Pseudo-POL: "Gays and lesbians"

[SackAttack]

Not really looking to start anything here, as my tongue is firmly in its cheek (hence the "Psuedo"), but this is prompted by a quote I read from Senator Obama regarding today's judicial confirmation:

Southwick has shown hostility toward civil rights and a disregard for equal rights for minorities, women, gays and lesbians.

So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?

Or perhaps the other way around?

[Bubba Wheels]

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

[ThunderingHERD]

the MPAA?

[Maple Leafs]

So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?
"How's this for a compromise: We allow gay marriage, but only for the lesbians. Marriage is really a chick thing anyways..." - Bill Maher

[Kodos]

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'


Like the "special right" to get married to the person you love?

[path12]

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

What does it mean when a conservative says it? I guess I wasn't aware of all the 'special rights' gays and lesbians have. Except for the having sex with each other part that is.

[Flasch186]

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

In before the lock and banning. yes.

[miami_fan]

Not really looking to start anything here, as my tongue is firmly in its cheek (hence the "Psuedo"), but this is prompted by a quote I read from Senator Obama regarding today's judicial confirmation:



So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?

Or perhaps the other way around?

You put "gays" and "lesbians" in the title and thought it was not going to start something?

Are you new here?;)

[Bubba Wheels]

What does it mean when a conservative says it? I guess I wasn't aware of all the 'special rights' gays and lesbians have. Except for the having sex with each other part that is.

Gays and lesbians in our society already have tolerance, what they are pushing for now is obviously acceptance. You cannot force someone to believe that a certain kind of lifestyle is acceptable, but apparently that is the new mission of government in our lives.

[Bubba Wheels]

Probably a flurry of PMs going back and forth to seek bannination on me for not being part of the 'hive' mentality on this. Do your worst.

[path12]

Gays and lesbians in our society already have tolerance, what they are pushing for now is obviously acceptance. You cannot force someone to believe that a certain kind of lifestyle is acceptable, but apparently that is the new mission of government in our lives.

But.......what does any of that have to do with 'special rights'? Tolerance and acceptance don't have anything to do with law. Discrimination does however.

[Crapshoot]

Gays and lesbians in our society already have tolerance, what they are pushing for now is obviously acceptance. You cannot force someone to believe that a certain kind of lifestyle is acceptable, but apparently that is the new mission of government in our lives.

The English language seems to confuse you again Bubba. They couldn't give 2a damn what you and your ilk think - rather, they want the right to marry the person they love. I sincerely doubt the average gay person (or hell, anyone) gives a shit what you do in your bedroom, and couldn't figure out how you being married affects them - why do you care so much what they do?

[Brillig]

Gays and lesbians in our society already have tolerance, what they are pushing for now is obviously acceptance.

Much like Bubba Wheels on this forum.

[Bubba Wheels]

But.......what does any of that have to do with 'special rights'? Tolerance and acceptance don't have anything to do with law. Discrimination does however.

Never stops there. Heard on WOWO out of Ft. Wayne, In today that city employees are being forced by the city to 1. sign statements that they do not 'believe' that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong (clear violation of the individual's right to practice religion) and 2. City employees are being forced to attend 'sensitivity seminars and training' about the homosexual lifestyle or they lose their jobs. This is happening in a 'red state.' Clearly pushing acceptance with governmental authority and trampling on religious freedom.

[duckman]

Never stops there. Heard on WOWO out of Ft. Wayne, In today that city employees are being forced by the city to 1. sign statements that they do not 'believe' that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong (clear violation of the individual's right to practice religion) and 2. City employees are being forced to attend 'sensitivity seminars and training' about the homosexual lifestyle or they lose their jobs. This is happening in a 'red state.' Clearly pushing acceptance with governmental authority and trampling on religious freedom.

I like to see some proof of this.


In before the lock.....

