Debate Topic 4 - Miss California

[jmt225]

Which has what to do with the current topic? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

Because it just shows the hypocrisy of those who want to bash this woman for her beliefs, but give Obama a free pass.

Obama said that the topic should be left up to the states, and he is also in support of civil unions, which for all purposes is marriage, just minus the church and religion. So no, fail.

If that's how he feels, then how come he just flat out doesn't say he supports Gay Marriage? How come he has to use this fancy wording that really doesn't sound like he supports it at all? And how come when asked the question, the first thing out of his mouth was exactly, "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman."?

The fact is man, Obama speaks his mind about everything he believes in, but yet... he's not outspoken when it comes to gay marriage. He tip-e-toes around the question whenever he's asked about it.

A: No one has likened her to Hitler. Extreme hyperbole.

You're the one who compared her to Hitler.

B: You've misquoted Obama. See my previous response.

Not really.

So you support any belief at all, as long as the person grew up with it? So you have no problem with someone that was raised with their family in the KKK who believes all black people are evil spawn of the devil? This "I support that she stands by her beliefs" bullshit is ridiculious, Hitler stood by his beliefs, guess we should respect him for stickin' to his guns huh?

But how can you judge them if that's how they're raised? If someone is raised to believe something and has been taught nothing else, it's not their fault for their beliefs. Some people are able to overcome it, but most aren't. It's sad, but that's how it is.

One of the things I respect about you X is that you're sympathetic to those with problems like drug addiction and obesity, and I would guess someone who is like that, would also understand that people can't be faulted for the way they're raised. If you come up with a family who is very loving towards you, and they teach you these are the ways to live and this is what to believe in, then you absolutely cannot fault the person for how they turn out.

And Hitler developed his theories on his own. HE was responsible for what he did.

Thats just it though---the very opinion of being against gay marriage IS HATEFUL.

Well, I disagree. It's only hateful when you use bad language and/or violence to express yourself on the matter.

It's absolutely NO DIFFERENT from thinking that "Hey, I don't believe black people should be allowed to be married". There is literally NO difference in those two statements.

Again, I disagree. Skin color and sexuality are very different from each other.

Besides, and I know this has nothing to do with your point, but it's worth pointing out that a lot of black voters in California registered to vote last election because of Obama, and you know what? Prop 6 was still voted for, and that's because there are just as many homophobes in the black community as there are in the white. Let every African American in the NFL or NBA be asked the same question Miss California was asked, and I guarantee about 80% will say what Miss California had said, only most likely with much more abrasive language.

 

[X]

Because it just shows the hypocrisy of those who want to bash this woman for her beliefs, but give Obama a free pass.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with the topic. This thread isn't about Obama's opinion on gay marriage.

And just to clear this up right now, I am not some crazed Obama fanatic. I voted for the man and that was about it. My choice for president would have been Ron Paul, a Republican. So please don't peg me as a hardcore Democrat guys, because the Democrats achieve just as little as Republicans usually do. I don't pick parties, I pick politicians, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent (which is what I am; Libertarian really). I admit freely though that I'd rather have Obama seven days of the week then another minute of Bush.

If that's how he feels, then how come he just flat out doesn't say he supports Gay Marriage? How come he has to use this fancy wording that really doesn't sound like he supports it at all? And how come when asked the question, the first thing out of his mouth was exactly, "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman."?

Why do you continue to bring up Obama into this argument? This is not a debate on Obama, this is a debate on gay marriage.

I suspect why Obama didn't flat out say he supports gay marriage is because he's a well known Christian and to do so would've hurt a large majority of voters whom he was counting on to cast their vote for him? Obama is just like any other politician---he wants to be elected, and to do so you have to compromise some of your beliefs to appeal to more voters.

The fact is man, Obama speaks his mind about everything he believes in, but yet... he's not outspoken when it comes to gay marriage. He tip-e-toes around the question whenever he's asked about it.

Because it's a very delicate political issue, similiar to abortion. Right now in American culture, those two topics are taboo for a president to address. But, and I'm sounding like a broken record here....this has nothing to do with the debate on hand.

