady, for example, seems to think he’s dealing with someone who can be reasoned with, on an empathetic, human level, rather than a
Haha, I gave him a heads up. I on the other hand am retired with lots of keyboards handy so I’m just working on wearing the spambot out ? It’s a restful diversion from my chores and hedonistic adventures.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
you did give me a heads up
but alas, i am but an extremely naive 20 year-old, who still thinks the best of everyone, and as a result is way behind on both his philosophy and politics papers because this took priority. :)
Wait...
…so you attended the Mormon night? And you say that “I had my night for my group, which is good.”
So…?
Chris Cohan/Robert Rowell will try anything to sell tickets.
not saying I’m against the idea, just that the Warriors would host robot night if they thought machines could buy tickets to the games
Love Warriors, Hate Cohan! - Sell the team! Save us Mr. Ellison!
the Warriors would host robot night if they thought machines could buy tickets to the games
Haha, And some bigot would be complaining that he don’t wanna sit next to bender?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
re: Futurama
Have you seen the episode where Bender becomes a professional wrestler and becomes really popular?
Then, when they want people to start hating him the put him in a tutu and change his name to The Gender Bender.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 26, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
Too many culture nights
Seriously though, a lot of these culture nights are over the top. Plain and simple, if you like basketball, then come and watch the games. There’s a place for all of this accepting people of different cultures stuff, but the arena is where people want to watch basketball, not where people want to watch people seeking attention.
Don't read too much into the culture nights
It’s really nothing more than a marketing tool.
Plain and simple, if you like bad basketball, then come and watch the games.
yeah, really, with our record how much "gayer"could any one group make it anyway?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 25, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
gay = lame
I had this conversation w/a friend of mine recently. I’m 25, by the time my kids are my age, saying something is “gay” will be seen as a horrible thing. Our kids will be disgusted at the way we were. ThE WaRRioRZ r tEh GEHY amirite
not to mention
they’ll wonder why there wasn’t nationwide gay marriage in our time like we wondered how our parents were in a world where jim crow law existed. (i’m not equating the two just giving two examples of inequality).
Hadaway Fail
Timmy will not be in the building! But it would be epic if he was there for halftime to address the crowd to show how he’s evolved. LOL
Do you have to be gay to play the open gym?
cause i wanna ball at oaracle
i wanna ball at oracle
Family show, man!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Feb 26, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
no promo
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Feb 26, 2010 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
lol
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Feb 26, 2010 5:40 PM PST up reply actions
Oh my
I thought this thread was about Rudy Gay. Moving along…
Let me guess..... you heard about this thread...
On the grapevine? :)
"LOVE WARRIORS - HATE COHAN" - Sell The Team!
Anyone here know the popular saying "No Homo"
NBA players and the hip-hop community are as anti-gay as you get in this world and last I checked the majority of the NBA players fall in the hip-hop culture category. “No Homo” is used a ton by them whenever they say something that is “questionable”. This is a joke. Just like gay marriage in a church, you can’t justify abolishing a fundamental of the bible . I don’t care if someone chooses(yes it’s a chioce until they prove that there is a difference in a gay persons DNA) to be gay but you don’t deserve special privilages/days because you feel you are now a minority . John Amaechi anyone?
Which players fall under the hip-hop community? What are the requirements for being in the hip-hop community? Is it acting “black”?
Wasn’t slavery in the Bible?
Also, so what are you saying. They experience discrimination with sayings like “no homo” and other anti-gay sentiment embedded in popular culture…yet they are not a minority?
so what are you saying.
This was a total mystery to me as well.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 2, 2010 12:52 AM PST up reply actions
It comes down to CHOICE
IMO you choose to be homosexual, like I said until science proves a genetic difference between homos and heteros than its a choice. Sexual preference does not constitute a minority. In the literal meaning of the word they could be considered a minority but in the dictonary race, religion, and ethnic background are mentioned. They choose to consider themselves a minority but asians, blacks, hispanics, and every other non caucasian in america didn’t have a choice to be their race so their privilages as a minority are justified. Because race does constitue a minority.
Being real about it with the league being 80+% black and undoubtedly 75+% of them listening to rap on the regular basis a minimum of 3/4ths of the L are part of the hip-hop community.
Slavery is not trying to be done in a church, stick to the point buddy.
I’m just trying to figure out what the point is first, then I’ll stick to it. And I think we still have a long way to go.
First of all, because you choose to be something that means that it is okay to be discriminated against?
You choose your religion. True or false?
Okay, now that I answered that rhetorical question for you (it is true by the way), why is it mentioned in the dictionary?
Okay, let me answer that rhetorical question for you as well, because the dictionary is not what decides what a minority is, real life does.
You say 75% of “them” listen to rap on a regular basis. Again, who is them? Black people? Or players in the NBA? What is your basis behind this assertion?
And what do you think the hip-hop community is? What do you think it stands for? Can you listen to hip-hop and not say “no homo”? Ir is the hip-hop community more anti-gay/anti-tolerant/pro-everything-that-is-wrong-with-our-society than any other community?
I don’t want to ask so many questions but you really leave things out in the open. I am trying to know what you are saying so I can counter or agree with it but I really cannot tell.
Are reading what I'm typing and just not comprehending?
Comparing slavery in the bible to homosexuality in the bible has no point.
Everyone is discriminated against in one way or another and none of it is right but it’s also not right to be given special privalages because you feel you are discriminated on more than another person.
75% of them? The sentence had the league and the L in it, apparantly i needed to use NBA. My bad for thinking i was conversing with an basketball fan. I don’t know if you play basketball but i do and have played in many cities around the country and I know very few ballers that would consider themselves indie, rock, punk, homosexual or anything else other than hip-hop.
What do I think the hip hop communityt stands for? Well it used to be about voicing your opinion in a non violent way, a way around fighting to resolve differences. Then along came NWA who glorified being a gangsta and commiting heinous crimes. So we ended up losing Biggie and Pac. Now today it’s all about how much bread and swag you got. So at this point in time mainstream hiphop doesn’t stand for much good in this world, and it certainly doesn’t stand for homosexuality. When you think about what the tv stations and airwaves feed to us you realize how hip hop culture does indeed have a very negative impact on society. Many people will choose to disagree with that but I say look at the number of single parent homes, abortion rate, un-wed teenagers having babies and prove to me that the way todays hip-hop culture glorifies sexuality doesn’t negatively affect our society.
What do you think the hip-hop community is/stands for? Do you feel the NBA is not immersed in hip-hop culture? I’m not understanding what you’re saying so help me out.
BTW all i listen to is hip hop and r&b but i CHOOSE to not let it make me a menace to society. Oh, and the point is simply that having “gay basketball night” is a joke because the NBA is not the place for promoting homsexuality.
BTW all i listen to is hip hop and r&b but i CHOOSE to not let it make me a menace to society. Oh, and the point is simply that having "gay basketball night" is a joke because the NBA is not the place for promoting homsexuality.
Nice to hear a young guy concerned with the troubles of society and trying to stay clear of them, but in reality music doesn’t create the scene ,it just reports on what’s happening and tries to capture it. By listening to these songs we see the bad and get hope for the future. If you think Tupac was pro evil you better listen again?
Gay basketball night is not about the NBA or the players , it’s for the people who come to the games, our whole community. It’s no different than mohawk night or breast cancer awareness night or Asian heritage night, just something to make one game special for one group of folks. It doesn’t hurt you to go and enjoy the fun too does it?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
No I am reading what you are typing, but there are a lot of times where you seem to say one thing and then say something different later. It is either a problem with your writing or my comprehension, but either way, I am not saying it to be rude I am saying it because I want to know what it is exactly that we disagree on.
So you think that everyone in the USA is discriminated against equally? Even an able-bodied, tall, white, heterosexual, Christian male? They would face just as much discrimination as a disabled, little, black, homosexual, Muslim female?
If not, why not, because you said everyone is discriminated against, so I am assuming you were implying that the discrimination was equal? If you were not implying that, okay, but then why would you even bring that up as it would be very irrelevant to your point?
Just so you don’t get it twisted. I am not saying that the “hip-hop community” does not have an anti-gay sentiment. In fact, though I am still unclear on what that community is and who is in it, (though I believe we are probably talking about a theoretical community composed of walking stereotypes of young black males) I would not doubt it has an anti-gay sentiment because pretty much every community in America has an anti-gay sentiment. My question to you is about your original post so let’s not change that. Why do you write that the “hip-hop community” is as anti-gay as it gets? That is, why is this community the worst culprit of homophobia? Does saying “no homo” only exist in the “hip-hop community”? Because I know people at my school who must have missed that memo. Is saying “no homo” and things of the sort the only
The problem with your hip-hop community is that it speaks in generalizations. This is called a stereotype. It lacks context (thanks for throwing out the single parent homes, abortion rates, and un-wed teenager having babies arguments so recklessly). It assumes the worst in the “hip-hop community” which by extension perpetuates the stereotype of the ultra-masculine, angry black male, which by extension confines the male members of both the “hip-hop community” and the black community into dangerous negative stereotypes (and pretty much leaves the females out of the conversation altogether).
The problem with your blaming everything on the hip-hop community is that if you were going to place the problems of homophobia, un-wed teenagers, single parent homes and high abortion rates on their shoulders alone you should have also blamed them for Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Haiti while you were at it. Hip-hop was created in the 1970s (some would argue before, but let’s go with it). According to your logic, there were none of these problems before that decade? Or did we just blame it on the “rock n’ roll community” or the “bebop community” or the “jazz community” or some other black-driven musical movement that eventually got co-opted and commodified?
I am glad that you choose not to let it make you a menace to society. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, society expects them to be a “menace to society” because society places them in the “hip-hop community” (regardless of if they listen to rap) and deems the hip-hop community evil and then takes their listening to a rap song which may or may not describe their experience or offer them an escape from their daily life and basically says that it makes them evil, instead of looking at other causes like poverty and corruption and people who confine them into the “hip hop community”.
The prob
4th paragraph, last line
“Is saying “no homo” and things of the sort the only manifestation of anti-gay sentiment?
IMO you choose to be homosexual?
If you really believe that then you must think there’s something attractive about that choice otherwise who would freely make it? So if you think it’s attractive enough that some people choose it then how can you be against a gay night? Seems like the only answer would be cause you don’t want others to enjoy themselves because they aren’t enjoying themselves in your approved method? Now is that hate or simply jealousy ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
That and hes attracted to guys, he just chooses not to have sex with them.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 2, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
hes attracted to guys
No, I’m seriously trying to get him to examine why he’s against a gay basketball night? If he has strong feelings about it then he’s got a reasoning problem of some kind? Most folks just say live and let live?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
Trying to get the government to adopt a gay dogma is the opposite of “live and let live.” This country was built on the idea that the government would stop arbitrarily favoring dogmas, as historically, this proves over and over to make victims of those who disagree with the government-adopted dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I don't hate em but the gay rights activists
have taken things overboard. My biggest problem overall is them wanting to get married in a church. I cannot understand how any straight religious person would deem it ok to be done in the lords house. Back to the subject, what is the point of having gay basketball night? How many gay players do they think there are in the NBA? It’s just not the right setting to celebrate homosexuality. If they’re a minority fine, but what size is the minority of them that actually give a damn about the NBA?
All this is is PR by the NBA to a group of people who could care less about them and their sport, it’s unnecessary. I guess thats my only point, the benefit to the league is minimal at best. But theres always a strong chance that at an event like this some homophobe or player may do or say something crazy and create a bowl of doodoo for the NBA that could’ve been avoided if they chose to stick within their demographic.
