• You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋
  • IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->

Political Bullshit (1 Viewer)

0 is conservative, 10 is liberal.


  • Total voters
    34

Cade

The Rainman, (Administrator)
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
RedCents
1,041¢
Red will probably not like this, so he can delete it if he doesn't.

If anyone says anything inappropriate, I will delete the thread.

Since a good deal of people don't associate themselves with a party, I'm going to use a conservative/liberal scale. 0 is completely conservative, 10 is completely liberal.

This is the place to talk about anything relating to politics, how good or bad you think our president is, if gay marriage should be allowed, etc.

Discuss.

EDIT: For clarification, I'm going you have you color code your paragraphs depending on what you're talking about.

Purple is gay rights
Green is environmental bullshit
Blue is global warming
Teal is animal rights
Dark orange is guns/gun control
For now, everything else is black, but I may add more later.
 
Last edited:
Re: Let's talk about politics

I'd be happy to talk about a single topic just name it Cade!
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Very few sane people can argue that a subsection of the population should have less rights than others.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

qevlhma said:
Very few sane people can argue that a subsection of the population should have less rights than others.

That doesn't really seem like a 100% conservative standpoint...but in either case, I agree completely.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

I saw this on a message board several months back, and the biting sarcasm is hilarious.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
I agree with giving gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. It's just a matter of time before it happens.

The U.S. is so screwed up. They'll show people ripping other people's guts out with a hook in a movie or television show, and it's all right for little Timmy to see that, but OMG not boobs or penises or god forbid a furburger. It might damage them mentally.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Gondola said:
I agree with giving gay couples the same rights as hetero couples. It's just a matter of time before it happens.

The U.S. is so screwed up. They'll show people ripping other people's guts out with a hook in a movie or television show, and it's all right for little Timmy to see that, but OMG not boobs or penises or god forbid a furburger. It might damage them mentally.
I completly agree.

The main aguement that my anti-gay friends have stated are that...
1. Marriage is meant for having children.
2. Being gay is against the bible's teachings.
3. Gay doesn't actually exist, its just a cry for attention.

1. So people who don't want, or are unable to have, children should not be allowed to marry?
2. Seperation of church and state, so that no longer a valid rational.
3. I guess those gay porn sites will be dissapointed when no one visits them, because no one really likes them :(.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

In reply to what you just posted for your top 10, the arguement as it stands right now is not for "Gay Marriage" but rather for "Gay Rights", such as Civil Rights to have a legal and binding civil union. There are extremists who will argue that they want the term "Marriage", but it ultimatly boils down to christian religious terminology which will never happen. We have to step away, divide religion from the legal system, and then look at what is fair for all groups of people, minority or majority.

What people do in their own homes behind closed doors, with regards that its not a "crime against humanity", should not be governed by the government. When that is taken out into public, ultimately people are fighting for the right to have their life partner have things like power of attourney instead of it going back to the blood-line - Thus a "civil union".

You can't sit back and judge a gay person vs. a straight person based on the choice of their sexual behavior. The DSM-VI ( Diagnostic and Staticical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders, Version 4 *and Text Revision 3*) both have removed homosexuality as a psychiatric and treatable condition. This should show that the times in itself are changing. Back to my point though, because the homosexual population is a minority, the things that it does tends to point out the more extremist behavior rather than stable couples because that's what the media feeds off of to support political agendas.

In conclusion, behavior and strife compared between heterosexuals and homosexuals is identical in a sociological setting. Both sides are promiscuous. Both sides catch diseases. Both sides have social burdens upon them. The majority is not always right, nor should it be based on religious values.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE!

But in all seriousness,

If gays would just shut the fuck up about coming out, people would suddenly stop caring. I went to a Vocational/Art school and about 40% of the Art population was gay (including males and females) and nobody cared. Why? Because they weren't walking around screaming "I'M GAY AND HAPPY ABOUT IT AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT YOU CAN JUST DEAL WITH IT!"