You're the one who compared her to Hitler.

No, I did not. I compared blindly respecting a person's beliefs to blindly respecting Hitler's beliefs. I in no way compared them as human beings in any way, shape or form. Simply your perception of their beliefs.

But how can you judge them if that's how they're raised? If someone is raised to believe something and has been taught nothing else, it's not their fault for their beliefs. Some people are able to overcome it, but most aren't. It's sad, but that's how it is.

That's just an excuse. People are not programmable robots that their parents deposit beliefs into, people have free will after all. I once knew a man who grew up completely surrounded by gang violence (his entire family was in the Hell's Angels) and death and drugs, and he rejected that entire lifestyle and instead chose to work with troubled kids who were just like him and help them through their problems, mainly substance abuse. Just an example.

One of the things I respect about you X is that you're sympathetic to those with problems like drug addiction and obesity, and I would guess someone who is like that, would also understand that people can't be faulted for the way they're raised. If you come up with a family who is very loving towards you, and they teach you these are the ways to live and this is what to believe in, then you absolutely cannot fault the person for how they turn out.

Drug addiction and obesity are very different topics though, because those two issues deal very much with personal demons and actual physical addiction.

And Hitler developed his theories on his own. HE was responsible for what he did.

Hitler didn't just wake up one morning and think "Nazism...sounds fun!", he too was most certainly a product of post-war Germany and Austria. Hitler took a large portion of his beliefs from fascism and the global fear of communists infilitrating governments. People seem to forget that Hitler hated Communists more then he ever hated Jews.

Well, I disagree. It's only hateful when you use bad language and/or violence to express yourself on the matter.

Not really. Hitler didn't use any foul language when he began expressing his ideas. Foul language and violence isn't necessary to express a hateful message. "I believe that Asian people are inferior to Caucasian." Didn't use any foul language or threats of violence there.

Again, I disagree. Skin color and sexuality are very different from each other.

How? They are both genetic traits that someone has no control over. If they are so different then why do virtually all hate crime and hate speech laws file sexuality and skin color together?

Besides, and I know this has nothing to do with your point, but it's worth pointing out that a lot of black voters in California registered to vote last election because of Obama, and you know what? Prop 6 was still voted for, and that's because there are just as many homophobes in the black community as there are in the white. Let every African American in the NFL or NBA be asked the same question Miss California was asked, and I guarantee about 80% will say what Miss California had said, only most likely with much more abrasive language.

Not sure what you're getting at, but yes, African Americans can be just as homophobic as white people. Not really a surprise considering the great amount of religious African American's in this country.

 

[FromTheSouth]

So, what you're saying is that your problem is religion. I know that there is no room for God on an Ivy League campus, and everyone is too smart to believe in God, but not smart enough to answer where we came from. Quite the Gordian Knot there.

Being gay and being black are two different things. For one, the civil rights movement for blacks was full of civil disobedience, polite debate, and appeals to politicians. The gay rights movement is full of name calling, disgusting parody, immature whining.

And blacks don't choose to be black, whereas there is NO concrete proof, according to the Wall Street Journal and Western Courier, that there is a "gay" gene. There are certain genetic abnormalities that exist within gay people at a slightly higher rate than they do in the general population, but according to Science Magazine, these abnormalities are within the standard deviation of all genetic abnormalities within the human population. Furthermore, the study that produced these results in the first place was of only 105 people, and the doctor was a major financier of the support of Colorado's Prop 2, which added being gay to the list of protected minorities. The study showed a slight correlation, and causation has never been proven.

People choose to be gay, and then demand rights that other people who choose bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia do not not enjoy. Go ahead, rank these in order of how alternative the lifestyle is.

I don't care if gay people want to settle down with each other, and like I said, five minutes on Legalzoom.com ties up all the loose ends of hospital visitation, property exchange, etc.

I don't think that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. As a matter of fact, I think it should be encouraged. Anywhere that can provide a loving home to an orphaned child should get the orphaned child.