[path12]

Never stops there. Heard on WOWO out of Ft. Wayne, In today that city employees are being forced by the city to 1. sign statements that they do not 'believe' that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong (clear violation of the individual's right to practice religion) and 2. City employees are being forced to attend 'sensitivity seminars and training' about the homosexual lifestyle or they lose their jobs. This is happening in a 'red state.' Clearly pushing acceptance with governmental authority and trampling on religious freedom.

As interesting as that is (commie Ft. Wayne bastards will probably make them treat women equally next), I'm actually just trying to figure out what exactly these 'special rights' are that gays and lesbians are asking for.

[Crapshoot]

I like to see some proof of this.


In before the lock.....

Cmon, Duckman - didn't you read the World Net Daily special edition today? :D

[path12]

Cmon, Duckman - didn't you read the World Net Daily special edition today? :D

Bat Boy is gay?

[Bubba Wheels]

As interesting as that is (commie Ft. Wayne bastards will probably make them treat women equally next), I'm actually just trying to figure out what exactly these 'special rights' are that gays and lesbians are asking for.

Well, if homosexuals were then forced to attend church and seminars on fudamental Christian's lifestyles (or orthodox religions in general, none accept the 'gay lifestyle"), then it would approach 'equal', no?

[cuervo72]

In before the lock and banning. yes.

The English language seems to confuse you again Bubba. They couldn't give 2a damn what you and your ilk think - rather, they want the right to marry the person they love. I sincerely doubt the average gay person (or hell, anyone) gives a shit what you do in your bedroom, and couldn't figure out how you being married affects them - why do you care so much what they do?

Much like Bubba Wheels on this forum.

Seems to me right or wrong Bubba IS being pushed to accept this line (not by gays or lesbians directly, mind you) of thinking, if he doesn't want to be a) called stupid, b) shouted down, c) called to be banned or d) otherwise demonized. Now, Bubba admittedly does have a track record of being, well, you know...Bubba, but just sayin'.

[path12]

Well, if homosexuals were then forced to attend church and seminars on fudamental Christian's lifestyles (or orthodox religions in general, none accept the 'gay lifestyle"), then it would approach 'equal', no?


So you're equating the 'gay lifestyle' with persecution of fundamentalist Christians?

I can see the similarities. I certainly hope you fundamentalists can someday get married.

[Neon_Chaos]

Live and let live.

[path12]

Oh, and the beatings. The fundamentalist drive by bashings everywhere just break my heart.

[path12]

Seems to me right or wrong Bubba IS being pushed to accept this line (not by gays or lesbians directly, mind you) of thinking, if he doesn't want to be a) called stupid, b) shouted down, c) called to be banned or d) otherwise demonized. Now, Bubba admittedly does have a track record of being, well, you know...Bubba, but just sayin'.

I've got no problem with his viewpoint, he's welcome to that. I'm just trying to understand. It's a liberal thing, I guess.

[Bubba Wheels]

Oh, and the beatings. The fundamentalist drive by bashings everywhere just break my heart.


Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

[path12]

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

Let me guess. Gays and lesbians? Or just liberals? Maybe BOTH!

[Neon_Chaos]

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

Osama.

[Bubba Wheels]

So you're equating the 'gay lifestyle' with persecution of fundamentalist Christians?

I can see the similarities. I certainly hope you fundamentalists can someday get married.

Well, as stated before in other threads, marriage is a Biblical thing. The state saw the benefit of marriage and sanctioned it for their benefit. To allow 'gay marriage' would be no different than taking, say, the Muslim event of Ramadan and using it to promote the pork industry.

[ThunderingHERD]

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

lol. teh gays? lol. lol.

[Bubba Wheels]

Osama. Yes, Osama is a much better friend to the homosexual. ;)

[Bubba Wheels]

lol. teh gays? lol. lol.


Yes, groups like ACT UP do spend their time handing out Teddy Bears to sick kids at the local hospitals. Silly me.