There are some definite environmental issues out there. The world is running out of oil, it is destroying wildlife at an alarming rate and polution is through the roof. However, to counterbalance that, there are certain technologies currently on the brink of explosion that will remove our dependency on oil, nobody liked the dodo bird anyway (and FUCK pandas, unless they are the Happy Panda), and pollution is significantly improving.

Fuck global warming.

Animals have no rights

WRITE IN COLOR

Lemon Chiffon is for Guns

I am a firm believer that guns are a tool and that are used by human beings. Saying guns "kill" people is like saying you aren't the one mispelling all of the words in an essay, it's your pen's fault
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TeachersPet said:


WRITE IN COLOR

Lemon Chiffon is for Guns

I am a firm believer that gune a tool and that are used by human beings. Saying guns "kill" people is like saying you aren't the one mispelling all of the words in an essay, it's your pen's fault
Jerk
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TeachersPet said:
Lemon Chiffon is for Guns

I am a firm believer that guns are a tool and that are used by human beings. Saying guns "kill" people is like saying you aren't the one mispelling all of the words in an essay, it's your pen's fault


Well, then even then if you want to go by the terminology, Guns dont even hurt people, unless you decide to hit someone over the head with it, It is the bullets that kill people, get rid of the damn bullets, and we wont have a problem. That and we need to get rid of the SMG's and Assault rifles we have that people can just buy, handguns for protection, shotguns for hunting and if you must, Rifles for war, do let them keep these things in the places without war, give them to the people who are where the war is at

That and, Lemon Chiffon sucks


Guns should be Dark Orange
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Getting back to liberal versus conservative, I beilieve it was George Carlin who put it so eloquently when he said Democrats have no ideas and Republican ideas are bad.

We need a middle of the road party, I guess it could be called the "Bend Over and Grab Your Socks" party cause that's what these two parties have us doing.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

I think it was Sean hannity that said that "do not depend on your government. It doesn’t matter if it’s republican or democrat. They will fail you. It s the way the system is set up". You will never please everyone. We are a diverse culture. And that’s what makes America great. You can agree to disagree.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Shiminee said:
Getting back to liberal versus conservative, I beilieve it was George Carlin who put it so eloquently when he said Democrats have no ideas and Republican ideas are bad.

We need a middle of the road party, I guess it could be called the "Bend Over and Grab Your Socks" party cause that's what these two parties have us doing.

It was Lewis Black who said that, and, the Libertarian party.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

At this rate if we want to allow Gay Marriage we need to open it up for the full pleasure of marriage! Let’s let 3 or 4 people all get married. Better yet we could have a pool party and everyone get married to each other. Think of the honeymoon that would be! I understand that there is a subculture here that wants acceptance but they have to understand that it's not all free healthcare and weddings. I think they should be subject to the marriage penalty on their income taxes just like everyone else.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Cade said:
It was Lewis Black who said that, and, the Libertarian party.

Oh I'd love to be Libertarian if only they'd drop the "Legalize it" crowd. I don't want the State (or Fed) to do anything. If I try and do well don't take from me. If I try and I fail I'm not going to be looking for a hand out.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

solar said:
At this rate if we want to allow Gay Marriage we need to open it up for the full pleasure of marriage! Let’s let 3 or 4 people all get married. Better yet we could have a pool party and everyone get married to each other. Think of the honeymoon that would be! I understand that there is a subculture here that wants acceptance but they have to understand that it's not all free healthcare and weddings. I think they should be subject to the marriage penalty on their income taxes just like everyone else.
Civil Union is what the legal debate is about. "Gay Marriage" is a term coined by conservative religious denominiations. There is a big difference. However, the fight is for the same rights as a "Married" couple would have. States have abolished same-sex couples from simply adopting a child because of the "mental duress" that it would cause the child. I hardly can even concieve a point that two men or two women would cause any more duress than a straight couple. People are people and this is a political battle so that the government doesn't have to pay taxes, make judiciary policies, and adjust the IRS and major insurance companies to accomodate the change.