I just happen to think that marriage exists between one man and one woman, just like Ms. Prejean. Maybe, if someone could explain why she's a "dumb bitch" without name calling, immature sniping, and gossip, I would listen, but no one that side is mature enough to have a real debate, so I'll agree with the liberal state of California, and say no to Prop 8. And you think I never listen to libs. I just did.


And Ron Paul is Republican in name only. He's a left leaning libertarian. I would be a libertarian too, if the party wasn't so disjointed. I have no idea what the party platform is because it's made of pissed of Republicans and common sense Progressives, which leads to a giant clusterfuck come election time.

 

[X]

So, what you're saying is that your problem is religion. I know that there is no room for God on an Ivy League campus, and everyone is too smart to believe in God, but not smart enough to answer where we came from. Quite the Gordian Knot there.

I'm not sure how I implied religion was the problem, but yeah in a way it is. I despise just about every single organized religious structure, but I by no means am an athiest or agnostic. I was for a while, until one day I just sat there and realized that there has to be something behind it all. An ever expanding universe doesn't just create itself and pop up one day.

I'm actually quite spiritual myself, I just have problems with how the actual churches go about their business; spirtuality and religion shouldn't be something that comes with a set of rules that you must base your life around, it should be about making a personal connection with a higher power, whether you'd like to call that power God, Jesus, Allah, or Buddha.

Being gay and being black are two different things. For one, the civil rights movement for blacks was full of civil disobedience, polite debate, and appeals to politicians. The gay rights movement is full of name calling, disgusting parody, immature whining.

I'm not sure where you've gotten the impression that the gay rights movement is full of name calling and "immature whining". Gay rights parades are just as civil as any black rights march.

And if there is any flamboyant parody involved, that in itself is a form of civil disobedience, a style popularized by the Yippie movement of the 60's (led by Abbie Hoffman among others) in which they used comedy and parody to make important political statements.

Besides, every movement for rights always has it's fringe divisions. You can't fault the entire movement for that fringe, that would be like damning Martin Luther King as a violent demagogue because of radical Black Panthers arming themselves and starting riots.

And blacks don't choose to be black, whereas there is NO concrete proof, according to the Wall Street Journal and Western Courier, that there is a "gay" gene. There are certain genetic abnormalities that exist within gay people at a slightly higher rate than they do in the general population, but according to Science Magazine, these abnormalities are within the standard deviation of all genetic abnormalities within the human population. Furthermore, the study that produced these results in the first place was of only 105 people, and the doctor was a major financier of the support of Colorado's Prop 2, which added being gay to the list of protected minorities. The study showed a slight correlation, and causation has never been proven.

There's also no "black" gene, so is skin color a choice as well? Obviously not, it's genetic---and yet there is no gene that shows this. Science has not advanced far enough to discover these things, yet it's rather clear skin color is genetic.

Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is a choice would logically mean by that same train of thought, that heterosexuality is a choice. Now answer me, if homosexuality was a choice, why wouldn't homosexuals simply "choose" to be straight instead? Save themselves from being discriminated against? I mean, when you began to realize you were attracted to women, was it because you sat down and decided "hey, I like women".

I mean, when you see a woman walking down the street, do you choose to find her attractive, or is it simply a natural, obvious thought to you? You don't need hard science to back this up when you've got simple common sense.

People choose to be gay, and then demand rights that other people who choose bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia do not not enjoy. Go ahead, rank these in order of how alternative the lifestyle is.

Bestiality and pedophilia involve violence and taking advantage of someone/thing that doesn't have enough intelligence to truly understand what is going on, so those two are not only completely different but extremely offensive to be compared to homosexuality. Two consenting adults choosing to have a relationship is so incredibly different from a man molesting a 7 year old girl that it seems rather absurd for me to even point out why they're so different.

As for polygamy, as long as it's under strictly religious purposes, then there is no issue. As long as it's a part of your religion, the government can't discriminate against you. So that doesn't really apply here either.

I cannot believe that someone as intelligent as yourself would believe that sexuality is something you choose. Never in all of recorded human history has someone ever claimed to have "chosen" who they are attracted to. There is no evidence whatsoever to back that statement up.

I don't care if gay people want to settle down with each other, and like I said, five minutes on Legalzoom.com ties up all the loose ends of hospital visitation, property exchange, etc.