My biggest problem overall is them wanting to get married in a church. I cannot understand how any straight religious person would deem it ok to be done in the lords house.
But churches come in all types and colors. Some churches are not against gays so why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry whoever they want? Laws should be designed to protect the weakest members of society not the strongest?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
wait a minute, skep
are you saying that some religions believe in a god who accepts everyone, and doesn’t mind when we love whom we love?
crazy talk.
this debate is ridiculous. no one here is god. we can believe in god all we want, but no one knows how god, in any form, feels about the right to love. so you’re trying to make gay marriage outside of the church for YOUR benefit, not for god’s. that is selfish.
so you’re trying to make gay marriage outside of the church for YOUR benefit, not for god’s. that is selfish.
Well, I can’t help it if I want everyone to be happy :>) Maybe they should vote me to be god ? Skeptic’s good times for all party?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
you got my vote!
so long as you allow gay marriage to whomever, wherever, whenever, you can be my god any day, skep :]
Really?
send me a pic then
feel free to exit the conversation now!
Hey I was just trying to follow your logic.
People who are gay can choose not to be, therefore anyone can have sex with anyone of any gender, we just choose one or the other.
So it stands to reason that you must be attracted to both sexes, you just choose to sleep with women.
See I’m just trying to follow your logic. (logic)?
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 3, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
just because we can choose what gender to have sex with, doesn’t mean we can choose what gender to love.
And the government needs to legislate love? ha ha ha ha Wow, what a bunch of drama queens you guys are.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Who was talking about any government or legislative issues?
And what a complete ass you are. See I can throw out insults just as easily as the next guy.
Get a life and remember Apes can read they just don’t understand.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Sorry if I get tired of people spewing emotional goo. I’m all for emotion and sentiment, but when you try to mix the law, which by definition must be based on reason and principle, with emotion, it gets really stupid.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’m all for emotion and sentiment, but when you try to mix the law, which by definition must be based on reason and principle, with emotion, it gets really stupid.
It doesn’t have to if you’d remember a few basic courtesies such as “Love your neighbor as you’d love yourself”? or how about “Let him without sin cast the first stone”?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
So who is it that I hate so much? I thought I have made it abundantly clear that I am in love with both you and Sleepy. Also, who am I throwing stones at? I forgot that telling people that the government shouldn’t adopt a gay dogma is comparable to killing someone in Biblical times.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
nauticus answer the actual questions
you’ve yet to mention why it’s fine to change laws regarding rights for african-americans and women. you may think this is different from homosexuality, fine. but that doesn’t explain why you think we can change the law there, but that it’s a sin to consider changing a law now.
CHOICE
oh god. not this argument.
I’m a girl.. I love women and boobies and everything woman-like!! it just natural to me!
coming from a conservative upbringing trust me…i truly wish i wasn’t gay. I use to try to convince myself i’m wasn’t but goddamnit i can’t help turn my head when a hot woman walks my way!!!!
by pamboat on Mar 2, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
i truly wish i wasn’t gay
You’re probably too young to make that statement now. The gay folks I know are very happy with themselves. Everyone has something they wish they could change about themselves, all teenagers are troubled. I know being gay is more of a challenge than hetro’s have to deal with but in the end you will find serenity. Being gay is made harder by people who want you to fail so don’t give them the satisfaction. Do you have support from your family?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
yeah i agree. I’m only 24 and i still have a lot of soul searching to do. Just want to let these guys know that no one goes into thinking they want it. The suicide rate of gay teens are so high, its really sad and a lot of people go their entire lives staying the closet, being in hetrosexual marriages and suppressing their homosexual tendencies. It’s quite sad all around. The idea that this is a choice is just so preposterous.
I’m only 24 and i still have a lot of soul searching to do,Just want to let these guys know that no one goes into thinking they want it.,The idea that this is a choice is just so preposterous.
Haha, Well some of these guys are not the sharpest knives in the drawer :>) but I think you’re gonna be alright. Brit’s a big tough dude and you stood up to him just fine, and I bet if you met him in person he’ d be putty in your hands :>)
24 is too young to know what really makes one happy or satisfied, hell when I was 24 I was sad cause I couldn’t date angela davis :>) but now she’s old and I don’t care! You’ll find your soulmate no matter if they are straight or gay, the quality of the love is what matters not the mechanics. Like desegregation it will take a while for the haters to understand but eventually good will prevail and you’ll be free.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
amen
you’re gonna be just fine, Pam. a heart as good and strong as yours….there’s no chance there’s not another woman out there just itching for exactly what you are.
yay for people being who they are. that’s all I can say.
thanks guys.
it just goes to show you how much people really don’t know about this topic. we need to educate people… hopefully we can make it change!
ps. angela davis was a professor at my college where i did my undergrad!
angela davis was a professor at my college where i did my undergrad!
Haha, good. I wasn’t sure you’d know who she was? Did you take a class with her?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
it is truly tragic, where our society currently is on the topic. we need change, and education. it is heartbreaking.
Wow, could be anymore of a kiss up? You guys remind of me of the idiots who surrounded Fredrick Douglass, pretending to care about Black people but really just trying to get social mileage. I don’t have a problem with individual gay people. I tend to sympathize with them, as I am a sympathetic guy. That said, I don’t go around publicly spewing emotional goo all over them.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
kiss up?
I’m sorry, I have absolutely no idea who Pam is. I will never meet Pam. I have nothing to gain from Pam. This isn’t a class, Pam isn’t going to give me a gold star and say “hey brady, you support gay marriage, you win!”
there is nothing to kiss-up to. this is an internet forum. what a pathetic display of personal attack.
I somewhat agree, a lot of people co-opt real struggles for their personal gain (I cannot tell if that’s what these two are doing because quite honestly I stopped reading most of these posts besides a few lines), but I would say that in a position where someone has been attacked (and you could argue whether Brit did or not, I think he crosses the line with how he says certain things regardless of what he says) and they are a minority some people tend to assume that due to them experiencing it before in some manner, they are used to it and can handle it. And I think that’s unfair, because no one should have to go through life feeling they have no back up, it’s not an enviable position to be in.
That being said, I agree, sometimes it goes overboard and becomes “let me protect you and fight all your battles and be the star for you instead of supporting you James Cameron Avatar style” kissing up.
I’m cool with being a kiss-up if it means pamboat, by metaphorical extension, gets to be Frederick Douglass. Would that make Skep Abraham Lincoln? And Naticus John Wilkes Booth?…
There will be no extra point!
Yes, I’m planning on killing the greatest president in human history (2nd greatest IMO), and I took the side of slavery. Funny how I become the devil for being against government adopted dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Yes, I’m planning on killing the greatest president in human history
Wait, I thought you loved George Dubya…?
There will be no extra point!
George Dubya was a’right. I definitely defend his war on terror. I think he did as well as could be expected, all things considered. I also think invading Iraq wasn’t a bad idea, and that moreso, the motivation behind it was 100% right, i.e. to introduce Democracy/free speech, to fight the extremism of the terrorists. In the long run, teaching people about correct principles through discussion is much more effective than war. I think that was the long-term goal with the war in Iraq. Perhaps it’s a brilliant idea coming from a “complete idiot.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I also think invading Iraq wasn’t a bad idea, and that moreso, the motivation behind it was 100% right, i.e. to introduce Democracy/free speech
Invade them so we can stop them from allowing gay marriage?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
They killed gay people there. Invading opened the door to debating whether that’s right or wrong. Prior to the invasion, it was kinda like the government had adopted a dogma about killing gay people. Of course, you’re O.K. with government adopted dogma, so I’m sure you were O.K. with that.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Funny how I become the devil for being against government adopted dogma.
Will you stop saying dogma, I can’t stop laughing everytime I read it? The govt. adopting gaydogma ,at the shelter but they won’t let him go till he’s neutered ? so they say the hell with then give us the straightcatpa?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
If it’s hilarious, it must be really stupid. Please explain how it is a fact and not a dogma, because apparently, I am not smart enough to tell the difference. Go ahead.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
dogma,
dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,
dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,dogma,
Cut it out you’re killing me here. If you want a serious answer you gotta not say dogma.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
Would that make Skep Abraham Lincoln?
I don’t wanna be lincoln. I wanna be clinton, I’d rather play with monicas than get shot.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
Well, yeah, most things in the world beat being shot, but I totally question Bill’s taste in that whole deal. With all the beautiful, sophisticated worldly women in the world with whom he could have romantic, adult trysts, he chose to get blown under his desk by a lame suburban schoolgirl? What a total doofus.
Personally, if I were planning on being a cheating bastard, and I had Bill’s kind of clout, I’d go straight after the Monica Belluccis of the world and leave the Lewinskys in the schoolyard.
There will be no extra point!
I think Lewinsky was pretty attractive. No super-model, but as far as looks go, I think Bill’s taste is not bad at all.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Yeah, my issue with it, such at it was, was age (both physical and intellectual) not looks. I mean, if I were 17 I’d find her totally cute, and gladly ask her to prom. A 50+ year-old dude might find her cute enough, but he’d be a total lecherous sleazoid to act on it.
But then, we kinda knew that already…
There will be no extra point!
Yeah, I know what you mean. We all know, I think, that power is an aphrodisiac. Clinton took advantage of his position on a few different levels. I’m sure it was a big turn on for him. I hope he is sincere in his apparent, purported repentance.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
With all the beautiful, sophisticated worldly women in the world with whom he could have romantic, adult trysts, he chose to get blown under his desk by a lame suburban schoolgirl?
I totally understand it, she was the perfect escape from the pressure of the demanding job, sometimes it’s nice to just relax with a pizza and play with the booty?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Well, pizzas don’t have psyches that you can totally mess up by screwing with them. If it’s just about getting one’s rocks off, that’s why God invented p*rn and m*sturbation.
There will be no extra point!
pizzas don’t have psyches that you can totally mess up by screwing with them. If it’s just about getting one’s rocks off, that’s why God invented p*rn and m*sturbation.
Haha, I think you’d have to live with hillary before being able to make Bill’s decision?
The young woman could be hurt or helped by the romance, depends on how she was approached, what she wanted from him,? what she got out of it? What kind of memory it left with her? etc. Young and old is not necessarily bad, like everything in life it depends on the individuals.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
You know… you don’t have to be GAY to be for gay rights. Nothing they have said is spewing emotional goo. It’s called support. Something that the gay community lacks. Unfortunately I don’t hear things like what bradyk2 and Skeptic have to say very often. This world could definitely use more of it.
And what the hell would they be trying to GET out of supporting gay marriage???
And what the hell would they be trying to GET out of supporting gay marriage???
Speaking for myself … like, a freer, fairer, more peaceful, harmonious, tolerant and compassionate society?
There will be no extra point!
Freer for whom? Who gets more freedom and what freedom is that? What about the freedom to raise your children without the government teaching your children that your religion or your values are to be ignored or are stupid or hateful? I don’t want the government teaching children that their parents are stupid, based on a dogma. That sounds like a soft tyranny to me and not freedom.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I call my dogma “Spot.”
At the risk of wading into it: were the abolition of slavery, repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, civil rights laws, women’s rights laws, etc. also “government adopted dogma”? ’Cos your ranting about “soft tyranny” sounds suspiciously similar to the rhetoric of the opponents of those movements…
There will be no extra point!