[cuervo72]

I've got no problem with his viewpoint, he's welcome to that. I'm just trying to understand. It's a liberal thing, I guess.

Noted. My real beef was that there was a call for a banning before Bubba much said anything. Track record I guess.

(of course now that he's gone into some of his theories....)

[Klinglerware]

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

Other Christians?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/alabama.churches/

[Neon_Chaos]

Well, as stated before in other threads, marriage is a Biblical thing. The state saw the benefit of marriage and sanctioned it for their benefit. To allow 'gay marriage' would be no different than taking, say, the Muslim event of Ramadan and using it to promote the pork industry.

So, Bubba, to you, there is no distinction between the civil contract of marriage, and the religious ceremony of marriage?

[Bubba Wheels]

Noted. My real beef was that there was a call for a banning before Bubba much said anything. Track record I guess.

(of course now that he's gone into some of his theories....)

Theories? Geez, its my religious beliefs that should be driving you up the wall!

[sabotai]

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

God?

[Bubba Wheels]

Other Christians?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/alabama.churches/


Well, the Methodists do look kind of cross-eyed at the Baptists sometimes.

[path12]

Well, as stated before in other threads, marriage is a Biblical thing. The state saw the benefit of marriage and sanctioned it for their benefit. To allow 'gay marriage' would be no different than taking, say, the Muslim event of Ramadan and using it to promote the pork industry.

Well, this is an amusing tangent, especially for my gay friends who go to church far more than I, but maybe we should get back to the original question.

You stated that liberals didn't believe in 'equal rights' for gays and lesbians but instead wanted them to have 'special rights'.

'Special rights' signifies some rights that go beyond equality (which I believe you defined as tolerance, which I don't get but that's a whole other thread right there). So what I'm trying to find out from you is this: What exactly are these 'special rights' that gays and lesbians are asking for that they should not have?

[Passacaglia]

Noted. My real beef was that there was a call for a banning before Bubba much said anything. Track record I guess.

(of course now that he's gone into some of his theories....)

I think that banning comment was just a joke, not an actual call for him to be banned.

[Crapshoot]

Well, as stated before in other threads, marriage is a Biblical thing. The state saw the benefit of marriage and sanctioned it for their benefit. To allow 'gay marriage' would be no different than taking, say, the Muslim event of Ramadan and using it to promote the pork industry.

Except its not. The concept of marriage existed before Christianity did, from ancient Egypt, to the Greeks, and what not. If anything, Christianity (like other religions) co-opted a standard social contract.

[Bubba Wheels]

So, Bubba, to you, there is no distinction between the civil contract of marriage, and the religious ceremony of marriage?


Yes, one is called 'civil union', the other is called 'marriage.'

[Passacaglia]

Well, this is an amusing tangent, especially for my gay friends who go to church far more than I, but maybe we should get back to the original question.

You stated that liberals didn't believe in 'equal rights' for gays and lesbians but instead wanted them to have 'special rights'.

'Special rights' signifies some rights that go beyond equality (which I believe you defined as tolerance, which I don't get but that's a whole other thread right there). So what I'm trying to find out from you is this: What exactly are these 'special rights' that gays and lesbians are asking for that they should not have?

I think it's that only the gays are allowed to marry people of their own gender, while straight folk are not?

[Greyroofoo]

Let me guess. Gays and lesbians? Or just liberals? Maybe BOTH!

You know as well as I do that Hillary Clinton is behind it all! The damn liberal media won't say anything about it all.



In before the lock.

[Bubba Wheels]

Except its not. The concept of marriage existed before Christianity did, from ancient Egypt, to the Greeks, and what not. If anything, Christianity (like other religions) co-opted a standard social contract.

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

[path12]

I think it's that only the gays are allowed to marry people of their own gender, while straight folk are not?