It's about more then tax breaks and wills. It's about being able to declare to the world that you and your partner have made a committment to each other and want to show the world their love.

Look, I'm not saying homosexuals have to be married in a Catholic church by a Priest, I doubt any Catholic priest would ever consent to do it anyways. But they should be allowed to be legally considered a married couple. Marriage shouldn't be a strictly religious thing, otherwise what's next? Athiests are no longer allowed to be married?

And Ron Paul is Republican in name only. He's a left leaning libertarian. I would be a libertarian too, if the party wasn't so disjointed. I have no idea what the party platform is because it's made of pissed of Republicans and common sense Progressives, which leads to a giant clusterfuck come election time.

Any 3rd party is really just political *********ion, if you will. They never stand a chance whatsoever realistically, but it's just important that they get their message out there. And Ron Paul is more of a Republican then John McCain ever could be, Ron Paul is a Republican in the original sense of the word, before our current generation of conservatives decided that Ronald Reagan was the be-all end-all of the Republican party.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

Homophobia is hate. End of f'n story.

Oh Jesus. Just get off that train already. Seriously. Its old, and weak.

First off, the word "homophobia" is trash. It means "fear of", and for a lot of people fear has nothing to do with it at all. We're not scurded. We just are tired of having it shoved down our throats.

We have come a long, long way from gays being beaten in alleyways while people turned a blinde eye in the 80's. Gays are not "feared" anymore. Being gay makes you a god damned CELEBRITY today. You buy a little dog and wear loud ugly colors and suddenly your awesome. Being gay in 2009 also makes you immune to all forms fo critcism. Because anytime anyone contradicts and critcizes you, they can scream "You're only saying that because he's GAY!" until the opposition is silenced.

Second bullshit word: hate.

Hate is an extreme word. Not a passive word. Hate and dislike, or even hate and impassive or grossly disproportionate.

Hate is now nothing but a buzzword that loud mouthed liberals word to silence people that try and speak out against them. If you don't think that blacks deserve government hand out money for reparations of ancestors that died buillding the white house, then you are full of HATE! If you don't think that women should get free health for abortions if they are under age, then you are full of HATE!

Its code. Hate is a liberal codeword for "Shut the fuck up". It can be used over and over again, and sadly it tends to work. A lot.

Miss California didn't shut the fuck up. And since she didn't, every leftist in earshot is throwing out every cliched moniker in the book.

Furthermore, obviously civil unions and marriage are NOT the same thing if gays aren't satisfied with civil unions. See, I'm all for gays being provided the same LEGAL rights. If a gay couple is in a car accident, and one is critically wounded, I firmly believe the other has the right to make judgement calls on their care as if they were their spouse.

The issue is when you start crossing RELIGIOUS lines. And since most liberals don't give a flying fuck about anyone's beliefs other than their OWN, I don't expect them to see a distinction that maybe some poor Pastor out there doesn't want to be put in a position where he could be sued for not doing a marriage against his beliefs because some Democrats in Washington passed enough "anti-hate" laws to let him be sued.

See? That's not hate. Its called "Protection of the Constitution". Its this annoying little document that drives liberals nuts. Me wanting to protect someone ELSE's religion doesn't make me full of hate.

So get off the fucking hate train already. Pick a new buzzword. That one is played out.

 

[X]

Oh Jesus. Just get off that train already. Seriously. Its old, and weak.

I wasn't aware that hating people because of their sexuality was "old and weak". Yeah hey, discrimination is no big deal right!

First off, the word "homophobia" is trash. It means "fear of", and for a lot of people fear has nothing to do with it at all. We're not scurded. We just are tired of having it shoved down our throats.

You're tired of having homosexuality shoved down your throat? Considering the overwhelming majority of the human race is heterosexual, not too sure where you're getting this idea.

We have come a long, long way from gays being beaten in alleyways while people turned a blinde eye in the 80's. Gays are not "feared" anymore. Being gay makes you a god damned CELEBRITY today. You buy a little dog and wear loud ugly colors and suddenly your awesome. Being gay in 2009 also makes you immune to all forms fo critcism. Because anytime anyone contradicts and critcizes you, they can scream "You're only saying that because he's GAY!" until the opposition is silenced.