At the risk of wading into it: were the abolition of slavery, repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, civil rights laws, women’s rights laws, etc. also "government adopted dogma"?
The abolition of slavery and your other examples are based on the belief in natural law, that human beings by nature have a right to freedom. This is philosophy of morality. It’s not a dogma. The dogma in that case was that White people and men were superior. No evidence of that and no philosophy of morality could support it.
By extension, in this case, natural law seems to suggest that the union of a man and a woman is special, as is made evident by 1000’s of years of cultural evolution as well as the complementary “plumbing” of men and women, resulting in biological parents raising their own children. It works on so many levels philosophically.
“Gay marriage” works only on a level of slogans and soundbites.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
"Gay marriage" works only on a level of slogans and soundbites.
Uh-huh. Tell that to pamboat, or any of the other millions of gay people in the world who want to be treated like actual, full human beings.
Nobody likes a sad, angry little weenie, Nat. Go out and follow your bliss and let other people follow theirs? You’ll create more love in the world, and get more. Wins all around!
There will be no extra point!
By that argument, single people who choose not to get married aren’t treated as full human beings.
I’m not sad or angry. Why, in every “argument” you post, do u question my motives? You’re such a stereo-typical liberal, which is sad. You guys ALL go on and on about what conservatives are thinking or feeling but your substance is severely lacking.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
By that argument, single people who choose not to get married aren’t treated as full human beings.
The operative work there is CHOOSE, gays or straights can choose to not be married , but only straights can choose to be married on their own terms. If you don’t understand the distinction you really should go back to school, a nice liberal college like UCSC perhaps. Get away from the coolaide for a few years and see if you can get straight?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
only straights can choose to be married on their own terms
This is false on a couple different levels. The only thing gays can’t have is the government recognize them on their terms. They can “marry” all the want, on their own terms. Recognition isn’t part of marriage. Furthermore, gay people CHOOSE their partners. No one forced them to choose the same-sex. There are natural consequences to actions.
As I pointed out, should hungry people be recognized as “skinny,” just because they’re too hungry to have a choice?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The dogma in that case was that White people and men were superior, in this case, natural law seems to suggest that the union of a man and a woman is special,
Well white men and straight marriage are just two alternatives to multi colored men and multi variations of marriage. Neither one is deserving of being called superior other than by the bigots in their midst’s. If you could separate your god given human-ness from your culturally given religion-ness you might have an easier time understanding it? Do you feel religion is a choice or are you biologically destined to be a sufferer? I’d really like to know cause I was exposed to the church when young and it did me no lasting harm, I still know right from wrong and shit from shinola?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Again, with the empty claims that my arguments are based on religion. Point to a specific religious point that I’ve made, and I’ll retract it, happily.
If you think interracial marriage is as different from uniracial marriage (newly invented term, here), as a gay union is different from a straight union, you’re a racist.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Point to a specific religious point that I’ve made, and I’ll retract it, happily.
you pointed out that god doesn’t want gays to get married. that seems, well, slightly religious.
separation of church and state.
Don’t forget this.
Kids in school need to learn tolerance and be educated so that hate crimes and discrimination occur less and less. It’s very hard to be gay, or have gay parents in school. I think teaching kids that it’s okay and that its normal, would be extremely beneficial.
I never fought against tolerance. I am against the dogma that a gay union has no relevant differences from a straight union and much more so, I am against the government adopting it as Truth, basing its policies on it, enabling liberal schools to preach that dogma to children without parental consent.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’ve said this before. You can’t leave a minority right up to a majority vote. It just doesn’t work that way. Nothing will ever change unless we educate people.
I’m sorry but no matter what you aren’t going to make everyone happy when you go through social change and civil rights.
When they bussed schools in the 70s (blacks and whites) people were pissed off and protested like crazy. You think if they left this to parental consent it would ever happen? Not in a white majority society. No way.
Is it a right to have the government adopt a dogma? No. So I disagree with your premise. I also disagree that teaching children this dogma without any debate or discussion is education. It’s indoctrination.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
+1, yet a pointless argument
as I have brought this up and Nati has ignored it every time, except when he called me a racist…?
I have no idea what your point is. Are you talking about the gov’t taking an active role in ending segregation? There is no segregation occurring now, so I have no idea where you’re going with this.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
umm i've mentioned it at least 5 times
you are against changing what is historically proven, and our laws, yet we had to do that with racism and sexism. so how can you justify changing our laws to include groups of people sometimes, but not other times?
Nothing was good was proven about the government practicing racism. There was certainly no evidence that racism was part of natural law. It was merely arrogance, while the belief that certain behaviors, like biological parents raising their own children, is as self-evident to be a good principle as the principle that all men are created equal.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Nothing was good was proven
All right, double was’s , we might have found a chink in the spambots armor? This reminds me of fighting the blue meanies in yellow submarine :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing was good was proven about the government practicing racism.
and nothing good was proven about the government practicing sexual orientationism.
has lack of gay marriage resulted in more straight marriage? no.
has lack of gay marriage resulted in happier straight people? no.
has lack of gay marriage resulted in better children? no.
has lack of gay marriage hurt gays? yes.
so this segregation has proven to do no good, while doing bad. same as racism. it’s exactly the same as racism.
Sexual orientationalism? LOL The problem with racism is that it is not based on anything objective. “Sexual orientationalism” is objectively different, in that the behavior inherent in it is different. Of course, the gov’t doesn’t concern itself with sex, does it? It merely recognizes you when you follow the law, i.e. you choose the opposite sex, choose someone of a proper age and choose someone who is not family.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
gays like the same sex.
women stereotypically like fashion.
men stereotypically like sports.
etc. etc. etc. these things affect our society, too.
yes there is segregation.
this idea that gays cannot be “married.” but that that they get “civil unions.” and on top of that civil unions don’t even have all the rights marriages have.
its separate from “marriage.” We are fighting for equality.
this is pure and complete segregation.
There is segregation? So gay people are forced to sit at the backs of buses, forced to go to crappy schools, forced to drink from their own drinking fountain? What an offensive claim. If I were Black I’d be very pissed.
Marriage is a thing, not a person. It is separated because it is unique and special, and not due to any hatred or desire to leave people out, just like good looks. Will the gov’t call ugly people, “handsome,” and pass laws reflecting this? Movie stars will have to have an equal number of ugly people to be fair?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
1 a : set apart or separated from others of the same kind or group b : divided in facilities or administered separately for members of different groups or races
segregation does just mean towards blacks or a race. It is towards a group and class as well. This is a separation of rights. that is the definition.
Education is thing, not a person. And blacks were given separate education.
It is separated because it is unique and special
I didn’t know that only straight and heterosexuals could receive this special unique thing! hmm starting to sound like segregation to me
oh and you just agreed it was separate.
And if Blacks tried to get the same education, they were forced to leave. You are not forced to do anything. This is so not segregation, and claiming it to be so is just creating more misery. It’s a lie. There is no segregation here. It’s only differentiation of behaviors that have profoundly different effects on society.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I will be turned away at a women’s bathroom. I don’t cry about that. Separating genders is legal in some circumstances, because there are some relevant differences between genders. As such, there are relevant differences, when you choose the same sex instead of the opposite.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
really?
you’re comparing going to the bathroom to gay rights? you are seriously running out of material buddy.
this is the problem- how much people trivialize this issue.
Yes, because you have to blur the difference between men and women in order to make an argument for “gay marriage.” If you support the “oppressive,” “tyrannical” and “segregationist” policy of keep men out of the women’s bathroom, you must acknowledge that men and women are different enough to have them legally separated. That is what occurs, when you choose the same sex, when you’re trying to marry. The gov’t says, “No, men and women are different in significant ways, and in this case, there is a very relevant difference.”
You not being able to “marry” the same sex is based on the same principle as me not being allowed in a women’s restroom, i.e. men and women, in some cases, are different in legally relevant ways.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You not being able to "marry" the same sex is based on the same principle as me not being allowed in a women’s restroom,
No not at all, you are leaving out the consent aspect. Women don’t want you in their bathroom but gays do want to marry the same sex. Women are free to have men in their own bathrooms now, it’s a matter of personal privacy and choice as should be who we marry.
You are one of the most needy persons I’ve ever encountered, everything has to center around your definition of right? How do your friends put up with that? How did you get to be so negative about folks different than you? Maybe instead of debate you should write a biography, " the fear and loathing in the mormon childhood?"
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
when you equate marriage to going to the bathroom
the argument is done.
difference between you, skep and me:
you are trying to make gay marriage, something that has nothing to do with you, about you, and your definitions of right and wrong.
skep and I are trying to make gay marriage, which has nothing to do with us, about umm….gays who want to get married.
what a concept!
I’m not comparing marriage to going to the bathroom. But trying to say that people are discriminating against homosexuals by denying them marriage is similar to saying, “I’m being segregated, by not being allowed into the women’s bathroom.”
Legally, it’s the same principle. As a man, I can’t bring a woman with me to the men’s bathroom, and as a man, I can’t bring a man with me to a marriage. It’s not about my sexual orientation. It’s about gender.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
As a man, I can’t bring a woman with me to the men’s bathroom,
Haha, Don’t blame the law for that, blame your personality. A woman has to want to go in there with you.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions
I think teaching kids that it’s okay and that its normal, would be extremely beneficial.
More than would be, it’s already proving that it is. Kids are very accepting of having two mommys or daddies,kids just wanna be fed, sheltered, and loved, it’s the parents that have the hangups.
We will someday get to the point that who one loves doesn’t matter , we just have to wait for the haters to be replaced with kids that are taught compassion and understanding.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, the True religion will be taught to all children, that children don’t need, for example, a biological father to help raise them. Men can be free to impregnate women and not feel a tinge of guilt for abandoning his would-be family.
Sounds like the perfect world for a hedonist.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
It took a while for Douglass to see through the phonies, also.
What they get by supporting “gay marriage” is comfort. People who disagree get mocked, called hateful, stupid or religious fanatics, no matter how much their arguments make sense. They also get a feeling of superiority, as people in authority, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Brad Pitt and George Clooney make smug speeches about how righteous the Left is for supporting government adopted dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
people who disagree get mocked, called hateful, stupid or religious fanatics, no matter how much their arguments make sense.
Naticus…try living a life a a gay teen in the mid west. tell this to Matthew Shepard or Teena Brandon. For people who disagree with gay marriage? no one creates hate crimes towards them. People have heated arguments and disagree but now where near what the gay community goes through.
And what is wrong with people feeling good about supporting gay marriage?
As much as you think they “make sense” we don’t think they make sense at all.
And what is wrong with people feeling good about supporting gay marriage?
Angry, miserable people tend not to like it when other people feel good. This is the dirty little secret at the heart of most of the anti-freedom movements.
There will be no extra point!
This isn’t about freedom. Again, you’re so entitled to having power, you think power is freedom. How arrogant. It’s sickening.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
ROFL Again, gay people can have ceremonies, wear rings, enter into civil contracts, get government recognition and live together having sex. If the gov’t were stopping any of those, I would say they are interfering with human rights. But the government is doing no such thing.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
so why not take the next step
if it’s not going to change anything?
I never said it won’t change anything. As I have tried to explain, marriage is the backbone of civilization. Everything that is good has come from parents, and marriage has the best chance of producing a situation with two parents who will not abandon, won’t abuse and will provide both a mother and father, all of which are so important to human beings on so many levels.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
There are currently...