Well, that's what I originally thought.....but that strikes me as an 'equal right' rather than a 'special right', though I could be wrong. I also thought that maybe it would involve being able to get information about a partner in the hospital or something like that......but that seems an 'equal right' also.

I'm just damn confused.

[Noop]

If gay people want to get married then they should be able. However if some church refuses to hold the ceremony then it is their right to do so.

[path12]

You know as well as I do that Hillary Clinton is behind it all! The damn liberal media won't say anything about it all.

Interesting. I was leaning Dumbledore.

[cuervo72]

I think that banning comment was just a joke, not an actual call for him to be banned.

I'm never quite sure with Flasch...

[Passacaglia]

Well, that's what I originally thought.....but that strikes me as an 'equal right' rather than a 'special right', though I could be wrong. I also thought that maybe it would involve being able to get information about a partner in the hospital or something like that......but that seems an 'equal right' also.

I'm just damn confused.

I was pretty much joking -- I mean, straight people aren't allowed to marry people of their own gender? You know, since they wouldn't want to do that, and if they did, then they'd be gay, thus having that right..eh.

Seems like most of the past few jobs that lurker and I have had allow you to insure a 'domestic partner' -- I don't think the gumment is forcing them to do that.

[Abe Sargent]

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

His point is that marriage existed outside the Judeo-Christian envelope long ago.

[wade moore]

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:
So you're claiming that marriage did not exist before Christianity except for the Jews? You don't think the Greeks, the Egyptians, the various Pagans beforehand had marriage?

You know. I usually give you the benefit of doubt over guys like PSU, etc. But come on now.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, that's what I originally thought.....but that strikes me as an 'equal right' rather than a 'special right', though I could be wrong. I also thought that maybe it would involve being able to get information about a partner in the hospital or something like that......but that seems an 'equal right' also.

I'm just damn confused.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?

[Neon_Chaos]

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

Not only the jews, though.

In Asia alone, China has had wedding ceremonies and betrothals documented by scholars from up to 400 BC.

So it traces its root farther back than its religious implications, and would trace its roots back to political and social reasons. The strengthening and protecting of one family's assets and land through pre-birth betrothals.

So, it's definitely not based on religion, but more on customs and rituals. The religious aspect merely came after.

[wade moore]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?
Couldn't it be argued much easier that Straight People are the ones getting "Special Rights" in most of your examples?

[Bubba Wheels]

His point is that marriage existed outside the Judeo-Christian envelope long ago.


Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

[Kodos]

Why should straight people get the "special right" to get married, while your standard gay person does not get that right?

[Bubba Wheels]

Couldn't it be argued much easier that Straight People are the ones getting "Special Rights" in most of your examples?


So now instead of 'equal' your talking about 'compensating?" That would be 'special." ;)

[path12]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, just about every state already has a law banning discrimination of employment, housing, etc., based on origin of nationality, color...sexual orientation....so what else is needed? Its already equal then, isn't it? What's all the additional 'add on' stuff, if not creating something/one into a 'special' class?

Man, I don't know what else they could want other than that. Maybe some sort of way to form a partnership in the legal sense. Hmmm.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

[ThunderingHERD]

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

Who gives a shit?

[wade moore]

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

The good old fashioned argument switch.

First it was "it's only a law because it was for the Christians cause it started in the Bible"..

We proved that wrong.

Now it's "it was always between man and woman"

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

[Neon_Chaos]

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

And this is perhaps why gays and lesbians also want to take part in the ceremony and tradition of marriage. Why can't they celebrate their union, if their feelings are true? Because the bible, or tradition say that it's wrong? If they aren't hurting anyone, then why can't they go through the same traditions that everyone else of non-homosexual orientation do?

[Bubba Wheels]

Man, I don't know what else they could want other than that. Maybe some sort of way to form a partnership in the legal sense. Hmmm.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

[path12]

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

It's a little known footnote of history that Benjamin Franklin was briefly wed to a water buffalo known simply as "Mabel". This was around the time of Poor Richard's Almanac, which was originally called Poor Mabel's Almanac until the story broke and he was forced into both divorce and a title change.

