Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 18:53:05 GMT -5
Who dares say I am not a manly man and who dares say I am threatened by homosexuals? Who? I have endured their advances, even been their companions, fought beside them by saving their lives without a thought to their sexual preference. Do I agree with the known majority of their politics or sexual preferences? Absolutely not! Nor will I stand by an not raise a whimper when Lee is attacked! People! Please let people be! Personally I see the issue as already dealt with, and handled, by my God Himself.
Whatever the outcome, for me, the issue is settled, and not one for me to become involved in other than as much as this.
Yes, I like Gene, and many like him. Do I want, like or approve of their life style? No, not in the least, but what do I have to say about it? Naught but (empty?) words, which have been said over and over.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2015 0:24:39 GMT -5
Weak effeminate men threaten gays, not manly men like me. Like the four U.S. Marines beating a homosexual man in Long Beach? People who consider themselves to be manly men and advertise it are frequently over compensating for other feelings they have.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2015 0:37:27 GMT -5
Who dares say I am not a manly man and who dares say I am threatened by homosexuals? Who? I don't think I have seen anyone mention it except yourself in this post. OKI don't know what their politics are but the term homosexual probably defines their sexual preference.By attacked - do you really mean people disagreeing with his condemnation of homosexuals?Your god, from all available evidence, does as poor a job dealing with these issues as with child sexual abuse. It would be unfair to the men and women who are abused daily because of their sexual orientation, something, it is becoming more and more certain, that is part of their genetic makeup, for other humans to step back, wash their hands of responsibility, and proclaim that the issue has been dealt with by god. We have seen how well that worked with CSA cases.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 24, 2015 0:54:30 GMT -5
On both sides in this case.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 24, 2015 5:59:01 GMT -5
Personally I see the issue as already dealt with, and handled, by my God Himself. I am curious about this statement. Does this have to do with seeing life-altering disaster strike a person (or group of people) and attributing it to "God's disapproval" of that person or group of people?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2015 15:33:51 GMT -5
Quote - "Again, why do you care? Are you being asked to become homosexual? It sounds like the path taken by many who want change. For example, the institution and subsequent repeal of prohibition in the US." Quote - "When a group of people go for change they do it in incremental steps. They work on the issues that are most needed and then as things progress they start on the next issues. This does not mean that they were never issues. When Rosa Parks sat down on the bus to start changes for the Black community do you really think she wasn't aware of other things that needed to be changed? One step at a time because changing bigoted and prejudiced minds takes a lot of time and work." So all those people, who in ca 1990, were opposed to gay marriage, were fair minded people then, but somehow seen as "bigots" now. Social engineering is fascinating, isn't it? Notice that word "prohibition" creeping into the drug conversation? "Word engineering proceeds social engineering" is an old saying.
And some things, like the mainstreaming of pornography, just creep in without any acknowledgement whatsoever.
I wonder what social activists have in store for you next.There is a difference between charging someone for drinking alcohol and charging someone for child porn. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. As far as people changing over the centuries, thankfully they have. It was once okay to own other human beings. It was once okay to have child labor. Just to name a couple of things we have changed our minds about. Changing our minds about things once we have new data, isn't a bad thing. It is a sign that we were wrong in the first place and the change was needed. It would be worse to learn new data and still not change our ways of thinking about it. That would be more criminal imo.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2015 23:22:43 GMT -5
I started monitoring the issue during the Tasmanian gay campaign for legal rights. Gays wanted firstly 1 - decriminalization, not legalisation 2 - legalization, not celebration 3 - celebration, not marriage 4 - marriage.
So you don't know WHAT will be the next gay issue.
You tell us, Bert, what is the next gay issue going to be since you are "monitoring" it so closely. Still haven't been able to figure out just why it is so important to you. Could it be that you are waiting until you think it is the right time for you to come out of the closet?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2015 23:26:28 GMT -5
Personally I see the issue as already dealt with, and handled, by my God Himself. I am curious about this statement. Does this have to do with seeing life-altering disaster strike a person (or group of people) and attributing it to "God's disapproval" of that person or group of people? That is a very good question, Matisse.
I am also curious about that statement.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2015 23:40:23 GMT -5
Who dares say I am not a manly man and who dares say I am threatened by homosexuals? Who? I have endured their advances, even been their companions, fought beside them by saving their lives without a thought to their sexual preference. Do I agree with the known majority of their politics or sexual preferences? Absolutely not! Nor will I stand by an not raise a whimper when Lee is attacked! People! Please let people be! Personally I see the issue as already dealt with, and handled, by my God Himself.
Whatever the outcome, for me, the issue is settled, and not one for me to become involved in other than as much as this.