…tons of children in the government system that could benefit from gay adoption.
and as I just said
this isn’t carbon offsetting. a straight couple needn’t get divorced for every gay couple that gets married.
let’s take your argument for a second though: say there are 100 straight couples in the world, and 10 gay couples. the 100 straight couples each have one child, and that is a perfect child. now, the 10 gay couples can each have one child, and it would be a good child. the only possibility for these children is mediocrity. either they live a good life, which is still better then no life, or we don’t allow them to be born.
so, we are left with two options:
1) 100 great children.
2) 100 great children, and 10 good children.
there is no possible scenario that results in 110 great children.
I think we can all agree that we are not doing a disservice by bringing a child into this world that wouldn’t be brought in under any other scenario.
this argument, of course, only works for artificial insemination, not adoption. but the adoption case is very similar: we will always have more children that need to be adopted, then families to adopt them. so no matter how poor you think gay parents are, they’re still better than no parents.
also
this is using your argument that non-biological parents are worse. I disagree with this argument, so it is not to say that I agree that gay parents are worse parents. but even if they are, that is not reason enough to deny them parenting rights.
My issue is not with gay behavior or statistics about what gays do what. My argument is that the government shouldn’t adopt gay dogma. The results of that will make or break a society, especially this attempt at a radical restructuring of American family values.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The results of that will make or break a society
explain to me how in the world it will break a society?
gay marriage was allowed in california for a while, and if anything, it MADE the society.
If, as I have asserted, marriage is the backbone of society, as without marriage, we would return to barbarism, then the government imposing a dogma on people that will change the way they feel about family (which ultimately change behavior, will do damage to the backbone of society. In the long run, the behavior will self-perpetuate. Just as marriage gradually has built up society, behavior that goes against the principles and basic good that marriage brings will break it down over time.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
i've said it a thousand times
it’s not carbon offsetting. we don’t take a straight divorce so gays can have a marriage. you get to keep your so called “backbone of society.” gay marriage doesn’t touch this backbone. you keep everything you love about marriage in our society.
Don’t you understand how calling lead “gold” takes away from gold? If you understand that, you’ll understand what I’m getting at. Currently, you don’t.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Don’t you understand how calling lead "gold" takes away from gold?
You don’t understand that lead and gold are structurally different so calling them anything doesn’t affect them, it only affects what we call them. Marriage between a man and woman or marriage between two men or two women is still marriage no matter what we call it . The act and the commitment are what define it, not the words. If we had called the act of marriage “divorce” originally it would still be the same thing just a different word to describe it. If we’d called gold “lead” it would still be worth more than what we now call lead. and they’d both have their own values to those who respectively need one or the other.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
Don’t you understand how calling lead "gold" takes away from gold
and again, I repeat, if we call lead “gold,” 0% of what was lead is still lead.
and if we call “marriage” “gay marriage,” 100% of what was marriage is still marriage.
Address this point dangit!
It’s not a point. It’s drivel. What the heck are you talking about? Lead is still lead no matter what you call it. What bullcrap. Regardless of what it’s called, it is what it is. Giving it a new name, doesn’t in reality, change what it is.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
What the heck are you talking about? Lead is still lead no matter what you call it.
and so would be marriage. nothing would change except there’d be more happily married couples( except maybe your feelings would be hurt cause your definition of marriage was not so exclusive anymore?)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
Again, where is the coercion? Are gay people going to prison for anything other than what I might go to prison for? Obviously not. While the gov’t obviously curtails some freedoms in some cases, adopting gay dogma isn’t their job and has nothing to do with whether gay people are free or not.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
so if the government took away your right to get married
there would be nothing wrong with that, they’re not taking away your freedom, dude!
If they stopped recognizing any marriage I entered into, I could still get married. They would not be taking away my freedom.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
ummm...
if they took away your right to get married, you could still get married? what?
I didn’t say that. I said, “If they stopped recognizing any marriage I entered into,” I could still get married. See, that’s what prop. 22 and prop. 8 said. It said that the gov’t will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. It never said, “gay marriage is illegal.” Get it?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
really, what's the difference?!
a marriage isn’t an extra emotional bond that you can’t necessarily create just by loving someone. it doesn’t mean you magically love the person, when you only liked them before. it’s the beauty of recognition, and the rights that come with marriage.
You think government recognition creates beauty? I thought government was largely comprised of a bunch of old, dried up corrupt politicians, who wouldn’t know beauty if it landed on their head to lay an egg.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
i said beauty OF RECOGNITION
what I think of the government doesn’t matter, they still have a large say, and I still want them to recognize everyone’s marriages.
Again, recognition is not a right. Do I have a right to be recognized as being as handsome as Brad Pitt? No? Should we pass laws so that everyone will recognize me as super handsome?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Do I have a right to be recognized as being as handsome as Brad Pitt?
I don’t understand the relevancy, but YES, you do have the right to have people recognize you as that handsome, if they believe that.
that’s what prop. 22 and prop. 8 said. It said that the gov’t will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman.
now that sounds like homophobicdogma?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
If they stopped recognizing any marriage I entered into, I could still get married.
Yeah but would you think that was fair or just?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
That depends. If the same standard applied to everyone, it would be just in that sense. It would be unjust in that marriage is a needed institution for society to function well. The long term effects of a lack of government support of real marriage could be catastrophic.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The long term effects of a lack of government support of real marriage could be catastrophic.
So can your singling out of one group to persecute for their martial preferences? Since 50% of conventional Natty blessed marriages end in divorce and only about 10% of folks are gay how much worse could it be for the institution of marriage? The more difficult commitment required for gays to marry might actually bump up the success rate, much like the Warriors when D leaguers play instead of our high paid guys?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
Regardless, the government officially adopting the dogma that there are no relevant differences between gay and straight union, even ignoring the fact that this is against the basic principles found in the Constitution, will still result in a change in attitude about marriage.
Again, if a gay union=marriage, clearly, children don’t need a father and men can impregnate women and ditch their would-be family, guilt free.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Men do that now.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:25 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, and correlating with that increase in behavior is the belief that a gay union is the same as a marriage and correlates with a rise in narcissism. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. If you ask me, that correlation is simply more evidence that we ought to work to strengthen the ideal of marriage, which is what I’m trying to do.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Why would I (a straight married man) care one way or another if two people of the same sex married?
Makes no difference in my life at all.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions
They don’t care. But they do tend to care what they’re taught in school, they can’t but care about the implications of standardized language and tend to care what the media is saying.
In school, “A gay union=marriage,” is taught as factual in Massachusetts, because the law treats it as a fact. The implications of this teaching include the idea that a biological father is irrelevant to children.
If the language is universal, where a marriage turns into something different than it is now, then real marriage as we now know it, will not be treated as special on a linguistic level. Again, the implications are that what makes marriage important to society are irrelevant, that having both a mother and a father doesn’t matter.
The media would likely present homosexual marriage in realistic ways. The culture of homosexual males being presented on television, where men in “marriages” sleep around and that is the norm, could cause a man to yearn for such “benefits” to his marriage.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
wait, your assuming that there saying that a “biological father is irrelevant to children.”
apples and oranges.
and Marriage special? That’s fine to teach to your kids and you should, but it’s already gone the wayside in this society without the gay issue having anything to do with it.
blame the media if you want and the “celebrity life style” where divorce is the norm and a fifth marriage is right around the corner.
And your doing a big disservice to people by saying that “men in "marriages" sleep around and that is the norm, could cause a man to yearn for such "benefits" to his marriage.”
If people are that stooped as to see a fictional character and think “how cool, that could be me” then there will always be some inane thing to influenced that person, however most are well beyond that.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
apples and oranges
Not at all. What are the hidden premises , taken for granted as fact as if not up for debate, behind the claim that a gay union has no relevant differences from a marriage? One of them is definitely that children don’t need a father, especially since the majority of gay unions with children will be homosexual women raising children together.
it’s already gone the wayside in this society without the gay issue having anything to do with it.
One could make the same case for the value of human life, with late-term abortions and the disturbingly high murder rate. That doesn’t mean the law should reflect such a disturbing trend.
blame the media if you want and the "celebrity life style" where divorce is the norm and a fifth marriage is right around the corner
.
I do blame them in part. It’s no coincidence that these are these are the same people advocating for “gay marriage.”
I
f people are that stooped as to see a fictional character and think "how cool, that could be me"
Why do you think advertisers pay so much? People are profoundly influenced by what they see on T.V., particularly when young and impressionable.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
If the language is universal, where a marriage turns into something different than it is now, then real marriage as we now know it, will not be treated as special on a linguistic level.
Marriage as we know it will not change, 90% of the population is not gonna switch teams no matter what you call their unions. The only difference would be that more folks could be happy, and it’s not worth coddling your fears to keep them unhappy.
and don’t be so paranoid about the portrayal of relationships on tv, it’s a follower not a leader. Guys are not watching tv to get hints on how to become gay cheaters. Your church is fooling you into being something less than you could be. Put that fear and paranoia into a constructive pursuit. Maybe a social worker to actually help some of those kids of broken marriages you are so worried about? or how about an advocate for battered women? or bullied teens? There’s lots of positive work to do instead of worrying about so much negative fear?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
90% of the population is not gonna switch teams no matter what you call their unions.
Do you ever stop making strawman argumnets?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Do you ever stop making strawman argumnets?
Do you know anything about human sexuality? You really afraid embracing gay marriage is gonna flip you? or anyone ?? That the real strawman, the smokescreen of the hater.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
So you’ve embraced gay marriage, huh? Well, that’s really something. But the issue is WHY would anyone want to do such a thing? I’m not afraid it’s going to flip me. Where did you get that idea? I just think it’s mindless, trendy political dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
So you’ve embraced gay marriage, huh? Well, that’s really something. But the issue is WHY would anyone want to do such a thing?
No the issue is why someone would want to hate others for wanting to marry in a manner different than themselves? It’s selfish, petty, and makes you look hateful. Not a good advertisement for religion’s effects on it’s believers. I respect a religion showing love but reject them showing hate. Don’t make me look like a better christian than you my young friend, you can do better.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
So we’re going to again discuss my feelings. I don’t recall using the word hate anywhere. My opinion is that the Left thinks that the word hate is the magic word to help them win a debate, when they have nothing rational to say.
“You’re hate-filled! Why do you hate so much!”
My response: “Hate times infinity!”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
So we’re going to again discuss my feelings. I don’t recall using the word hate anywhere.
You don’t have to use the word hate to show hatred, your actions speak louder than words, to advocate hurting others just because you don’t agree with their choice of life partners is hateful. Spin it however you want but you’ll answer to a just god.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
As I’ve pointed out, you’ll have to show some examples of what I have said that shows hatred of gay people. I don’t think I’ve expressed a single thing that could be logically construed as such. I think you’re just mad that I am not part of your Lefty cult.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
@quin, that wasn’t directed at you. That was directed at Sleepy’s accusations about how I was secretly motivated by the “ickiness” of gay sex.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I fail to understand how embracing a form a love is a negative thing. even your god wouldn’t be able to find a problem with it.
A gay union isn’t love. It’s not a feeling. It’s a set of behaviors based on a plan of action to be “married.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
A gay union isn’t love. It’s not a feeling. It’s a set of behaviors based on a plan of action to be "married."