[Crapshoot]

Well, was it ever between anyone/anything else other than a man and woman? (besides polygomy, which the Bible also teaches against)? So thousands of years of tradition are also involved.

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights

Tradition is a piss poor excuse for continued stupidity.


P.S Also, homosexual relations were fairly common in ancient Rome - hell, the Emperor Nero may have married a man. That's not my plank, but lets not pretend being gay is anything new.

[path12]

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

But most states don't allow civil unions for gay people. And we'll have to disagree on your definition of acceptance.

[Neon_Chaos]

The good old fashioned argument switch.

First it was "it's only a law because it was for the Christians cause it started in the Bible"..

We proved that wrong.

Now it's "it was always between man and woman"

What's next if someone proves that wrong (I have honestly no idea if there is a historical basis for same-sex marriage).

There have been same-sex marriages/unions in pre-modern China, as well. Specifically in the Fujian region, where younger males are taken as sworn brothers of older males and those who espouse feelings for each other may share the same bed in such a union.

[Crapshoot]

Yup, like I pointed out earlier. Ancient China, Ancient Rome, and a bunch of other places - homosexuality is nothing new.

[Neon_Chaos]

Since I'm not American, do homosexual civil unions in the United States receive the same tax deductions, exemptions, and priveledges as heterosexual married couples do?

[Bubba Wheels]

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights

Tradition is a piss poor excuse for continued stupidity.


P.S Also, homosexual relations were fairly common in ancient Rome - hell, the Emperor Nero may have married a man. That's not my plank, but lets not pretend being gay is anything new.

Wrong on all counts. Because Paul talks about the priority of Christ and the temporary nature of this life in comparison to the next, it is often taken by those like yourself as justification of slavery, etc., when its not.

Your points are always made by those that never mention it was fundemental, bible-believing Abolishionists from New England that lead to emancipation.

[Toddzilla]

If you notice, nothing Bubba ever says is backed up by anything credible or relevant. It's always "I heard of this somewhere"" or "I read that somewhere". Waiting for Bubba to either back one of his insane statements with facts or say something not culled from The Bible, Conservative Talk Radio, or his ass, you're wasting your time.

Please, Bubba, unplug your internets and go back under your rock.

[Bubba Wheels]

Since I'm not American, do homosexual civil unions in the United States receive the same tax deductions, exemptions, and priveledges as heterosexual married couples do?

Married couples in America actually pay more in taxes than individuals making the same amount living together in one household not married. They call it the 'marriage penalty.'

[Bubba Wheels]

If you notice, nothing Bubba ever says is backed up by anything credible or relevant. It's always "I heard of this somewhere"" or "I read that somewhere". Waiting for Bubba to either back one of his insane statements with facts or say something not culled from The Bible, Conservative Talk Radio, or his ass, you're wasting your time.

Please, Bubba, unplug your internets and go back under your rock.

Free speech, pain isn't it?

[Toddzilla]

The Bible was used to justify, amongst other things:

- slavery
- racism (hell, someone at RedState, that noted liberal site, pointed out that even in the 1950's and 1960's, being Black was noted as having the mark of Cain)
- limited women's rights
Wrong on all counts.
Case in point. Crapshoot is actually 100% right - the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage, and now to argue against equal rights for homosexuals. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue. Just saying "No it doesn't" isn't an arguement, it's a reaction. I'll be happy to - if Crapshoot isn't - to provide evidence of his statement. You couldn't possibly be able to prove otherwise.

[Bubba Wheels]

There have been same-sex marriages/unions in pre-modern China, as well. Specifically in the Fujian region, where younger males are taken as sworn brothers of older males and those who espouse feelings for each other may share the same bed in such a union.


Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

[Bubba Wheels]

Case in point. Crapshoot is actually 100% right - the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage, and now to argue against equal rights for homosexuals. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue. Just saying "No it doesn't" isn't an arguement, it's a reaction. I'll be happy to - if Crapshoot isn't - to provide evidence of his statement. You couldn't possibly be able to prove otherwise.

Where does it say that? After all, your the one for 'credible sources' right?

[Toddzilla]

Free speech, pain isn't it?Given your track record, I actually think you're being serious, knowing how you dislike truly free speech. The pain in this case however is you.

[Travis]

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

It's actually kind of amusing that with all this practice your attempts at humor/deflection/misdirection (speaking in general, not just for this comment) are still as poor as they are.

[dawgfan]

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?
What part of "pre-modern China" did you not understand?

[Schmidty]

As far as the original question: I have no idea.

As far as the rest of thread (I assume): Why can't people just be nice to each other? No, I'm not talking about debates and such, but why can't we just disagree with certain people's lifestyles, but still treat them like people and with respect, especially if what they do is (secularly) harmless, and they pay their taxes and are citizens? Privately ministering or discussing is one thing, but attaching bias and religion to politics and laws, is dangerous, even to Christians.

That's all I have to say.

[Bubba Wheels]

It's actually kind of amusing that with all this practice your attempts at humor/deflection/misdirection (speaking in general, not just for this comment) are still as poor as they are.


And you are, of course, quite the expert on that.

[Neon_Chaos]

Well, after years of the 'one child' policy where parents have killed off girl babies and created an enormous surplus of males, this is quite the surprise isn't it?

The one-child policy was only enforced in China when Mao Ze Dong and the communists took over in the '50's.

That is an ignorant statement, Bubba, and perhaps explains a lot why you hold the beliefs that you do.

[Toddzilla]

Where does it say that? After all, your the one for 'credible sources' right?Sometimes, it's just too easy. Google search, "Bible" + "slavery", first link: hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

There are 3-5 examples of people using the Bible to justify slavery. I'll leave ir as a trivial example to research the rest.

[ThunderingHERD]

this is hilarious.

[Bubba Wheels]

Sometimes, it's just too easy. Google search, "Bible" + "slavery", first link: hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm



There are 3-5 examples of people using the Bible to justify slavery. I'll leave ir as a trivial example to research the rest.

Good job, you've managed to google someone else's opinion on the subject instead of a real source. Thanks, we are short of opinions here as it is. :rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, it was fun. Between this and playing chess on Yahoo dinner comes pretty quick. Feel free to continue without me.

[sabotai]

Seriously, why do you guys even try anymore? It just leads down the same road each and every time.

[MalcPow]

Not really looking to start anything here, as my tongue is firmly in its cheek (hence the "Psuedo"), but this is prompted by a quote I read from Senator Obama regarding today's judicial confirmation:


So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?

Or perhaps the other way around?

It's politically standard to address the two as separate (at least among those that respect the two). There are some on both sides that feel quite strongly about the differences in the struggles they face and think that a single umbrella term trivializes who they really are. Obama's just acknowledging that here. I personally agree though, it sounds a little funny if you're not coming from that perspective.

[ThunderingHERD]

Well, it was fun. Between this and playing chess on Yahoo dinner comes pretty quick. Feel free to continue without me.

Is making an ass of yourself really fun? Is it like your version of self-flagellation or something?

[Pumpy Tudors]

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after. :(

[Klinglerware]

It's politically standard to address the two as separate (at least among those that respect the two). There are some on both sides that feel quite strongly about the differences in the struggles they face and think that a single umbrella term trivializes who they really are. Obama's just acknowledging that here. I personally agree though, it sounds a little funny if you're not coming from that perspective.

That's good answer to the original question. I think that there was always a distinction made between gay males and lesbians in the popular media. On this point, I learned to associate (wrongly or not) gay = homesexual male, and lesbian = homosexual female.