On another note, screaming homosexuals like TeachersPet said really get on my nerves and make a bad impression for those people who really truly do without religious and political barriers deserve the exact same hell that heterosexual couples have.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TeachersPet said:
But in all seriousness,

If gays would just shut the fuck up about coming out, people would suddenly stop caring. I went to a Vocational/Art school and about 40% of the Art population was gay (including males and females) and nobody cared. Why? Because they weren't walking around screaming "I'M GAY AND HAPPY ABOUT IT AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT YOU CAN JUST DEAL WITH IT!"

I couldn't agree more. Occasionally you'll see "Gay Marches". What the FUCK is wrong with these people. A ton of guys running down the street in black leather and other misc costumes or women dressed as biker looking men. The guys are screaming about how they love dick, and the women are there to hold their "I LOVE PUSSY" signs. More to TP's point...if you don't want to be treated different, sit down...shut the fuck up...and don't act different.

Before anyone brings it up....YES, it would be equally as annoying if straight people marched down the street proclaiming their sexual interests in the other sex. Gay marches ANGER me. It's a demonstration in the streets proclaiming that which should be private...the sexual choices of those marching.

TurkReno raised an interesting point that gays shouldn't be discriminated against based on that which is behind closed doors and private. I think it's worthwhile to note that with all the gay marches going on, many gay people aren't keeping it a private issue. Being "GAY" is NOT a religon, skin color, disability or anything else that should be championed. Being "GAY" is completely based on and about that which is private about a person...their sex life.

So for many gays to make an "event" of "coming out of the closet", or participate in public demonstrations where they proclaim their sexual interests, I think THOSE specific acts are irrational and should be condemned by clear thinking people...including other gays who actually have self respect. Keep in mind I stated those ACTIONS are to be condemned...not being "GAY" itself.

I suppose the last thing to tackle then is the gay marriage issue. First of all, matrimony comes from religion...and religion largely and in most cases, almost entirely condemns homosexuality. Having said that, the government can choose to recognize and respect religion and it's traditions in society, but does not have the authority to change it or force it on anyone. By offering benefits of any kind to a "married" couple, this isn't actually an endorsement of religon in the way that it's really no different than when the government offers certain exclusive benefits to immigrants or minorities. The government evaluates society and many factors and then our elected representatives hash out ideas and "programs" that they feel serve the better good of society. Our government feels that after folks, of their own choice decide marriage and thus the start of a new household in our country...that commitment of stability or the attempt therof is then aided and encoraged.

So, the government isn't wrong to endorse and support "marriage" in it's traditional form, but I think it's an important question to ask: "Has the government taken the time to review the efforts of homosexual people and their wishes to also form peaceful unions whereby they commit to the attempt at making society a bit more stable, and then has the government had any findings as to whether this type of union is deserving of it's own "status" as recognized by the united states government.

As is easily researched, the government has, in fact, reviewed this many times and the government has largely fullfilled it's duties in doing so. The decision to decline the official recognition of homosexual unions has been typically based on a large spread of factors...inclusive is all the irrational public marches by where people gather to proclaim their SEXUAL interests loudly, and of course the countless research studies that support the idea that homosexual relationships are less stable statistically and therefor not as signifigant of a benefit to society as would be a "traditional" marriage. The research studies can be disputed, and rest assured they are daily...the debate rides forward...but these factors are some of the things that have helped us get to where we are on the issue.