Wow. Are your purposely trying to lose this argument? That paragraph was just a perfect example of how uneducated you are when it comes to this topic. Clearly you do not know many if any homosexuals, otherwise you'd realize how incredibly offensive it is to say that all gay people wear "loud ugly colors" and buy little dogs. What you've just said is absolutely no different from saying that all black people eat fried chicken and watermelon and drink 40 ounces. I mean, you really just couldn't make it any more obvious from that paragraph that you really know absolutely nothing about homosexuals.

Second bullshit word: hate.

Hate is an extreme word. Not a passive word. Hate and dislike, or even hate and impassive or grossly disproportionate.

Hate is now nothing but a buzzword that loud mouthed liberals word to silence people that try and speak out against them. If you don't think that blacks deserve government hand out money for reparations of ancestors that died buillding the white house, then you are full of HATE! If you don't think that women should get free health for abortions if they are under age, then you are full of HATE!

Where are you getting this shit? It's comedic gold! Are you really trying to say that liberals use hate too much? As opposed to the long history of equal rights and tolerance that conservatives have? Man, you've gotta think twice before posting such ridiculious drivel. Liberals aren't the ones on national television talking about how they hope our President fails.

Its code. Hate is a liberal codeword for "Shut the fuck up". It can be used over and over again, and sadly it tends to work. A lot.

Miss California didn't shut the fuck up. And since she didn't, every leftist in earshot is throwing out every cliched moniker in the book.

See, this is where I'm losing you guys. You don't have a problem with Miss California expressing her opinion, but any liberal who comments on her isn't allowed an opinion? Search: hypocrisy.

Furthermore, obviously civil unions and marriage are NOT the same thing if gays aren't satisfied with civil unions. See, I'm all for gays being provided the same LEGAL rights. If a gay couple is in a car accident, and one is critically wounded, I firmly believe the other has the right to make judgement calls on their care as if they were their spouse.

The issue is when you start crossing RELIGIOUS lines. And since most liberals don't give a flying fuck about anyone's beliefs other than their OWN, I don't expect them to see a distinction that maybe some poor Pastor out there doesn't want to be put in a position where he could be sued for not doing a marriage against his beliefs because some Democrats in Washington passed enough "anti-hate" laws to let him be sued.

Really, what planet are you on right now? Not in any gay marriage bill in any state where it's legal does it state that Priests or Rabbis are required by law to marry homosexuals. So like most people probably reading your post, I have no idea where you are getting these ideas.

See? That's not hate. Its called "Protection of the Constitution". Its this annoying little document that drives liberals nuts.

Dude, REALLY, what in god's name are you smoking? LIBERALS are the ones who can't stand the Constitution? Do you have even a passive knowledge of American Politics? Last time I checked, the PATRIOT Act, which stripped away several constitutional rights, was supported and passed by a Republican House/Senate and a Republican president. Liberals are ALWAYS the ones defending the constitution from conservatives who want to pillage it. I mean, jesus, do you live in Bizarro World where everything is opposite or something?

Me wanting to protect someone ELSE's religion doesn't make me full of hate.

First off, gay marriage does absolutely nothing to harm any Religion. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious one. Secondly, what you've just said sounds remarkably like the favorite tag line of white supremacists--- they don't "hate" blacks, they just want to protect their race.

So get off the fucking hate train already. Pick a new buzzword. That one is played out.

Congrats buddy, you're the first person who I've completely and totally owned since my return here. You should be proud.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

I wasn't aware that hating people because of their sexuality was "old and weak". Yeah hey, discrimination is no big deal right!

No, the argument is old and weak. YOU want to sound like discrimintion, so it is. Magically. Like lucky charms.

You're tired of having homosexuality shoved down your throat? Considering the overwhelming majority of the human race is heterosexual, not too sure where you're getting this idea.

No, you wouldn't know, would you?