So now you are a mind reader as well as a hater? I hate them because I think they are not thinking the same thoughts as me?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
This doesn’t change the fact that people who agree with “gay marriage” get to be in the Liberal “in crowd.” You asked what they got out of it, I told you.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
what "in crowd??"
what in crowd am I trying to be a part of?? I’m sorry for being selfless, but this has absolutely nothing to do with me. I don’t walk around with a shirt saying “I support gay marriage so i’m cool and you should love me!” when I march for gay marriage, argue for gay marriage, protest for gay marriage, it is so GAYS can get married. is it not in hopes that someone will see me and think i’m in the hip liberal “in crowd.” I give a flying bleep what people think about me, this has nothing to do with me.
I support gay marriage for Pam.
I support gay marriage for my best friend who is the greatest mother i’ve ever met.
I support gay marriage because it’s right.
it’s not about me, dude. i’m sorry if you fight for what you “believe” in solely to look cool. because that’s just sad.
(thanks brady)
apparently i missed the memo that its “cool” to be gay and for gay marriage…
we must be talking about a different thing cause that is NOT the experience I had! Damn. I wanna live in this wonderful world!
all the cool kids are doing it!
don’t you listen to rap and watch porn, Pam? being gay is the way to go, so long as you’re an extremely young and busty female who is gay only for the viewing pleasure of men, and as long as you become straight as soon as those men need it.
seriously, naticus2, the “in crowd?” is that what fighting for what we believe in has been reduced to?
This doesn’t change the fact that people who agree with "gay marriage" get to be in the Liberal "in crowd."
You ever stop to think that maybe it just means they are better educated so they end up in the in crowd by default? The in crowd is not exclusive, it just takes some effort and desire for knowledge to fit in, it’s a perfect meritocracy.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
Better indoctrinated, is more like it. If they had good arguments, I would agree. But I’ve read arguments from lawyers and expert advocates on “gay marriage.” Their arguments are sophisticated but after careful analysis, also completely wrong and fallacious.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’ve read arguments from lawyers and expert advocates on "gay marriage." Their arguments are sophisticated but after careful analysis, also completely wrong and fallacious.
That’s your problem, trusting lawyers and so called experts. Go out and meet some real life gay people and get to know them as fellow human being then if you still can hate them you’ve got bigger problems than them wanting to get married.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
These lawyers and experts were in favor of “gay marriage.” I didn’t trust them. I have gotten to know gay people. The two I knew best were both against “gay marriage,” or at least never gave me an inkling of an impression that they were victimized by the government not recognizing a gay union as being the same as a straight one. They had this crazy idea that a man+woman combination is different from a man+man combination. I don’t know where they got that crazy idea, but that’s what they believed.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
The two you know do not represent the community.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, many gay people are not in favor of “gay marriage.” It’s not nearly as much support as you’d expect, especially because so many gay men don’t want marriage. They want sex.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I don’t know about you but we all want sex.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
Some of us think that sex alone is empty. Statistics about people’s feelings about sex suggest a rise in both built and the feeling of being used. It’s pathetic.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
ER… not “built” but “guilt.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
this could be said for anyone. 20 something straight or gay. Times have changed, and the more gays are accepted the more anonymous sex will be on par with straight folk. It’s the “taboo” status that makes some gays resort to mindless sex but the same can be said for straight folk.
I think some gay folk feel they have to resort to such tactics and acceptance will go a long way to eliminate that .
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 8:03 PM PST up reply actions
Statistics about people’s feelings about sex suggest a rise in both guilt and the feeling of being used. It’s pathetic.
Yes it is but it’s not a gay marriage problem. The 50 % of current failed marriages are not gay marriages you know.
Using others and feeling guilty is a universal problem, hetros do it a lot more than gays do . Using people and feeling guilt is also not the kind of relationships we should enjoy or encourage. Two people knowing what they are getting into and aware of the dangers along with the rewards are a different story.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 8:23 PM PST up reply actions
so many gay men don’t want marriage. They want sex.
Hmm. I think we may be getting at the heart of what you’ve been getting your undies in a bunch about.
Amazing many words you can spin to say “I just think it’s … gross.” Honestly, though that’s a silly and juvenile reaction, I think most people here would respect it more than the crap you’re pulling.
There will be no extra point!
A guy meeting a guy in a bathroom or at a club gets way more headlines then all the hookups at straight bars so there is a double standard and one that highlights the “icky” factor.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
What bullcrap. So you take comment and suddenly know what I’m secretly thinking and feeling. Why is the flaming left so arrogant as to judge people in such a way? Isn’t it possible that I mean what I say, and I’m not like the Dem. politicians who constantly lie? I don’t give a crap about gay men having sex. I promise. You can speculate all you want, though. Whatever.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
wow talk about bullcrap, how arrogant are you to think I was talking about something I secretly thought you were thinking.
I was responding to something sleepy said and responded with an example.
For you to take it as something more and turn it into a “this is why Dems suck” is really just you wanting a strawman to beat up on.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
If you click the “up” button, you can see who the post is in response to. I was responding to Sleepy. Considering what he accused me of, my counter-accusation of arrogance was appropriate.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
My bad, when the thread gets this thin its hard to tell.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
Considering what he accused me of, my counter-accusation of arrogance was appropriate.
I accused you of being wordy. Why say in one word (“icky” or “eww”) what you can say in like 200 posts, with big words like “dogma” and “hidden premises” and “indoctrination”?
Meantime, I’ll accept your counter-accusation. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
Meantime, I’ll accept your counter-accusation. ;-)
haha, sure as junk mail it’s gonna show up. What you doin up at 12:30midnight answering the robochrist anyway?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure what a robochrist is, and I don’t know why I would get that label merely for being a Christian and also debating politics. Maybe we can call you “Satanoid,” if I’m going to be “robochrist.”
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I don’t know why I would get that label merely for being a Christian
Not for being a christian ,for being a so called christian that keeps mechanically repeating canned thoughts over and over. I’m pretty sure the true christians don’t want to claim you.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
I wouldn’t repeat them, if people understood them. There’s a saying (I believe it’s Russian): repetition is the mother of learning. Who’s your mommy? My posts.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Who’s your mommy?
I worship at the feet of mother nature, she’s the sexy babe. I’m not attracted to vengeful old men gods. .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
So you’re going to stick with your lie. I make a 100 posts on a subject, and I have one that says, “Half of gay men don’t want marriage. They want sex,” (which I got from the book The Philosophy of Sex. That’s a real statistic), but to you that means, “Gay sex is icky, which is why I really wrote all these posts talking about language (which I studied in college) and defending Constitutional values.”
I’m developing a theory about why Lefties seem so mentally ill, but I don’t think you want to hear it. It’s not very flattering of your character and core beliefs.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
"Half of gay men don’t want marriage. They want sex," (which I got from the book The Philosophy of Sex.
Half of all men and women want sex more than marriage, look at the divorce statistics.
You are not gonna get a sex education from a book, it’s about eyes, smiles, finger tips, gentle moans, warmth, and affection , not statistics.
What is a lefty to you anyway, just someone who is a non believer of the mormon truth ? To me it’s someone who is open minded, knows which way the sun rises and sets, and wants the future to be better than the past.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
Half of all men and women want sex more than marriage, look at the divorce statistics
That people get divorced shows that they want to get married. How would they get divorced without marriage? .
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
That people get divorced shows that they want to get married.
No, it shows that those particular people should not have gotten married.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:57 AM PST up reply actions
so many gay men don’t want marriage. They want sex.
shut up. right now.
shut up. right now.
Haha, Kinda like debating Sarah Palin’s office parrot isn’t it?
How about something positive, what did you learn in class yesterday, anything interesting?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
The two I knew best were both against "gay marriage," or at least never gave me an inkling of an impression that they were victimized by the government not recognizing a gay union as being the same as a straight one
Did you consider that maybe they hadn’t yet met the person they want to marry? No one either gay or straight worries much about the availability of marriage till they are in love then denied access to their church?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 7:37 PM PST up reply actions
So you’re advocating for forcing Churches to marry gay people. Funny how the Left keeps denying that this is what they really want, while the right insists that this will result in the loss of freedom of religion.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
So you’re advocating for forcing Churches to marry gay people.
No not at all, I’m just insisting that the govt. give them equal recognition under the law, just like we had here in cali before the selfish haters got involved with their proposition. We wouldn’t tolerate a proposition to discriminate for other reasons so we should not tolerate this discrimination.
The church issue is another smokescreen by the powers that profit from right wing ignorance. They do whatever it takes to further their agenda no matter who it hurts. Churches will marry their members whether straight or gay, a gay couple is not gonna want to stay in a Church that hates them so there won’t be any forcing. If your church is so hateful that it don’t want gay members then what gay would be even slightly interested in getting married there? and say some crazy gay couple did ask to be married? BFD just rubber stamp them and get over it. Don’t let the minuscule tail wag the gigantic dog.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
No not at all, I’m just insisting that the govt. give them equal recognition under the law, just like we had here in cali before the selfish haters got involved with their proposition.
Well, I insist that my Church’s position on homosexuality get the same recognition that Global Warming alarmist dogma is getting.
Again, the U.S. had this system in place, where no one gets the government to adopt their dogmas. That’s called fairness. I know the Left thinks that the Truth of their Left wing dogmas isn’t dogma, but I promise it is. It’s not supportable with any logic or coherent philosophy.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Again, the U.S. had this system in place, where no one gets the government to adopt their dogmas.
What you talkin about? Slavery?, Women’s voting?, Prohibition? They had lots of things in place but that doesn’t mean they can’t change things as people get smarter? Progress is good, lost in the errors of the past is what you need to be afraid of.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Wait, are you conceding that the idea behind “gay marriage” is a dogma? If so, how can you be so arrogant as to think that your dogma should be adopted by the government but no one else’s? I said it before and will repeat it, this is completely unAmerican. You think the gov’t should adopt your dogma, you’re not an American.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Wait, are you conceding that the idea behind "gay marriage" is a dogma?
No, I know it’s hard for you to follow it but It sez….. the govt. has to be open to positive change. As people get more knowledge some of the old rules don’t make sense any more. It’s not tearing down the house to do a little positive re-modeling and maintenance. Some day people will be smart enough to figure out there’s no god as the bible portrays him so you think it makes sense to hang on to our great grandfather’s old bible when that happens? We don’t still use the pre- magellean flat world maps do we, so why should our spiritual guidance be any more out of date?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
Well, in the old days, they had other “good” ideas, like the idea that the Church of England was the Truth. Unfortunately for the Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Jews and deists, the gov’t always sided with the Church of England, which is one reason so many people fled England to live here for freedom. I know that to you, power=freedom, and that think your’e entitled to define “improve” and “truth,” but I don’t think you are and neither do most of the Californians who voted on this issue.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I know that to you, power=freedom, and that think your’e entitled to define "improve" and "truth," but I don’t think you are and neither do most of the Californians who voted on this issue.
just like the germans who supported hitler? The crowd is not always right in matters of finance or morals.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
And what the hell would they be trying to GET out of supporting gay marriage???
We support it because it could just as well be us needing the support instead of you and I like to think you’d do the same thing for me.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
+1
exactly.
Why do people think that every one has malicious intent? is it really so hard for people to fathom that people outside the gay community genuinely support this too?
it’s amazing how hard people will fight to have us not care about other people.
and it’s sad that they waste so much energy making themselves bitter while trying to hurt others. Energy that could be applied in a positive direction.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
can't explain no homo better than this video:
http://current.com/items/91120515_thats-gay-no-homo.htm
pure homophobia. hilarious vid.
While I am pro-marriage (and consequently anti-“gay marriage”), I don’t believe that gay people choose to be gay. I’ve known some gay people, and I know for a fact they didn’t choose to be. I’m 100% certain that if they could have, they would have become straight.