OK OK OK....now the conclusion: (Gay people, please pay attention):

When the majority of you stop acting different, the majority of society will be more inclined to stop treating you different." Marriage was endorsed by the government not because of religon, but because the government felt that "married couples" contributed to a more stable society. It's not a givcen right, it was an afforded legal status...just as would be receiving wellfare, unemployement etc...marriage is just a bit more long term lol. If you want your "civil union" recognized...sit down, shut the fuck up and stop all the irrational, different acting bullshit and perhaps you'll be taken seriously. To you gay guys...yes yes...I realize...you love cock...it does wonders for you. And to you gay women...I know, I know...pussy is a gift from god...but by proclaiming what sexually excites you (which is all you do when you proclaim you're gay)...that by itself is not going to make you seem more entitled to any status. When you approach the government seeking recognition of your civil unity, approach them explaining that REGARDLESS of what you do behind closed doors, you're equally entitled to share your life and belongings with another individual as others are entitled to legal marriages.

Go, and base your arguement SOLEY on who you are and what you contribute to society...and your case will gain validity. Until then, you're asking uncle sam to legally acknowledge and grant you some kind of status based on the fact that you love dick or pussy (gay marches, gay pride week, gay prides festivals, gay bars etc)...what a fucking joke.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Kraze said:
I couldn't agree more. Occasionally you'll see "Gay Marches". What the FUCK is wrong with these people. A ton of guys running down the street in black leather and other misc costumes or women dressed as biker looking men. The guys are screaming about how they love dick, and the women are there to hold their "I LOVE PUSSY" signs. More to TP's point...if you don't want to be treated different, sit down...shut the fuck up...and don't act different.

Before anyone brings it up....YES, it would be equally as annoying if straight people marched down the street proclaiming their sexual interests in the other sex. Gay marches ANGER me. It's a demonstration in the streets proclaiming that which should be private...the sexual choices of those marching.

TurkReno raised an interesting point that gays shouldn't be discriminated against based on that which is behind closed doors and private. I think it's worthwhile to note that with all the gay marches going on, many gay people aren't keeping it a private issue. Being "GAY" is NOT a religon, skin color, disability or anything else that should be championed. Being "GAY" is completely based on and about that which is private about a person...their sex life.

So for many gays to make an "event" of "coming out of the closet", or participate in public demonstrations where they proclaim their sexual interests, I think THOSE specific acts are irrational and should be condemned by clear thinking people...including other gays who actually have self respect. Keep in mind I stated those ACTIONS are to be condemned...not being "GAY" itself.

I suppose the last thing to tackle then is the gay marriage issue. First of all, matrimony comes from religion...and religion largely and in most cases, almost entirely condemns homosexuality. Having said that, the government can choose to recognize and respect religion and it's traditions in society, but does not have the authority to change it or force it on anyone. By offering benefits of any kind to a "married" couple, this isn't actually an endorsement of religon in the way that it's really no different than when the government offers certain exclusive benefits to immigrants or minorities. The government evaluates society and many factors and then our elected representatives hash out ideas and "programs" that they feel serve the better good of society. Our government feels that after folks, of their own choice decide marriage and thus the start of a new household in our country...that commitment of stability or the attempt therof is then aided and encoraged.

So, the government isn't wrong to endorse and support "marriage" in it's traditional form, but I think it's an important question to ask: "Has the government taken the time to review the efforts of homosexual people and their wishes to also form peaceful unions whereby they commit to the attempt at making society a bit more stable, and then has the government had any findings as to whether this type of union is deserving of it's own "status" as recognized by the united states government.

As is easily researched, the government has, in fact, reviewed this many times and the government has largely fullfilled it's duties in doing so. The decision to decline the official recognition of homosexual unions has been typically based on a large spread of factors...inclusive is all the irrational public marches by where people gather to proclaim their SEXUAL interests loudly, and of course the countless research studies that support the idea that homosexual relationships are less stable statistically and therefor not as signifigant of a benefit to society as would be a "traditional" marriage. The research studies can be disputed, and rest assured they are daily...the debate rides forward...but these factors are some of the things that have helped us get to where we are on the issue.