Yes, I like Gene, and many like him. Do I want, like or approve of their life style? No, not in the least, but what do I have to say about it? Naught but (empty?) words, which have been said over and over. I do not see any issue that I should just ignore when someone is being denied the rights of equality that all of us expect for ourselves.
It is the matter of being concerned about our neighbor rights as we would be about our own. If I won't take a stand for the rights of others how can I expect anyone to stand by me? This statement always comes to mind in these situations.
Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 0:31:07 GMT -5
Quote - "You tell us, Bert, what is the next gay issue going to be since you are "monitoring" it so closely. Still haven't been able to figure out just why it is so important to you. Could it be that you are waiting until you think it is the right time for you to come out of the closet?"
Dmmichgood, my dear angry friend. I chose the wrong word in "monitor", a better word is "watch." Some issues like race relations in America, I don't really "watch" but this one was closer to home. Like most people I don't care one way or the other about gays (we have enough in our family) but the politics of it interested me - that and how politics in general worked. So today when someone spoke about "power structures" in this country I didn't think of rich people - I thought of the true definition of "power" ie, ability to influence. That helps me understand how power truly works in our society. How we got from opprobrium to acceptance of homosexual marriage in ten years is quite telling of how our system works and how people word and craft issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 0:36:55 GMT -5
Quote - "There is a difference between charging someone for drinking alcohol and charging someone for child porn. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. As far as people changing over the centuries, thankfully they have. It was once okay to own other human beings. It was once okay to have child labor. Just to name a couple of things we have changed our minds about. Changing our minds about things once we have new data, isn't a bad thing. It is a sign that we were wrong in the first place and the change was needed. It would be worse to learn new data and still not change our ways of thinking about it. That would be more criminal imo."
Time article ca 2010 spoke of the way American conservatives felt about homosexual marriage. The article said to the effect that conservatives felt about "gay marriage" in the same way liberals felt about polygamy. But guess what - polygamy COULD be the next "last taboo" issue for American society.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 25, 2015 1:29:17 GMT -5
Quote - "You tell us, Bert, what is the next gay issue going to be since you are "monitoring" it so closely. Still haven't been able to figure out just why it is so important to you. Could it be that you are waiting until you think it is the right time for you to come out of the closet?" Dmmichgood, my dear angry friend. I chose the wrong word in "monitor", a better word is "watch." Some issues like race relations in America, I don't really "watch" but this one was closer to home. Like most people I don't care one way or the other about gays (we have enough in our family) but the politics of it interested me - that and how politics in general worked. So today when someone spoke about "power structures" in this country I didn't think of rich people - I thought of the true definition of "power" ie, ability to influence. \That helps me understand how power truly works in our society How we got from opprobrium to acceptance of homosexual marriage in ten years is quite telling of how our system works and how people word and craft issues. Really? "this one was closer to home? " You mean as close as the closet door?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 25, 2015 1:34:19 GMT -5
Quote - "There is a difference between charging someone for drinking alcohol and charging someone for child porn. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. As far as people changing over the centuries, thankfully they have. It was once okay to own other human beings. It was once okay to have child labor. Just to name a couple of things we have changed our minds about. Changing our minds about things once we have new data, isn't a bad thing. It is a sign that we were wrong in the first place and the change was needed. It would be worse to learn new data and still not change our ways of thinking about it. That would be more criminal imo." Time article ca 2010 spoke of the way American conservatives felt about homosexual marriage. The article said to the effect that conservatives felt about "gay marriage" in the same way liberals felt about polygamy. But guess what - polygamy COULD be the next "last taboo" issue for American society. Geeze!
Now you are wanting more than just one in the closet with you? How big is your closet?
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jun 25, 2015 4:28:56 GMT -5
Who dares say I am not a manly man and who dares say I am threatened by homosexuals? Who? I have endured their advances, even been their companions, fought beside them by saving their lives without a thought to their sexual preference. Do I agree with the known majority of their politics or sexual preferences? Absolutely not! Nor will I stand by an not raise a whimper when Lee is attacked! People! Please let people be! Personally I see the issue as already dealt with, and handled, by my God Himself.
Whatever the outcome, for me, the issue is settled, and not one for me to become involved in other than as much as this.
Yes, I like Gene, and many like him. Do I want, like or approve of their life style? No, not in the least, but what do I have to say about it? Naught but (empty?) words, which have been said over and over. I do not see any issue that I should just ignore when someone is being denied the rights of equality that all of us expect for ourselves.
It is the matter of being concerned about our neighbor rights as we would be about our own. If I won't take a stand for the rights of others how can I expect anyone to stand by me? This statement always comes to mind in these situations.
Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I shouldn't worry dmmichgood. It's doubtful anyone will take you. You're too mouthy. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 4:38:14 GMT -5
You would think, from that famous script from Martin Niemoller, that we have had homosexual marriage since our hunter-gatherer days. And you would think that to defend homosexual marriage you were swimming against the tide of public opinion. Not so in either case. Please don't quote Niemoller.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 25, 2015 5:31:46 GMT -5
You would think, from that famous script from Martin Niemoller, that we have had homosexual marriage since our hunter-gatherer days. And you would think that to defend homosexual marriage you were swimming against the tide of public opinion. Not so in either case. Please don't quote Niemoller. Are you forgetting that "They" (the Nazi's) hauled away the homosexuals, too, during the Holocaust? Niemoller is appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 5:37:46 GMT -5
What is appropriate here is the so-called "Hitler Fallacy" where we compare everything to one of history's worse figures. We 2x2's could use it too, if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 7:42:58 GMT -5
You would think, from that famous script from Martin Niemoller, that we have had homosexual marriage since our hunter-gatherer days. And you would think that to defend homosexual marriage you were swimming against the tide of public opinion. Not so in either case. Please don't quote Niemoller. Marriage among the hunter-gathers? I doubt you would have approved of the version of marriage that was practiced. Our ancestors, even those who came much later than the hunter-gather individuals, and the rest of animal species did not have the same feelings that you have regarding that "last taboo", polygamy. Do you really feel that there was no possibility of homosexual bonding in antiquity? There were few societies where homosexual couples have not existed. Hadrian had his wife but he also had Antinous. The condemnation of homosexuality is a somewhat new phenomena, considering the time humanoids have been around.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2015 11:14:16 GMT -5
Quote - "There is a difference between charging someone for drinking alcohol and charging someone for child porn. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. As far as people changing over the centuries, thankfully they have. It was once okay to own other human beings. It was once okay to have child labor. Just to name a couple of things we have changed our minds about. Changing our minds about things once we have new data, isn't a bad thing. It is a sign that we were wrong in the first place and the change was needed. It would be worse to learn new data and still not change our ways of thinking about it. That would be more criminal imo." Time article ca 2010 spoke of the way American conservatives felt about homosexual marriage. The article said to the effect that conservatives felt about "gay marriage" in the same way liberals felt about polygamy. But guess what - polygamy COULD be the next "last taboo" issue for American society.Okay, I'm probably just going to 'rest your case' with this comment but here goes. Is there a reason why polygamy is an issue? If all the adults are consenting, why is polygamy illegal? It should be both ways though, not just many wives, but many husbands too if that's the way it works for them. In a home with more two spouses, the children have more caregivers and possibly more bread winners too. It's not for everyone, but it does seem to work for some. Why are we against it if it works? It's not like it isn't biblical, the Hebrews did it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2015 11:18:53 GMT -5
You would think, from that famous script from Martin Niemoller, that we have had homosexual marriage since our hunter-gatherer days. And you would think that to defend homosexual marriage you were swimming against the tide of public opinion. Not so in either case. Please don't quote Niemoller. Marriage among the hunter-gathers? I doubt you would have approved of the version of marriage that was practiced. Our ancestors, even those who came much later than the hunter-gather individuals, and the rest of animal species did not have the same feelings that you have regarding that "last taboo", polygamy. Do you really feel that there was no possibility of homosexual bonding in antiquity? There were few societies where homosexual couples have not existed. Hadrian had his wife but he also had Antinous. The condemnation of homosexuality is a somewhat new phenomena, considering the time humanoids have been around. In some societies the homosexual was given a place of status (ie medicine man). It's just our 'one god' religions that seem to have a problem with it because of a few verses in Leveticus. It has happened for a long time, and has even been said to be used as a form of birth control, (never researched this, so not 100% sure it's true).