That said, just because we have biological urges doesn’t mean we’re not free to choose. If I feel hungry, don’t I choose to eat? So should the government pass a law that really hungry people will be called “thin,” regardless of how obese them might become, because they don’t have a choice about eating?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
While I am pro-marriage (and consequently anti-"gay marriage")
That’s like being pro bread and anti bagel? Do you really think you can’t still have bread if you let others eat bagels? The bakeries are gonna still bake bread as long as someone wants it, there’s no way bagels are gonna capture the market, only 10% of the people want bagels.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Anti-semite.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Mar 2, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
There is no such thing as “gay marriage,” which is why I put it in quotes in most contexts. In your fantasy world, the differences aren’t relevant, probably due to narcissism, as is made evident by how comfortable you are with people cheating on their spouses. If the only questions you ever ask are, “What’s in it for me,” or, “Does it hurt me any?” clearly, the government adopting a gay dogma means nothing. But if you actually ask questions based on a broader scale like, "How will this effect the way the next generation of Americans think and how will that effect family’s and particularly, children, in light of the child abuse among step-parents being so much more prevalent.
In your mind and in your opinion, a gay union=marriage. But I say that a “gay marriage” is part of a fantasy world.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage,"
That’s just your opinion. In my opinion "gay marriage," and “mormon church” have the same legitimacy and I don’t want to ban either one. I don’t pretend to know what’s right for everyone and I don’t fool myself into thinking I should play god.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 2, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
But you also don’t insist that the government officially advocate for the Mormon Church, do you? Im’ glad you see the parallel. Mormons don’t need a government mandate, an official declaration that Joseph Smith is equal to Moses nor any special privileges given to us being members of the Church. How about the government stay away from both of our religions, me with my LDS beliefs and you with your 1984 style New Speak gay dogma.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Hahaha
Way to circumvent Godwin’s Law! Straight past the Hitler comparisons and onto Big Brother…
There will be no extra point!
what are you talking about, Naticus2?
No one would want to advocate gay marriage if we HAD gay marriage. If we banned Mormon Churches, then yes, I’m pretty sure Skep would advocate legalizing Mormon Churches.
We should have the freedom of religion, and therefore be ALLOWED Mormon Churches and practices.
We should have the freedom of love, and therefore be ALLOWED to marry whomever we darn well please.
I’m assuming I speak for Skep when I say he certainly would insist that the government officially advocate for the Mormon Church if being a practicing Mormon were illegal.
But I’m glad that you like our marriage system the way it is. clearly, a 60 year-old man recently released from a 40-year prison sentence for statutory rape should be allowed to marry an 18 year-old virgin, but screw this world if two men or two women ever want to have rights as a couple.
hmmmmm……
No one would want to advocate gay marriage if we HAD gay marriage. If we banned Mormon Churches, then yes, I’m pretty sure Skep would advocate legalizing Mormon Churches.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying. An institution, like the Church or “gay marriage” for that matter, can exist independently of the government. Being a practicing homosexual, in a committed relationship, living together, having a ceremony, wearing rings, and even having legal recognition are all legal. The gov’t does advocate for the freedom of gays to “marry.” That doesn’t mean that they advocate the practice of “gay marriage” anymore than they advocate (or should advocate) for any particular religion.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Except that the DO advocate heterosexual marriage. So that’s like saying the government advocates the practice of Christianity (that case probably could be made).
The government advocates for the freedom to practice any religion.
The government advocates for the freedom of anyone to love anyone, but the lack of freedom to marry anyone.
HUGE difference.
I dont think anyone here is saying they shouldn't have equal rigts as a married couple would
but to marry in a church in front of jesus who according to the bible does not believe in homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Maybe they should open thier own “churchs” where they can have a traditional marriage on their terms. To feel like they are being discriminated against because society doesn’t want them to marry in a house of god is ignorant.
To feel like they are being discriminated against because society doesn’t want them to marry in a house of god is ignorant.
No, for half of a a free country to think it’s ok to not let everyone marry in a place of their choosing is ignorant and a total failure of religion which according to the bibles should be working to increase the love in the world and not the hate.. When the govt. comes to get them then they might finally understand why we should protect the rights of everyone and not just the popular?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 3, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
and the church is okay with
a 60 year-old man recently released from a 40-year jail sentence for statutory rape marrying an 18 year-old virgin?
wow.
The government advocates for the freedom of anyone to love anyone, but the lack of freedom to marry anyone.
This is based on a false premise. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a donkey have? It has 4 legs still. It doesn’t matter what the government calls it, it is what it is.
Marriage-the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife, through ceremony, legal recognition, having sex, etc.
Which of those is the government obstructing? Is legal recognition illegal? There are civil unions. Is gay sex illegal? Hardly. Is it illegal for homosexuals to live together? Nope. Can they wear rings? Yup. So the government is not blocking any part of “gay marriage” whatsoever. They are simply not officially proclaiming it to be equal or having no relevant differences from a real marriage, by giving it the identical designation.
Your demands that everyone have equality has an extreme logical end like having everyone receiving a Congressional Medal of Honor, even if in a coma since childhood, having not done a single brave deed.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
no
gay couples do not have the same rights. prenups? nope. etc.
here’s the reality: you’re scared of changing the word “marriage.”
did you know that the word “d’oh” is in the most respected dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary……so we can add and change definitions of words to fit fictitious yellow people, but cannot slightly alter a definition to fit humans?
They can actually make their own prenups, as a prenup is simply a legal contract. There is no ban on legal contracts.
I’m scared of changing the word marriage, huh? So we’re going to have a debate about my emotions? Will you have some facts to back this up? Perhaps photographs of my facial expressions or some handwriting proving some hints of my fear?
By your ridiculous argument about language, why not change the word lead to “gold.” That’ll work really well.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
wow
I normally don’t make personal attacks, but, umm…..you and logic/arguing don’t get along so well, do you?
If you change the word “lead” to “gold” you have to completely and utterly change the definition. nothing that was gold would be gold anymore.
if you change the word “marriage” to include same-sex affairs, you merely add another group. while 0% of gold would be gold if you changed the definition, 100% of marriages would still be marriages. so an extremely specious argument by you.
the reality is, as civilization and humanity grows, we have to alter our definitions of things. like I said earlier, when you somehow thought I was being sexist and racist, the word “rights” once did not include African-Americans or women, among others. We did not change the word “rights” we merely altered it so as to allow another group to fit the description.
I understand that you are too cowardly to accept a change that would help bring about equality. You will surely deny my previous sentence, but you are, no doubt, acting completely cowardly. This is not about you. This is not about god. This is not about reproduction, as gays will be gay whether we allow them marriage or not. This is about equality, and you are too cowardly and selfish to accept these people (I know you say you accept them, but you do not truly), and the equality that we deserve. Again, you will indubitably take offense to me calling you cowardly, but a rose by any other name…
the reality is, as civilization and humanity grows, we have to alter our definitions of things.
and I wonder if Natty realizes that if the bible were written today it would be completely different?
The things needed to make a primitive agrarian society function were a lot different than the things needed to make today’s work. If a family is not desperate for workers to tend the crops, hunt the food, tan the hides, sew the clothes , etc. then procreation is not so important to promote? So maybe a modern bible would promote childless sex? and glorify those who are homosexual cause it is beneficial to population control? There’d probably be commandments like “thou shalt not light your woodstove on no burn days” or Shalt not dispose of motor oil in street catchbasins(they run to the sea)" . Kosher food would become heart healty, low cholesterol food with lots of fruits and veggies? Jesus would be crucified by having his facebook account hijacked??
Then in another couple thousand years there’d be a different group of lost souls trying to carry out their out of date commandments?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
I’m eagerly awaiting it:
“The Holy Bible, Second Edition” by Skeptic con Urquell, with Jesus Christ.
…The Musical
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:32 AM PST up reply actions
If you change the word "lead" to "gold" you have to completely and utterly change the definition. nothing that was gold would be gold anymore.
if you change the word "marriage" to include same-sex affairs, you merely add another group. while 0% of gold would be gold if you changed the definition, 100% of marriages would still be marriages. so an extremely specious argument by you.
And you say I have difficulty with logic? R… O… F… L… HOLY FREAKING CRAP, this is an example of a fish not seeing the water it swims in. This is like a blind person insisting that gold and lead are the same, demanding that everyone else agree.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
this actually made perfect sense. changing “lead” to “gold” and changing “marriage” to include homosexuality are not the same thing. re read what I said. you say you’re an english major…..try READING.
They are the same thing. Your whole post was based on the premise that a gay union=marriage, which is a DOGMA, just like the unsupportable claim that there are no relevant differences between lead and gold.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
no
my premise was that marriage being defined as heterosexual only is not much different from marriage being defined as heterosexual AND homosexual. whereas lead and gold are barely even related.
Lead and gold are barely even related? LOL They’re both metals, with very similar properties. They’re both heavy and maliable, and yet one is considered very valuable and the other not, despite that. Similarly, while a gay union and a straight union both have sex, both have love, both have commitment, the differences they do have are extremely important to most Americans. The Left, however, thinks that 1000’s of years of real marriage creating all of civilization, domesticating men, providing both a gender model and a relationship model and protecting women from abandonment after getting pregnant by men by reinforcing the standard through laws… well, none of those measurable and real issues mean a thing to the Left.
You’re all entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
what a completely flawed argument
Your point: historically, marriage works.
If we change the definition of marriage every single marriage stays the same, and still works. we just add some.
if we change the definition of gold to lead, nothing stays the same!
again, change the definition of gold, and 0% of gold still fits the definition.
change the definition of marriage, and 100% of marriage stays exactly the same.
yes, you are correct, our marriage system is historically proven to work. we’re not hurting it AT ALL by adding gays there. again, it’s like rights. our “democracy” worked very well, even before african-americans and women had the right to vote. but we added them, and surprise! the white male votes still count! allowing gays to get married doesn’t effect a single straight person, unless you’re stuck up and pathetic.
If we change the definition of marriage every single marriage stays the same, and still works. we just add some.
In the short run, that’s true. In the long run, as I’ve pointed out, the authoritative imposition of a dogma on society will change the way people feel about marriage. Everyone will think like Skep and think that a man has no obligation to raise his own children, for example. Or perhaps the attitudes about promiscuity (even in domestic partnerships) in marriage will seep onto other marriages through media. Perhaps the hidden premise that having children is irrelevant, and by extension, children themselves must be irrelevant, may be adopted by a higher number of people. You can’t predict the future, and either way, government adopted dogma is wrong.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Everyone will think like Skep and think that a man has no obligation to raise his own children, for example.
when did skep ever say that? cut the ad hominem crap. there is no place for that crap here.
about all of our ancestors thought poorly of our rights when blacks were first given rights, but, surprisingly enough, (most of us), got over that once we realized it was RIGHT.
there are no universal beliefs in this world. we can’t not make the necessary changes because we are too scared of people’s reactions, because, guess what, people aren’t exactly happy right now with it not being accepted. so are you saying t hat you retaining your perfect view of marriage is more important than me retaining mine? because there’s no way that everyone is going to be satisfied.
I inferred it. He has said on a past occasion that all his friends cheat on their wives, and he seems to think that’s O.K. He is also a self-admitted hedonist. I’m sure he’d love a world where men could sleep around with no responsibility to raise children, which is what the world would be like without the institution of marriage.