[dawgfan]

Good job, you've managed to google someone else's opinion on the subject instead of a real source. Thanks, we are short of opinions here as it is. :rolleyes:
What color is the sky in your world?

Toddzilla stated that "the bible has been used to justify slavery and racism, as well as to ague against suffrage";

I'm not sure if you were intentionally misdirecting the argument to ask for proof that the bible justifies these things or if you simply didn't get what he was saying (that people have used the bible to justify those things), but your response was "Where does it say that?" (underline my addition for emphasis).

Todd then responded with multiple examples proving his point, and your response proved you didn't understand his point to begin with (or were intentionally trying to misdirect to try to avoid being proven wrong yet again).

[cuervo72]

But most states don't allow civil unions for gay people. And we'll have to disagree on your definition of acceptance.

Well, against my better judgement I'll wade in here again...

I think one view could be that if the gov't allows/legalizes gay marriage, then it is in effect condoning or otherwise legitimizing it. Liken it to one of the arguments against legalizing recreational drugs. It loses its stigma, and a larger part of the society accepts it (this can of course be used as an argument for it too, that the stigma just shouldn't be there).

The problem is, the more legitimate it becomes the harder it is to argue against it being morally questionable/sinful...it knocks another peg out from under the religion from a societal standpoint. Kids for instance - they grow up in a society where something is now generally accepted. At the same time, this religion over here is saying it is wrong? Well, how can that be? Heck, it's not even adultery - they're married! Must be some sort of antiquated (goofball, even) group. I certainly don't want to be associated with those crackpots. Of course, the church *itself* might also change its views (some have been known to do that), which then leaves the followers that were using the church as the basis of their argument out in the cold.

(bah, maybe none of that makes any sense)

[RendeR]

Married couples in America actually pay more in taxes than individuals making the same amount living together in one household not married. They call it the 'marriage penalty.'


Sadly your ignorance grows steadily.

There is no "marriage penalty" and in fact changes to the IRS tax code as much as 6-8 years ago changed deductions to the point that married people filing seperately OR jointly share an equal tax burden with their single unmarried counterparts.

The only true advantage in taxation in this nation is having children.

[Flasch186]

I'm never quite sure with Flasch...

well, a 2% thought that it could happen at any time, but a joke it was.

[Radii]

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

There have definitely been times where I've felt that Bubba Wheels gets baited in these arguments and gets bashed before deserved, but this isn't one of those times to me. Starting with the claim that these crazy flaming liberals want "special rights" for gay people... like marriage and the legal protections it affords, and then trying to compare the discrimination and hate crimes that gay people face to the "persecution" of Christians in the US, I'd say the Bubba bashing is well deserved here!

As he usually does, Jon Stewart puts the proper light on this one in my mind:
“Does anyone know...does the Christian persecution complex have an expiration date? Because...uh...you've all been in charge pretty much since...uh...what was that guys name...Constantine. He converted in, what was it, 312 A.D. I'm just saying, enjoy your success.”


At the same time, if there are people out there showing their contempt for the religious right and/or the Bush Administration by burning down churches, those people need to be put in jail. That's not ok. Just in case that wasn't clear, I'm pretty sure its possible to believe that all human beings, including gay ones, should be afforded the same legal rights, and at the same feel like burning down a church is a bad idea. Somehow a page into these threads it seems like you have to either enjoy the occasional same sex romp or you support the murder of religious people, and that there's no in between.

[TargetPractice6]

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after. :(Look no further than the name of the second poster and you shall find the answers you seek.

[Toddzilla]

/... and your response proved you didn't understand his point to begin with (or were intentionally trying to misdirect to try to avoid being proven wrong yet again).That is Bubba's standard operating procedure, I'm afraid. Thanks for looking out ;)

[miked]

Why is something with a 50% failure rate so protected in this country? Somebody had an article on CNN today about the poor state of marriage (I think it's actually over 50% divorce rate). So why can't gay people join in, maybe it will make the numbers better?