OK OK OK....now the conclusion: (Gay people, please pay attention):

When the majority of you stop acting different, the majority of society will be more inclined to stop treating you different." Marriage was endorsed by the government not because of religon, but because the government felt that "married couples" contributed to a more stable society. It's not a givcen right, it was an afforded legal status...just as would be receiving wellfare, unemployement etc...marriage is just a bit more long term lol. If you want your "civil union" recognized...sit down, shut the fuck up and stop all the irrational, different acting bullshit and perhaps you'll be taken seriously. To you gay guys...yes yes...I realize...you love cock...it does wonders for you. And to you gay women...I know, I know...pussy is a gift from god...but by proclaiming what sexually excites you (which is all you do when you proclaim you're gay)...that by itself is not going to make you seem more entitled to any status. When you approach the government seeking recognition of your civil unity, approach them explaining that REGARDLESS of what you do behind closed doors, you're equally entitled to share your life and belongings with another individual as others are entitled to legal marriages.

Go, and base your arguement SOLEY on who you are and what you contribute to society...and your case will gain validity. Until then, you're asking uncle sam to legally acknowledge and grant you some kind of status based on the fact that you love dick or pussy (gay marches, gay pride week, gay prides festivals, gay bars etc)...what a fucking joke.
I think that a lot of people will agree with most, if not all of what you say. But, what superceeds all of that is how exactly are homosexuals to establish that they lead normal, everyday lives and don't march on Washington D.C. to fight for rights? Marches, such as a civil rights march with or without ass-less chaps, are a point to be made. The right, even though it is not a racial issue, is a private sexual issue that is denied to people solely based on statistical facts that are completely biased and erronious which the government feeds to us daily, only to not upset the economy by a fraction.

It is true that some homosexuals ostricise themselves for the sheer fact of trying to make a point, but you have to look at how that sociological behavior developed. Was Boy George their role-model for being gay? Or, was it the Oedipus complex's disassociation that Freud/Jung described that had lead many psycologists to therein put the DSM-I through DSM-III to classify homosexuality as a disorder/disease? Personally, there is a lot to be learned from this.

Take a small-town mentality in the south United States, for example. You can take a handful of homosexuals that stand out, and state that they're "out" and see how differently their behavior is from others...being more effiminate. Since this is not the way that one should behave from a sociological point of view, those people are generally attacked in verbal, physical, mental and emotional ways that could very easily be compared to the same crimes committed during and before the Civil Rights Movement. Hate crimes are generated by religious and political motivations and social norms. If the United States is the home of freedom, then the choice to behave in a non-violent fashion behind closed doors, regardless of your sexual preference, should not be determined by the government. Hate is REAL towards this group and its a completely biased hate that has no grounding other than sexual reproduction.

AIDS was found that its not a homosexual disease, rather its something that could just as easily be transmitted by heterosexuals. AIDS is a disease of Humans, not Homosexuals. I've seen the hate of signs saying "AIDS Cures Fags" and "God sent AIDS to rid the world of homosexuals". Thank the Westborough Baptist Church and how they influence the hatred and hypocritical attitude in this country.

Did you know that homosexuality in Georgia is techincally against the law? Did you know that homosexuals, specifically, cannot have the rights to adopt a child in Florida? Homosexuals have taken a non-violent response as to the terrorism that the citizens of the United States have inflicted upon them, yet there are hate crimes commited every single day against them and you don't hear of any fighting back. Call them pussies or sissies, but it all boils down to being repressed by the system and society. Had the lifestyle been accepted sooner, there would be no marches in ass-less chaps and no need for GLAAD or PFLAG to try and make people more aware of what equal civil rights really should be.

I say let them march and let the stomachs of the American people churn until they get exactly what they want. The people have done enough to them that they deserve exactly what they're getting back.
 