The government recognized and overtly advocated institution of marriage has helped keep civilization together, preventing barbarism like paternal abandonment. By necessity, the adopting of the dogma that a gay union=marriage will completely undermine the principles of marriage, holding up no standard at all for men’s responsibility to their own children.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’m sure he’d love a world where men could sleep around with no responsibility to raise children, which is what the world would be like without the institution of marriage.
i’m pretty sure he wouldn’t.
and HELLO LISTEN TO MY DAMN POINT!!!!! recognizing gay marriage does NOT take away the institution of marriage! the institution of marriage that you say shapes our world and society STILL EXISTS EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE if we allow gays to partake in it!
this isn’t carbon offsetting. I’m not asking a straight couple to get divorced every time a gay couple gets married.
He has said on a past occasion that all his friends cheat on their wives, and he seems to think that’s O.K. He is also a self-admitted hedonist. I’m sure he’d love a world where men could sleep around with no responsibility to raise children, which is wha
Not just my friends but most men are attracted to other women, that’s just the way it is, best way to assure the species survives. Ask tiger woods or bill clinton or your neighbor in the trailer park? Growing up in the 60s it was pretty hard to not learn to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. You’d think that today’s crowd would appreciate the trails we blazed :>) but hey I guess some folks just wanna be repressed?
There’s no logical evidence to show that marriage is gonna suffer if gays partake too. The bond between spouses is stronger than the govt. description and definition. You seriously think adding more love to the pot is gonna spoil the soup, if your religion condones that hate you better run away fast, and if they don’t they better kick you out fast? I see no winners for your approach but everyone wins with mine?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
According to your authoritative opinion, there is no logical evidence. Yeah, that’s convincing, when none of your arguments hold any water, and you can’t even understand my arguments or the evidence in their favor, much less analyze them.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Everyone will think like Skep and think that a man has no obligation to raise his own children,
Where do you come up with this crap? I’ve actually raised children and not just talked about it. I’m probably more pro responsibility than you are, I at least gave mine a chance to get the education they wanted and to make their own choices about their life.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
You just have struck me as a narcissist with comments you’ve made, making excuses for bad behavior and making comments suggesting that the right way to think is narcissism. So you’re telling me that you’re not entirely narcissistic, then? Well, I’m glad to hear it. That’s good that you’ve taken responsibility for your children.
I wonder if you would have had, you been indoctrinated with the dogma that men don’t mean crap to children, which is what they teach (by implication) in Massachusetts.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You just have struck me as a narcissist
this is why your arguments fail. because you argue skep’s moral decisions based on “what has struck you.”
pathetic dude. really, really sad.
"what has struck you."
I think what has struck him is he’s been pimpslapped around by his church all his life so he’s afraid to have an independent thought?
He’s got dogma clamped to his azz and that lil bitch won’t let go :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
I was never taught this stuff at Church. What I was taught was simply that marriage is special and ordained of God. I knew, as soon as the whole idea of “gay marriage” was brought up, that there was something very stupid about the whole thing. Then I formulated my own argument to match my intuition that it’s the dumbest idea ever.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I knew, as soon as the whole idea of "gay marriage" was brought up, that there was something very stupid about the whole thing.
But you hadn’t yet learned the golden rule ? so you couldn’t just let those actually involved in the new marriages figure out for themselves what value the concept has for them? Maybe you should go back to that church and study some more?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Funny how people who aren’t Christians think they know what the golden rule means. It means you treat others as you would have them treat you. Personally, I don’t think I’m entitled to the government adopting my dogma, so I don’t feel a need to appease others who feel so entitled. You’re not required to treat others better than you treat yourself. I don’t think I’m special and above everyone, so my particular religious viewpoints shouldn’t be adopted by the gov’t against everyone else’s well.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Funny how people who aren’t Christians think they know what the golden rule means. It means you treat others as you would have them treat you.
Exactly, you want to be able to marry on your own terms so you extend the same courtesy to others. Not that hard to do for the unselfish, but for the selfish it takes a lot of effort to let that hate go. Some Californians even went so far as to get a hate initiative on the ballot to stop gays from a happy marriage. Imagine that? They very much remind me of the stories I’ve heard of the Germans targeting Jews before WW2, and we all know how that came out?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, others can marry on their own terms. That doesn’t mean the gov’t has the right to adopt their dogma. I don’t want the gov’t to adopt any of my religion, because that would piss everyone off and is against the principles of the Constitution. But the Left can’t extend the same courtesy. It is the Left that needs to apply the Golden Rule, here. Not me.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Yup. Just as last time you went off the rails, Nat, your sad arguments have devolved into unhinged, paranoid screeds against “the Left.”
Guess what, Nat? I actually don’t want hear the “theory” you’re developing about the Left. You know why? Because even though I’m sure you’ll have plenty of big words and metaphysical concepts to support it, I’m also sure its basis will be less in the real world of human beings than in the dark inside of your brain, as you sit alone, staring miserably into your computer screen.
And — just as last time you went off the rails — I’ll advise you to get off your computer and out of your religious texts, get out and meet people, talk to people, live life, and learn to love. It’s your best chance to become something other than the sad, mean-spirited little twit you appear to be to everyone involved in this discussion.
There will be no extra point!
I already met people, but I live in the Bay Area, and they’re as brainwashed as you, jumping to conclusions, bigoted, hypocritical, arrogant and completely illogical.
You guys compulsively project secret motives onto anyone that disagrees with you. You do it again here: “I’ll advise you to get… out of your religious texts,” as if my motives for being against “gay marriage” is based on being brainwashed by the Bible.
Isn’t it possible that the Bible, the basis for everyone’s education in early U.S. history, is a good thing? Abraham Lincoln had no formal education, but he grew up reading the Bible. You pretend to love good and pretend to think Abraham Lincoln was a great man, but you ignore the fact that he was as religious as anyone. Have you read his writings?
You also insist that I’m “mean-spirited,” when you’re the one with the superfluous ad hominem attacks, projecting motives, insulting and condescending. I simply make an argument based purely on reason and philosophy, which you hate. Why do hate reason and philosophy?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
You...
I’m scared of changing the word marriage, huh? So we’re going to have a debate about my emotions? Will you have some facts to back this up? Perhaps photographs of my facial expressions or some handwriting proving some hints of my fear?
…earlier, in this very thread, referred to yourself as a “gay marriage-phobe.”
Marriage is a constantly evolving social contract. This is kind of a stale argument, but I’d like to get your full, disclosed take on this- do you feel that the current state of marriage, as it is defined and held, is the appropriate one that we should have for all time going forward? Because it wasn’t that long ago, relatively speaking, that this country had miscegenation laws on the books, which i imagine you’d agree is a reprehensible thing.
…earlier, in this very thread, referred to yourself as a "gay marriage-phobe."
It was more of a play on words than an actual statement that I’m frightened.
Marriage is a constantly evolving social contract.
Whenever I make my linguistic argument (and I studied language and discourse in college, so I am rather well versed on this subject), people come back with this. OBVIOUSLY words change. The question is, who has the right to change them and under what conditions. My issue is with the government adopting new language that reflects a gay Left wing dogma. My issue is not with the natural evolution of language, because that is natural law, which I appeal to as a higher authority than government.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
There...
Is gay sex illegal? Hardly.
…were states in the union that held laws against sodomy- I believe thirteen of them were still in effect as recently as 2003. Worldwide, should you care about outside the U.S. on this issue,there’s still about… 68 or so? Countries that outlaw sodomy, Uganda may introduce possible death penalty legislation for serial homosexuals. This is not yet a thoroughly safe globe for the homosexual.
I don’t really follow the thing about the congressional medal of honor. Saying that wanting a group to have something that a huge bunch of people have (that really has no minimum threshold for registration) is at all analogous to giving every man, woman and child a medal that almost nobody ever gets except in cases of extreme valor and courage for their country… if there’s anything that isn’t, is an extreme logical end.
…were states in the union that held laws against sodomy- I believe thirteen of them were still in effect as recently as 2003.
And this is relevant, how? I wasn’t asking for a history lesson. I asked if “gay marriage” is legal. Again, all behaviors associated with marriage are legal, with or without the gov’t calling it “marriage.” So there is no imposition on freedom, only Left wing power, which you guys confuse with freedom, as you feel so entitled.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Again, all behaviors associated with marriage are legal, with or without the gov’t calling it "marriage." So there is no imposition on freedom, only Left wing power, which you guys confuse with freedom, as you feel so entitled.
So you are saying that you agree that gays should have the right to marry? and call it whatever they like? So why are you still talking about it?
What is your problem with the left having their freedoms too? I got no problem with the left or the right as long as neither makes restrictive laws? Laws that entitle are not laws that restrict, you understand the difference? a law that says anyone can marry in any manner they choose is not restrictive, it lets everyone do their own thing but a law that says certain folks can’t marry as they choose is restrictive, it only lets some folks do their own thing. See how one makes sense for a free country and one doesn’t?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 4, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
So you are saying that you agree that gays should have the right to marry?
You’re not following me. Again, I disagree with the premise. My point is, they do have the right to do everything they want. No one is stopping them from doing anything. The left wing is perfectly free to do whatever they want. They are not free to have the gov’t adopt all their dogma based policies.
Again, you feel so entitled to your dogma, as if it is fact, you think it’s a “freedom” to have the government adopt it. COO COO.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I always...
…forget the diminishing returns of arguing with people when the divergence of opinion is such a clear difference in personal moral belief. I hope very much that gay people soon find themselves in a full state of acceptance, free of the institutional trappings that have stymied some and caused some fair extent of heartache.
For the record, the “history lesson” was just to remind you that the age of horrible, flagrant civil rights violations, as well as virulent bigotry, are not that far behind us. Pat Buchanan was a segregationist. Robert Byrd was in the KKK. Billy Graham was either an utter sycophant to Nixon, or he doesn’t much like Jews. The fact that these things aren’t strictly and widely known is a reflection of our society’s desire to act as if it’s all behind us. To expect the problems this country has had with bigotry to disappear within forty or fifty years is neither realistic, nor is it a prudent mindset going forward. That’s my piece. If you’ve got a snappy insult to whip back at me, I’m done looking at the thread, so unless you want to post it for everyone else’s benefit, there probably really isn’t a point.
I hope very much that gay people soon find themselves in a full state of acceptance
And I hope that the government will start calling lead “gold,” so I will be rich. The problem is, everything is relative. If you value “gay marriage” the same as a real marriage, you must necessarily devalue things like having both a father and a mother in the home and any other difference. You can’t have it all, is the lesson here, and that’s just the painful reality for a lot of people. For example, we’re never going to value mental illness the same as mental health, no matter how bad we feel for the mentally ill.
Pat Buchanan was a segregationist. Robert Byrd was in the KKK. Billy Graham was either an utter sycophant to Nixon, or he doesn’t much like Jews.
I know and don’t care. The law isn’t based on the idea that we need to do the opposite of everything bad people did. Bad people also put their pants on one leg a time, so does that mean that we should start putting our pants on both legs at a time?
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Bad people also put their pants on one leg a time, so does that mean that we should start putting our pants on both legs at a time?
pants have nothing to do with morality.
i think.
pants have nothing to do with morality. i think.
Haha. yeah, not unless Natty’s tryin to get into the womens bathroom without any?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
lol
You don’t know anything about human nature, as evidenced by:
I’m 100% certain that if they could have, they would have become straight.
reply fail
that was a reply to naticus, above
While I am pro-marriage (and consequently anti-"gay marriage"), I don’t believe that gay people choose to be gay. I’ve known some gay people, and I know for a fact they didn’t choose to be. I’m 100% certain that if they could have, they would have become straight.