Wow. Are your purposely trying to lose this argument? That paragraph was just a perfect example of how uneducated you are when it comes to this topic. Clearly you do not know many if any homosexuals, otherwise you'd realize how incredibly offensive it is to say that all gay people wear "loud ugly colors" and buy little dogs. What you've just said is absolutely no different from saying that all black people eat fried chicken and watermelon and drink 40 ounces. I mean, you really just couldn't make it any more obvious from that paragraph that you really know absolutely nothing about homosexuals.

Its called public perception. That's the way gays are viewed. Stereotypes exist for everything and that is including the lisping, limp wristed, fashionably wise homosexuals. Yes, I know plenty. Are they all like that? No. But that is how they are identified. As FromTheSouth already pointed out, MOST gays are not recognizable unless they choose to display it. This is how the more flamboyant choose to display it. Once again.. blacks do not equal gays. Once again, you are using and old and weak argument. Gay arguments are not interchangeable with black arguments.

Where are you getting this shit? It's comedic gold! Are you really trying to say that liberals use hate too much?

Yes, yes I do. See: Ms. Garafolo's video about the Tea Parties.

As opposed to the long history of equal rights and tolerance that conservatives have? Man, you've gotta think twice before posting such ridiculious drivel. Liberals aren't the ones on national television talking about how they hope our President fails.

Yup. We do. Because now you are blurring the line between evangelicals and basic Conservatism. Try reading a book on Conservatism to learn the difference. And yes, we do want him to fail. Because we know what he's up to, we knew what he was up to last summer, and he's doing exactly what we said he was going to do. Its the liberals that are trying to distort it to say that we want AMERICAN to fail when we don't. We want HIM to fail. And his policies. We've NEVER hidden that.

See, this is where I'm losing you guys.

No, I think it was a bit further back.

You don't have a problem with Miss California expressing her opinion, but any liberal who comments on her isn't allowed an opinion? Search: hypocrisy.

She didn't get on her blog and spew angry drivel about the people around her. Her answer was polite, clear, and concise. The firestorm that was thrown at her was not. What was done to her after her answer went above and beyond expressing an opinion.

Really, what planet are you on right now? Not in any gay marriage bill in any state where it's legal does it state that Priests or Rabbis are required by law to marry homosexuals.

None that have PASSED. Because we keep beating them down and voting them away. Don't be so ignorant as to think it hasn't been tried. See: California Proposition 8.

So like most people probably reading your post, I have no idea where you are getting these ideas.

No, you wouldn't.

Dude, REALLY, what in god's name are you smoking? LIBERALS are the ones who can't stand the Constitution?

That's correct.

Do you have even a passive knowledge of American Politics? Last time I checked, the PATRIOT Act, which stripped away several constitutional rights, was supported and passed by a Republican House/Senate and a Republican president. Liberals are ALWAYS the ones defending the constitution from conservatives who want to pillage it. I mean, jesus, do you live in Bizarro World where everything is opposite or something?

Ah yes. From the top ten list of liberal talking points. The Patriot Act. Which stripped nothing, it suspended... much of which is no longer used or needed. An act used to defend the country from terrorism that evidently is a hundred times worse than the blatant seperation of powers violations that FRD did. Who is a liberal hero. The only time liberals defend the Constitution is when it suits them. The rest of the time they are trying to renact the Fairness Doctrine. And if you don't know what THAT is, go ask Chuck Schumer. Clearly you don't have the "passive knowledge of American politics".

First off, gay marriage does absolutely nothing to harm any Religion.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Marriage is a legal term, not a religious one.

It has meanings in both. You can be married in one sense and not another.

Secondly, what you've just said sounds remarkably like the favorite tag line of white supremacists--- they don't "hate" blacks, they just want to protect their race.

*yawns* Old argument is old. You've hit about 4 so far, 6 more to go. You already used Hitler in a previous post. What? We haven't gotten to rednecks yet? Or are you saving that one?

Congrats buddy, you're the first person who I've completely and totally owned since my return here.

No, you haven't. In fact, you haven't stated a single referential fact. You want to own something? Go back to the Prison forum.

 

[X]

No, the argument is old and weak. YOU want to sound like discrimintion, so it is. Magically. Like lucky charms.