Last edited:
Re: Let's talk about politics

I completly agree Turk. It doesn't matter what you call it, denying Gay people some economic advantages that is avaliable to other people is discrimination.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

alucard said:
I completly agree Turk. It doesn't matter what you call it, denying Gay people some economic advantages that is avaliable to other people is discrimination.
Its not just economical. Its about the right to live equally.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TurkReno said:
I think that a lot of people will agree with most, if not all of what you say. But, what superceeds all of that is how exactly are homosexuals to establish that they lead normal, everyday lives and don't march on Washington D.C. to fight for rights? Marches, such as a civil rights march with or without ass-less chaps, are a point to be made. The right, even though it is not a racial issue, is a private sexual issue that is denied to people solely based on statistical facts that are completely biased and erronious which the government feeds to us daily, only to not upset the economy by a fraction.

It is true that some homosexuals ostricise themselves for the sheer fact of trying to make a point, but you have to look at how that sociological behavior developed. Was Boy George their role-model for being gay? Or, was it the Oedipus complex's disassociation that Freud/Jung described that had lead many psycologists to therein put the DSM-I through DSM-III to classify homosexuality as a disorder/disease? Personally, there is a lot to be learned from this.

Take a small-town mentality in the south United States, for example. You can take a handful of homosexuals that stand out, and state that they're "out" and see how differently their behavior is from others...being more effiminate. Since this is not the way that one should behave from a sociological point of view, those people are generally attacked in verbal, physical, mental and emotional ways that could very easily be compared to the same crimes committed during and before the Civil Rights Movement. Hate crimes are generated by religious and political motivations and social norms. If the United States is the home of freedom, then the choice to behave in a non-violent fashion behind closed doors, regardless of your sexual preference, should not be determined by the government. Hate is REAL towards this group and its a completely biased hate that has no grounding other than sexual reproduction.

AIDS was found that its not a homosexual disease, rather its something that could just as easily be transmitted by heterosexuals. AIDS is a disease of Humans, not Homosexuals. I've seen the hate of signs saying "AIDS Cures Fags" and "God sent AIDS to rid the world of homosexuals". Thank the Westborough Baptist Church and how they influence the hatred and hypocritical attitude in this country.

Did you know that homosexuality in Georgia is techincally against the law? Did you know that homosexuals, specifically, cannot have the rights to adopt a child in Florida? Homosexuals have taken a non-violent response as to the terrorism that the citizens of the United States have inflicted upon them, yet there are hate crimes commited every single day against them and you don't hear of any fighting back. Call them pussies or sissies, but it all boils down to being repressed by the system and society. Had the lifestyle been accepted sooner, there would be no marches in ass-less chaps and no GLAAD or PFLAG.

I say let them march and let the stomachs of the American people churn until they get exactly what they want. The people have done enough to them that they deserve exactly what they're getting back.

Alright, first let's establish simplicity. My arguement is that gay folks act "differently" and yet have the expectation of not being treated "differently". I think that mindset and behavior is seriously misguided and part of what is working against homosexuals. The essence of your reply suggests that gay people have been treated poorly for so long, that they are justified in acting irrationally and everyone else should just get over it and find such behaviors acceptable.

You also compare the way gay people are treated to the way that black people (and other minorities) were treated during the Civil Rights Movement. These are completely seperate issues and your comparison is WAY off. People were persecuted based on the color of their skin, and oppressed soley on that...not at all they way they interacted with society or because of their irrational behavior. These people were HATED on based on something as simple as their skin color...regardless of how decent they were as human beings. Now, no clear thinking individual can justifiably compare the way blacks and other minorities were treated to gays and their situation.

For the record, I think science has already proven or strongly supports that being "gay" is something you are born with, and not neccessarily a "choice". I also believe this to be true.

However, it's my position that gay people have to fight an uphill battle based on thier behavior, not their sexual preference. Are there people who, in a racist fashion, dislike ALL GAY PEOPLE? Sure, but my post that you quoted was not specifically addressing them...I was discussing the United States government and gay people's place in society regarding "rights". I stand behind my belief that "gay" people are making their own fight because what is largely resisted in america is their very public, radical behaviors and desire to "stand out" and be "proud". It's a rediculous fucking statement "I'm gay and I'm proud". It's as fucking stupid as "I like mashed potatoes and I'm proud!" or even "I'm straight and I'm proud!".