That said, just because we have biological urges doesn’t mean we’re not free to choose. If I feel hungry, don’t I choose to eat? So should the government pass a law that really hungry people will be called "thin," regardless of how obese them might become, because they don’t have a choice about eating?
How was that against human nature? Lots of gay people, if they knew of a magic pill or some special therapy to become straight, they would jump at the chance. Many gay people do go to therapy to try to stop being gay. I don’t know what the success rate is, but i’m certain it’s not 100%. It’s, at best, 50%. I’ve heard it’s much lower.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
All right let me chime in here because it seams to me that there is a big deal going on hear around the word “Marriage”.
The issue really seams to me that if two gay people are in love, have been together for years and one suddenly finds him or her self ill that his or her partner does not have the right too not only to visit that person in the hospital or have that persons DNR request honored, but if last rights have to be ministered that the person closest to the deceased can have that person’s last wishes null and voided by that persons family even if they have had not had contact in decades.
Now I at this point don’t care what the union is called but the “rights” that I see that gay people do not have is this. Call it civil union I don’t care but people who are devoted to each other need to be able to live there lives and have there last wishes honored as they see fit.
Right now this is not being done because gay folks can not join into a union the same as strait folk. This means no social security for there partner. The family who in some case HATED there offspring for being gay they now can step in and have any service against that persons wishes and can even prevent the life partner of that person from having any contact with them in there last moments here on earth or have any say in what happens after.
This is the biggest problem that I see and I truly don’t care if it’s called marriage or not this practice needs to stop.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise. But we already have this, and the Left is still outraged about their lack of rights.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
We do not have this, if we did this would not be an issue.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
According to California law, the domestic partnership has every relevant right associated with marriage. Maybe that doesn’t include DNR requests, but then again, a person can write their will down and someone can present it in such an occasion. That’s inconvenient, but it’s hardly reason for alarm.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
they can have a will but it can be denied by there family because it not recognized federally.
and DNR and visitation rights are a big deal.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Well, not that much to me. Their closest relative can find out what they want and consult with their life partner. I’m not saying it’s not a problem, and I can see your point. But I don’t think it’s reason for alarm.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
They CAN consult but after a 20 or 30 year absence and thinking that they know best why would they.
And a reason for alarm? IDK, but a reason for change, I would say so.
Again, just my POV.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Mar 4, 2010 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
Left is still outraged about their lack of rights.
first you call us unpatriotic for not supporting the war, saying we need to fight for our country and our rights, then you call us out for fighting our rights.
find your beliefs. stick to them. do not shape them to justify your situation and wants.
You’re fighting for the government to adopt a gay dogma.
If I can find a home for all the stray gaydogma’s will you just stop worrying about them? How would you occupy your time if you’d never heard that word? Geez, you always regret it when you give a monkey a canopener.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 9:15 AM PST reply actions
If we can neuter all the gaydogmas, that’s a step in the right direction.
but then all the conspiracy wackos would soon run out of things to fear?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 2:05 PM PST reply actions
we’ll never run out of progressives trying to destroy the republic.
You can’t make something by progress, it’s the reactionaries you need to be concerned with.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 5, 2010 10:00 PM PST reply actions
Progressive, for progressives, is about progress. But in order for progressives to achieve their goals, they’ll have to tear the Constitution out of the way. They do so by interpreting it however they feel like, giving themselves the power instead of the framers. In your opinion, your “glorious future” represents progress. However, people are the same and big government, as history has proven repeatedly, will result in tyranny. Unless you have a way to make people good, your progressivism is eventually going to take away freedoms. If history tells us anything, without a Constitution, the government will start killing people in the name of progress at some point in time.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
progressives
progressives
they’ll have to tear the Constitution out of the way.
progressivism is eventually going to take away freedoms.
They
Paranoia is a helluva thing.
There will be no extra point!
The Constitution is a “paranoid” document. It’s “paranoid” of the depravity of men in power, but that “paranoia” was based on literally 1000’s of years of absolute proof. When people try to tear down the Constitution, it’s due to extreme naivete: “Yeah, everything is fine! Big, powerful central governments are a good thing!” Tell that to the “useful idiots” who were put to death after the Communist revolution.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I’m not saying that we should go tear up the Constitution, but what is so great about giving the framers the ultimate power? Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m not), but didn’t quite a few of them own slaves? People talk about the Founding Fathers like they were gods, and not racists.
I don’t think the founding fathers were gods, but if you read what they had to say and understand the philosophy behind the Constitution, you know why we need to stick to it and stick to it indefinitely. While many of the framers believed in the “science” of racism (and it was considered a science), they also understood government, human rights, man’s predisposition to evil, history, philosophy and I suspect a lot of things I can’t even think of right now.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
But don’t you agree that this inconvenient fact gets glossed over in our schools and all that? It seems the dogmas you don’t want being taught in schools are the ones you disagree with. Where is all the outrage over a whitewashed history being taught in our public schools?
I’m not saying they couldn’t be knowledgeable in other areas, hell, it wasn’t/isn’t really against what you wrote, but I think it is a very good example of an interest group’s “dogma” being instituted into the schools.
Whitewashed history being taught in public schools? ROFL Call for references. If there was whitewashed history being taught in schools, then I would be against it. However, that is simply not occurring.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Whitewashed history being taught in public schools? ROFL Call for references. If there was whitewashed history being taught in schools, then I would be against it.
Maybe you should get some American Indians to write their version of history since the arrival of the white man ? Seems like the longer term residents might have the best viewpoint?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Well Skeptic beat me to it but let’s be honest really…Columbus “discovered” the “New World”? If you don’t see anything whitewashed about that statement I am not going to waste time with other examples. If you get that one I can list more. I’m not going to waste my time if you are too far gone honestly.
Columbus did discover the New World, in that it was hidden from Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Native American ancestors didn’t also discover it. Calling it the “New World” is from a European perspective, true. That said, most people in the U.S. are of old world ancestry. This is just drama. I’m sorry, but it’s not that big a deal. I’m not even sure that history books teach this anyway. You say they do, but I’d like to see proof that history books haven’t changed. Furthermore, I am not in favor of this use of language, necessarily. But I don’t consider it a big deal, either. It’s hardly consequential.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
It might or might not be a big deal, it’s probably not to white people, but as a white guy I’d say it’s not my call. You can decide if it’s yours.
My general rule in this scenario is if the racial group in question ran the institution in question (in this case the educational system) and had the power to implement changes, would they keep it the same? If not, well, maybe it should be changed.
There is a difference between teaching “it is a New World from a European perspective” and the “Native American ancestors also discovered it” (both minor paraphrases so correct me if I am twisting your words) and teaching it as the “New World”. See the difference? One is a whitewashed view, one view takes into account all perspectives.
Of course this is a very small example, but that was just because I wouldn’t lead off with a big example because I am trying to establish if you are worth talking to about it or not.
The thing is, there are many small examples, that when added up, become a big deal. Let’s take Thanksgiving as our next example. Think about what the significance of this day is to this country (not to you, I don’t care if you consider it only a time to eat food and give thanks). Think about what you are taught in school about it. Pilgrims and American Indians holding hands and breaking bread right?
http://www.nativecircle.com/mlmThanksgivingmyth.html
The whitewashed version of history might not affect us as white people, but when other races have their history and by extension cultural identity distorted from a young age it can lead to a lot of self-hatred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSFqnUFOns&feature=related
Now before you say that this only comes from media representations and everything except education, think about how stupidly naive that is.
I just think Native Americans are mature enough to shrug this off. Again, I also question of modern history books are still saying this stuff. THere is so much obsession in academic circles about not being ethnocentric, your scholarly colleagues would likely crucify you for saying “Columbus discovered the New World.”
Also, I think I can try to look through Native American eyes and have heard some of them talk about this issue and conclud, it’s not a big deal.
By the way, Pilgrims and Indians did hold hands and break bread. Obviously, things changed, but the Pilgrims and Indians, for a time, were very friendly. The Native Americans helped the Pilgrims survive at first and helped them to not starve to death. Not all European settlers were evil, and those Pilgrims appreciated the Native Americans.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
“Not all European settlers were evil”
I swear this is a common theme in all of your posts. You are more concerned with addressing who is “evil” and who is “racist” than looking at the substance of the issue, especially when the group in question is a group you belong to.
I don’t know where I said all European settlers were evil so I am assuming it comes from a rather unpleasant place in your mind that would downplay a very real tragedy to save your own face.
I know the American Indians helped the pilgrims survive. The time they were friendly with the American Indians was the time when the pilgrims were starving and shivering to death and the Amerindians fed them and sheltered them and all that. Eventually the pilgrims were able to live sustainably in America. And when they no longer needed Amerindians for survival they gave blankets with diseases and a massive genocide in return. Interesting way to show appreciation.
Your glossing over the history and making it sound all lovey dovey disgusts me. You are more concerned with not calling European settlers evil so it does not reflect bad on you than the truth. Facts are facts, no matter if they are taught in public school or not.
This is just drama. I’m sorry, but it’s not that big a deal.
It is a very big deal if you are trying to say things shouldn’t change? Giving gays the same rights to a church marriage that you have is way less a deal than killing the native population of a continent and taking over their land? The surviving indians would laugh at your outrage over your perceived slight . The only people who would want to hurt a group over something so easy to grant that group are very petty pitifully lost souls.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
I still question whether that hasn’t changed. I think it has.
Giving gays the SAME F’ING RIGHTS? How many times do I have to tell you that your premise is flawed? Still, you keep arguing from hidden premises, one of the logical fallacies of the assuming and bigoted. It’s not a right to have the government adopt a dogma, and that’s the only way a gay person can “marry” the same sex.
Also, I’m a lost soul, when you’re anxious to destroy what the war for Independence won? Again, the whole point of leaving Europe was freedom from an oppressive government that adopted dogmas. But you don’t care, because it’s YOUR dogma. Go back to Europe, dude.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Giving gays the SAME F’ING RIGHTS?
Yes, pretty simple concept isn’t it. Repeat it a few times and it loses it’s horror. Just give them equal rights and move on? I will bet you the sun will still rise tomorrow on a gay marriage filled world? because I know god is not as hateful as you want it to be.
If you are so worried about education of children join your local pta. The children of bigots and fear mongers are usually home schooled or church schooled anyway so don’t fall for that smokescreen issue, just do the right thing and feel good about it.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 7, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
It’s a simple concept, yes. But it’s based, as I keep explaining, on a false premise. You don’t even know what a right is. You think power=freedom and that power over the government and other people’s children is a right. By that standard, give me “equal rights” by having the government adopt Christianity the same way they seem to have adopted global warming. Where is the equality between global warming and Christianity? AFter, all, Christianity is such a good belief, of course the government should adopt that fact.
Of course, you can’t see how arrogant you are being, but your gut instinct would obviously tell you that I have no “right to equality” when it comes to the government adopting Christianity as equal to global warming. That would be power and not freedom. That Americans are losing sight of such simple differences and are mind-numbed with regard to basic civics, is disturbing. We are losing what makes America, America.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
That's not ugly enough for gaydogma
Gaydogma is so ugly he causes Natty to run in circles and scream like a little girl at the mere thought of sharing god’s love with the pup?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Mar 6, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
- Video: Meet the infamous bearded guy that goes nuts by the 76ers’ bench
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