The same people who don't wany gay couples to be legally empowered are the same ones that say gay parents adopting a child will turn him/her gay and make everything worse. Sick times.

[SackAttack]

How did the thread turn into this shit? SackAttack's original post was funny, and then the wheels came off soon after. :(

In retrospect, had I known Bubba Wheels wasn't already banned, I might have just chuckled to myself instead of posting that.

[Galaxy]

Well, that's the answer. Civil Unions work just fine. Marriage is pushing for acceptance. My opinion.

What is the "label" civil union ok, but the "label" marriage not, when they are the same thing?

Personally, I think we should throw the concept of marriage out from a legal standpoint. Of course, the fight over gays getting married is kind of a joke with divorcee rates and ease of it.

Who cares about how other people live their lives.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As he usually does, Jon Stewart puts the proper light on this one in my mind:
“Does anyone know...does the Christian persecution complex have an expiration date? Because...uh...you've all been in charge pretty much since...uh...what was that guys name...Constantine. He converted in, what was it, 312 A.D. I'm just saying, enjoy your success.”


And the "War on Christmas." Oh, the humanity!!

[lordscarlet]

I stopped reading after a while, but it appears no one referenced SackAttack's actual question. The terms, colloquially at least, have come to mean "gay" referring to homosexual men and "lesbian" to homosexual women. "Gay" rarely refers to both sexes these days.

[JPhillips]

Anyone one who has spent much time around lesbians knows that they are typically anything but "gay".

[Toddzilla]

Anyone one who has spent much time around lesbians knows that they are typically anything but "gay".As someone who has, I don't know if you mean gay=happy-go-lucky or gay=flamboyant, but I can say you are wrong on both accounts.

EDIT - I missed the "typically" in your post, so I take back that sentiment. Typically? Yeah, I guess you're right.

[Neon_Chaos]

I, for one, am in full support of HLA.

[SackAttack]

I stopped reading after a while, but it appears no one referenced SackAttack's actual question. The terms, colloquially at least, have come to mean "gay" referring to homosexual men and "lesbian" to homosexual women. "Gay" rarely refers to both sexes these days.

Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant. I know that the terms have evolved a particular colloquial usage. I was really just commenting on the fact that "gays and lesbians" are the only group for which there is apparently no acceptable umbrella classification, and so quotes like Obama's just tickle my funny bone when I read them.

I mean, you've got men, you've got women, and you've got people, right? Two separate classifications within an overarching classification, and nobody objects if you refer to a mixed group as "people."

Same token, you've got "minorities" as an umbrella that generally covers Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans. You can refer to them individually in a policy context, or in that umbrella sense, as Obama did in that quote.

Then you have "gay and lesbian," and while I conceptually understand and agree what you're saying there, it's just weird to me that a politician will lump several races together as "minorities," but state his support separately (but equally?) for gays and lesbians. It's inconsistent for sure, and it's downright weird to me.

[lordscarlet]

Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant. I know that the terms have evolved a particular colloquial usage. I was really just commenting on the fact that "gays and lesbians" are the only group for which there is apparently no acceptable umbrella classification, and so quotes like Obama's just tickle my funny bone when I read them.

I mean, you've got men, you've got women, and you've got people, right? Two separate classifications within an overarching classification, and nobody objects if you refer to a mixed group as "people."

Same token, you've got "minorities" as an umbrella that generally covers Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans. You can refer to them individually in a policy context, or in that umbrella sense, as Obama did in that quote.

Then you have "gay and lesbian," and while I conceptually understand and agree what you're saying there, it's just weird to me that a politician will lump several races together as "minorities," but state his support separately (but equally?) for gays and lesbians. It's inconsistent for sure, and it's downright weird to me.

I think it has almost become a single noun in and of itself. "Gay and Lesbian" go together in most cases. However, "homosexuals" would have been a better term IMO.