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 11:29:20 GMT -5
Okay, I'm probably just going to 'rest your case' with this comment but here goes. Is there a reason why polygamy is an issue? If all the adults are consenting, why is polygamy illegal? It should be both ways though, not just many wives, but many husbands too if that's the way it works for them. In a home with more two spouses, the children have more caregivers and possibly more bread winners too. It's not for everyone, but it does seem to work for some. Why are we against it if it works? It's not like it isn't biblical, the Hebrews did it. Historically the advantage of multiple wives was economic. More wives meant more children. Having an excess number of husbands added little value to the group. When did multiple spouses become illegal?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2015 13:59:20 GMT -5
Okay, I'm probably just going to 'rest your case' with this comment but here goes. Is there a reason why polygamy is an issue? If all the adults are consenting, why is polygamy illegal? It should be both ways though, not just many wives, but many husbands too if that's the way it works for them. In a home with more two spouses, the children have more caregivers and possibly more bread winners too. It's not for everyone, but it does seem to work for some. Why are we against it if it works? It's not like it isn't biblical, the Hebrews did it. Historically the advantage of multiple wives was economic. More wives meant more children. Having an excess number of husbands added little value to the group. When did multiple spouses become illegal? In Canada it's on the books in the Criminal code section 293 with up to 5 years in prison. It was legislated because of the Mormons I believe and until the 1950's it actually had Mormon (well Church of latter day saints) in the wording. Bigamy is also named as a crime in section 290 of the Criminal Code. However, not sure it's ever been successful in charges. We've been in an ongoing battle with the Bountiful Mormon Group around Creston, BC for some time because of allegations of underage females being wed to elders in the group. They tried the polygamy route, but don't think they've been successful. Not sure what the laws are in your country. Polygamy 293. (1) Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Marginal note:Evidence in case of polygamy (2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse. R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 18:26:27 GMT -5
Quote - "Marriage among the hunter-gathers? I doubt you would have approved of the version of marriage that was practiced. Our ancestors, even those who came much later than the hunter-gather individuals, and the rest of animal species did not have the same feelings that you have regarding that "last taboo", polygamy."
Two answers to that 1 - natural heterosexual bonding is genetic to us 2 - just in - during the hunter gatherer stage, one study found that the average father was had fourteen wives/women/partners. So 13 guys went without. That could be the basis for homosexuality!
Quote - "Do you really feel that there was no possibility of homosexual bonding in antiquity? There were few societies where homosexual couples have not existed. Hadrian had his wife but he also had Antinous. The condemnation of homosexuality is a somewhat new phenomena, considering the time humanoids have been around."
This argument is soon to be used for pederasty. The argument is ignored for slavery, sexism and empire.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 25, 2015 18:51:16 GMT -5
Quote - "There is a difference between charging someone for drinking alcohol and charging someone for child porn. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. As far as people changing over the centuries, thankfully they have. It was once okay to own other human beings. It was once okay to have child labor. Just to name a couple of things we have changed our minds about. Changing our minds about things once we have new data, isn't a bad thing. It is a sign that we were wrong in the first place and the change was needed. It would be worse to learn new data and still not change our ways of thinking about it. That would be more criminal imo." Time article ca 2010 spoke of the way American conservatives felt about homosexual marriage. The article said to the effect that conservatives felt about "gay marriage" in the same way liberals felt about polygamy. But guess what - polygamy COULD be the next "last taboo" issue for American society.Okay, I'm probably just going to 'rest your case' with this comment but here goes. Is there a reason why polygamy is an issue? If all the adults are consenting, why is polygamy illegal? It should be both ways though, not just many wives, but many husbands too if that's the way it works for them. In a home with more two spouses, the children have more caregivers and possibly more bread winners too. It's not for everyone, but it does seem to work for some. Why are we against it if it works? It's not like it isn't biblical, the Hebrews did it. Shhhh, Snow! Not yet! Wait until after the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules in favor of same-sex marriage tomorrow. Then we can start advocating for polygamy next week!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 21:10:28 GMT -5
Quote - "Marriage among the hunter-gathers? I doubt you would have approved of the version of marriage that was practiced. Our ancestors, even those who came much later than the hunter-gather individuals, and the rest of animal species did not have the same feelings that you have regarding that "last taboo", polygamy." Two answers to that 1 - natural heterosexual bonding is genetic to usAnd it is becoming clear that so is homosexuality. [/b] [/quote]So "he "last taboo" is just a recent development. It isn't an argument. Just stating facts.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 21:15:35 GMT -5
Shhhh, Snow! Not yet! Wait until after the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules in favor of same-sex marriage tomorrow. Then we can start advocating for polygamy next week! And when homosexuals win that right next week how will the rest of us every know if it is polygyny, polyandry, or polyamory!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 22:16:40 GMT -5
Shhhh, Snow! Not yet! Wait until after the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules in favor of same-sex marriage tomorrow. Then we can start advocating for polygamy next week! And when homosexuals win that right next week how will the rest of us every know if it is polygyny, polyandry, or polyamory! Marriage was once a set-in-stone, organic foundation to society. When marriage becomes a political issue then why can't a man have a weekend-only marriage to two women or three boys? Will homosexuals (or their supporters) deny everyone else their conjugal rights?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2015 23:00:56 GMT -5
Marriage was once a set-in-stone, organic foundation to society.Since it has not always been as you describe why do you think it will not continue to change? Excellent question. If everyone is a consenting adult why not, bert? Is this your fear? I am much more worried about christians gaining a foothold in the education system.
|
|