Yet another strike against civil rights when it has to do with gay people

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


See you in a month.


edit - Why Captaind Drizzle, er, uh, JT, I had no idea this was you until I banned your ass. I'm touched you think so highly of me, and thanks for volunteering.

Hmmmm?

Oh, do you mean Jimmytrick?

[Japher]

Wait -- you're CONCERNED that we have support of human rights activists??

Yes, MrFun, if human rights activists are on the side of gay activits than something must be amok, which would make them not whinners.

Aside from the marriage issue, what is this "much of what they are asking" that you don't condone?

I am still out on the adoption thing (even though many straight ppl can't raise kids properly)... and, don't get me wrong I am not against gay "marriage", but to impede on to something that so many people feel is their territory, and to continue to force it on those tubborn idiots is just as stubborn and not a problem solving tactic.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Cptn., you really need to learn to address your audience. This is not a bad thing. I understand what you were getting at, but you did it the wrong way. You don't call black ppl "you people" you don't point out that gays are "whiners"... Granted they are only 2% of the US population, but they have plenty of supporters by human rights activists, and that is what concerns me.

I am a friend of gays, but I do not condone much of what they are asking for, but you don't see 'those people' ripping on me. Learn to argue, that's something I suggest to straight white males all the way up to black, jewish, querrs who smoke pot! Know your audience and know how to debate, else you will just come off as a moron. Which, Cptn, you did.... Not that you are, your arguments just weren't condusive to the arena, and the arena here is about the same that you will find in any court or any senate.

Boris and I are still waiting for you to clarify yourself -- when you are back on here and have time.

[Japher]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher


Yes, MrFun, if human rights activists are on the said of gay activits than something must be amok, which would make them not whinners.



I am still out on the adoption thing (even though many straight ppl can't raise kids properly)... and, don't get me wrong I am not against gay "marriage", but to impede on to something that so many people feel is their territory, and to continue to force it on those tubborn idiots is just as stubborn and not a problem solving tactic.

Oh this is lovely -- more "enlightened" conservative arguments against equal rights for gays.

There is nothing wrong with human rights activists to be supportive for gays -- in fact, it is justifiable and honorable for human rights activists to take up concerns that gays have.


Second, what is this notion of "impeding" on other people's territory?

[Japher]

There is nothing wrong with human rights activists to be supportive for gays -- in fact, it is justifiable and honorable for human rights activists to take up concerns that gays have.

I never said there was anything wrong with HRA being on the side of gay rights. I did, however, say that if HRA are on the side of gay rights then those rights are clearly, or could be, in violation, and is not just whinning.

Second, what is this notion of "impeding" on other people's territory?

It IS how the straight community who is against gay marriages view gay marriages. The gay community, who demands that everyone be sensitive to their needs, are not being sensitive to the needs of those they are demanding it from.

[MrFun]

Ok -- I understand what you meant with human rights activists.


Now, to the perception that homophobes and willfully ignorant people think that gays who desire to conform to monogamous relationships with someone of the same gender and to establish stable families of their own is an ATTACK on marriage and family. That misperception is based on being constantly spoon-fed bigoted rhetoric.

You already understand that it seems, and you were just explaining that is how these people see it. But that does not justify gays having to be excluded from establishing their own families.

[MrFun]

EDIT: never mind -- you did qualify "straight community" with "those who are against gay marriage"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
and, don't get me wrong I am not against gay "marriage", but to impede on to something that so many people feel is their territory, and to continue to force it on those tubborn idiots is just as stubborn and not a problem solving tactic.

Would you have been against black people "impeding" on the territory of whites being able to vote, or interracial couples "impeding" on the territory of non-mixed couples to marry?

Tradition is such a piss-poor justification for legal discrimination.

[MrFun]

Japher -- I also just wanted to point out that there are obstacles to equal rights for gays from some groups of heterosexuals as well as from some groups of homosexuals.


Closeted conservative gays are to homophobes what subservient blacks were to white Southerners during the Jim Crow era -- they are "good" people as long as they help to maintain the grossly unfair status quo.

The other group would be the flamboyantly extreme militant gay activists who proudly proclaim that they want to destroy the Western institutions of marriage and family.

These are generalizations, by the way.

[Japher]

But that does not justify gays having to be excluded from establishing their own families.

No it does not justify the exclusion of creating a family unit. It does, however, justify the ability for such people to do so with the consent of the law. If it did not justify a legal union we would not be having the to do we are seeing in the legal system today. In a democracy, and even a republic, we need to appeal to the bigots as well as the supporters. Regurgitating age old arguments is not going to change the minds of those with the age old rebuttals.

It's like I tell people who want to legalize Marijuana, come up with enough arguments and enough compromises, and everyone will eventually give in. Yet, those who argue for the legalization of MJ just say the same thing over and over and hopes that it eventually sinks in.

As for gay unions I am for them. I am for them because it is my opinion that in order for these partners to share the same rights, as do straight spouses they should have a legally binding union that would affect them outside of such benefits. Many of the companies in this area offer health benefits to life partners, what makes that person a life partner? Only that they say so, nothing more, maybe having been together for a certain amount of time, but verify that? Can you see the abuse that can stem from this?

Also, as far as hospital visitation, benefactor benefits, and shared equity defaults it should be covered in these union laws. There will be a lot of confusion, as it is a separation from the norm, thus additional confirmation will be needed. Thus, making a gay union different from the commonly perceived marriage.

Would you have been against black people "impeding" on the territory of whites being able to vote, or interracial couples "impeding" on the territory of non-mixed couples to marry?

Tradition is such a piss-poor justification for legal discrimination.

One more time; I am not against gay unions/marriage.

As for historical examples; blacks rioting in the streets, causing public havoc, over their right to vote. Civil rights are for those who behave civilly. It took the likes of Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and MLK to set the record straight. Interracial marriages, didn’t violate any laws.

Homosexuality has sparked a sexual revolution. Many gay communities and people tell big brother to stay out of their bedroom, and then some of those who say those things decide to parade on the streets? Hypocrisy I tell you. It was the same with the black communities who demanded equal rights, only to have a small few return the violence they were seeking to remove from their communities.

Sadly, it is these small numbers that give a bad name to the few. Still, it is “the many” who make their decision based on these few that need to be convinced of the injustice… That’s called democracy.

[MrFun]

Japher -- you just described what I already pointed out -- that flamboyant, militant gay activists are one of the obstacles to equal rights for gays.

[Japher]

What? I think I adequately stated my position. Militant gay activist and even flamboyant gay activists are giving gaty ppl a bad name. What they gay community is a creduable and decent leader, not a bunch of cross dressers dancing down Castro St. or knowing violating state laws and getting married because of a publicity stunt by the mayor. I really would have had more respect for gays and their views on marriage if the gay community stood up and told Newsom that they didn't want to get married as part of his ego boost... Granted some did, but they should of protested or something, to show that it is equality they demand, not a cookie or a pat on the head.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT


Hmmmm?

Oh, do you mean Jimmytrick?

Yep, that's my good buddy Jimmytrick. I thought it was some relative newbie to OT who just needed an attitude adjustment, but JT is just JT and he's always gonna be JT, so I'll let him off in a few days instead of the whole month.

[Japher]

How did he get a DL to King?!