Many gay people square the arguement around their sexual preferences, and that is where my objection comes in. The advice I'm offering is that if people who happen to be gay wish to be taken seriously when fighting for legal civil unions and getting obsolete laws overturned...they need to approach it as responsible citizens and shape the debate around the fact that they are decent americans who happen to want civil unions with people of the same sex. When people who happen to be gay demonstate via the "chicks with dicks" rally, the "dikes on bikes" convention and the "Drag Queens Unite!" parade, they only make a mockery of themselves and instead of being a legitimate demonstration, they become a circus spectacal, at best.

I suppose in the end, what it really comes down to is 2 main points. First, sexual preference should never enter the debate. John and Bob should be able to have a civil union whether they have sex or not, even if both are straight males. The actual love and sex should be that of a personal nature and have nothing to do with the legal status of the union. That is something that John and Bob bring to the relationship...not congress. So when people who happen to be gay fight for rights to this union, the arguement has got to stop being "we like having sex with the same sex and you need to be okay with that" and become "we're citizens and nothing else other than that fact is important. As citizens, we should be afforded the eligibility to earn to same things as other citizens...PERIOD." The fact that you are GAY is beside the point. Nobody HAS TO BE okay with guys who want to suck dick...that is a personal choice for people to be okay with that or not in our society. Some will think that is fine, some will never...but that is just not the issue. It is beyond the pale to have the expectation that you be entitled to something BASED ON what sexually excites you. Bullshit.

Lastly, if you're gonna become serious and persue the issue of protecting your rights as a CITIZEN (not a gay person...again sexual preference is not a factor to even be considered) then do so as a responsible adult and not a fucking carnival sideshow. You might grabs TONS of attention that way...but not always the attention you want (which then becomes fucking deserved), and you'll be working AGAINST yourself...as history continues to show.



GAY POWER!
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

My thoughts go something like this.. @#$& it, do whatever you want, does it really matter in the end? We're all dead anyhow. Its just a matter of Where, Why, When and How.
Just my humble opinion on life :)
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

I'm sure Turk is workin on a reply LOL....I can't wait to read it lol....AFK getting a beer...
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

I think you're wrong. People who express the fact they are "gay and proud" do it as an affront to the people who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and the sexuality of others. The same people who wish all homosexuals to be the homogenized, white bread, homosexual-down-the-street of Will and Grace want homosexuals to be seen and not heard. Don't ask, don't tell...that's complete and total horseshit now, by the way. Many left-wing people have said countless times, "I don't mind gay people, just so long as they don't do it infront of me".

For someone to come out and admit that they are gay is a psychologically trying and emotional experience. For you to say that they have no right to speak or voice the fact of their new-found mentality/maturity development is directly saying that you're most likely someone that has no real life experience, at best. You might as well be the pedigree dog at that point who has been groomed to repeat everything that Bill O'Reilly says.

This is all centered around the only reason the rights are not granted is because some asshole in the whitehouse who has oil coming out of his ears thinks that homosexuality is "iky". Americans are their own terrorists.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TurkReno said:
I think you're wrong. People who express the fact they are "gay and proud" do it as an affront to the people who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and the sexuality of others. The same people who wish all homosexuals to be the homogenized, white bread, homosexual-down-the-street of Will and Grace want homosexuals to be seen and not heard. Don't ask, don't tell...that's complete and total horseshit now, by the way. Many left-wing people have said countless times, "I don't mind gay people, just so long as they don't do it infront of me".

For someone to come out and admit that they are gay is a psychologically trying and emotional experience. For you to say that they have no right to speak or voice the fact of their new-found mentality/maturity development is directly saying that you're most likely someone that has no real life experience, at best. You might as well be the pedigree dog at that point who has been groomed to repeat everything that Bill O'Reilly says.

This is all centered around the only reason the rights are not granted is because some asshole in the whitehouse who has oil coming out of his ears thinks that homosexuality is "iky". Americans are their own terrorists.

First of all, you just can't seem to stay on point and you're rambling...bill o'reilly...the while house....iky oil....wtf? LOL STEP AWAY FROM THE BONG - My turn for a hit!

Fact is, the subject of my posts have been about a civil union for people who happen to be gay and how whether they arte entitled, and if so how to attain it. You also said the following:

"For you to say that they have no right to speak or voice the fact of their new-found mentality/maturity development is..."

I never once, in any of my posts, said gay people didn't have this right. What I DID say was that a.) individual people have as much right to reject it as gay people have right to say it...and b.) that this statement made by gay people should never enter the debate when fighting for rights to a civil union. Those rights should be based on equal rights as a CITIZEN of the USA, not because they are "proud" of their SEXUAL choices. It's a distraction from the real issue.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

Kraze said:
So for many gays to make an "event" of "coming out of the closet", or participate in public demonstrations where they proclaim their sexual interests, I think THOSE specific acts are irrational and should be condemned by clear thinking people...including other gays who actually have self respect. Keep in mind I stated those ACTIONS are to be condemned...not being "GAY" itself.
Yep...I've made my point now. Speaking is acting. Silence is inaction in this case.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TurkReno said:
Yep...I've made my point now.
[/color]

Well again, read the quote...I didn't say at all that they didn't have the "right" to say they were proud of being gay.

Also, in the context in which that quote was presented, I describe that "I THINK"...meaning ME....I think that the SPECIFIC acts of publically declaring one's SEXUAL desires PUBLICALLY and making an event of it is to be condemned. I stand behind it. Also, as I stated before, I'd be saying the same thing about straight guys who stand in the middle of the park with signs and banners describing what they like in the sack.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

But homosexuals and heterosexuals do not have the same rights, so let them hold their signs. You've just again said that you'd rather have homosexuals be seen and not heard. Yes, you did say that the have the "right" to state this, however you also said that anyone who stated they were should be condemmed. This still buys into condemming someone and someone taking the fall for something, yet again a discriminiative statement. You're discriminating and the debate is over until you can come back with a solid black or white stance. You're either for or against.

You really should lay off the beer if you want a solid arguement, Kraze.
 
Re: Let's talk about politics

TurkReno said:
But homosexuals and heterosexuals do not have the same rights, so let them hold their signs. You've just again said that you'd rather have homosexuals be seen and not heard. Yes, you did say that the have the "right" to state this, however you also said that anyone who stated they were should be condemmed. This still buys into condemming someone and someone taking the fall for something, yet again a discriminiative statement. You're discriminating and the debate is over until you can come back with a solid black or white stance. You're either for or against.

You really should lay off the beer if you want a solid arguement, Kraze.

First of all, you have yet to stay on the actual topic which is gay marriage (civil unions) and the rights that gay people have regarding that. Because you have no solid counter for my position on that issue, you've decided to do 2 things...1.) attempt to shift the debate to a free speech/rights of expression debate. 2.) Attempt to twist my words in my posts and by doing so confuse the issue, which you have failed at.

Specifically, as CLEARLY stated before, I think public demonstrations of ones SEXUAL preferences are idotic and to be condemned. Banners and signs describing one's sexual doings are indeed idotic. If they want to hold signs, they should not be about their private life (gay is just a reference to sexual preference)...the signs should read something along the lines of "I'M A CITIZEN AND DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS" PERIOD. Make the arguement about your rights as a citizen, not your rights as a GAY PERSON. I have news for ya...being GAY doesn't buy you a fucking thing...being a citizen of the united states is what gives you rights.

Gonna divert again or can we stay on topic now?
 
Political Bullshit

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top