So refusing someone certain rights and privelages based on their sexuality isn't discrimination? Clearly you don't understand what the word means.

No, you wouldn't know, would you?

Is that supposed to be an argument? Please, please inform me of how homosexual culture is being shoved down your throat.

Its called public perception. That's the way gays are viewed. Stereotypes exist for everything and that is including the lisping, limp wristed, fashionably wise homosexuals.

See, that last line right there strips away more validation from your argument than I ever could. The vast majority of homosexuals are not "lisping, limp wristed and fashionably wise", the majority are regular everyday people who you couldn't pick out of a crowd to save your life.

And just because it's a public perception doesn't mean it's right. It was once public perception that black people were property, and not people.

Yes, I know plenty. Are they all like that? No. But that is how they are identified.

I highly doubt you know "plenty" of homosexuals. Highly doubt it. A: Because you're extremely uneducated about homosexuals, and B: Because homosexuals are still a very small minority of the American population, and the odds are that you'd be lucky to know one. But sure, if you say so, you've got a whole cavalcade of homosexual buddies. Right on.

As FromTheSouth already pointed out, MOST gays are not recognizable unless they choose to display it. This is how the more flamboyant choose to display it. Once again.. blacks do not equal gays. Once again, you are using and old and weak argument. Gay arguments are not interchangeable with black arguments.

You know, just saying again and again that the arguments aren't the same doesn't actually verify that. You keep saying this, yet you can't come up with even one reason why they aren't similiar. Okay, so here's a scenario even more in touch with this one.

Anti-semitism. Persecuting someone for their personal beliefs. What is the anti-gay movement all about? Thats right kids! Persecuting someone for their personal beliefs. If you don't see the similiarities with the black argument, you have to see the similiarities here.

And how is it even relevent whether or not a homosexual person is known to be gay or not? Don't give me this "don't ask, don't tell" bullshit either, because that's no different from telling a Muslim to put away his hijab or asking a Jewish person to put away their kippah (yamaka).

Yes, yes I do. See: Ms. Garafolo's video about the Tea Parties.

I wasn't aware that Janeane Garafolo was a politician. Who gives two shits about what some quasi-celebrity has to say? Do you know how many hateful, racist things conservative celebrities have said? Should I post up videos of Rush Limbaugh, who's entire career has been founded on hatred?

The fact that you actually believe the shit that's coming out of your computer right now makes it twice as funny. Liberals have always been the party of tolerance and equal rights, and the fact that I actually need to argue that with you really takes away even more credibility you might've had.

Yup. We do. Because now you are blurring the line between evangelicals and basic Conservatism.

Really? Because I don't remember mentioning anything about evangelicals, at all.

Try reading a book on Conservatism to learn the difference. And yes, we do want him to fail. Because we know what he's up to, we knew what he was up to last summer, and he's doing exactly what we said he was going to do.

What's that? Raise taxes by a small percentage? Allow stem-cell research? MY GOD HE'S BLACK HITLER! HIS NEO-FASCIST-SOCIALIST-CRAB-PEOPLE AGENDA IS TO DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE! GRAB YOUR GUNS AND RUN FOR THE HILLS EVERYBODY!

That's basically what you and your ilk sound like the American public when you start spouting this shit. Beyond ridiculious.

Its the liberals that are trying to distort it to say that we want AMERICAN to fail when we don't. We want HIM to fail. And his policies. We've NEVER hidden that.

Please explain to me how having the leader of America fail would not hurt America. Please, I'm begging you, Explain to me how the failure of our first black president, who has about twelve million times the global support that George Bush could ever have dreamed of, would be a good step for America.

Again, I seriously am wondering whether you actually think before typing, or do you just copy and paste your drivel from the "Crazy Neo-Con Weekly".

No, I think it was a bit further back.

Yes, you keep believing that I'm the one who's looking foolish here. Please do. I'm quite certain even FromTheSouth is embarassed by your incredibly ham-fisted attempt at a debate.

She didn't get on her blog and spew angry drivel about the people around her. Her answer was polite, clear, and concise. The firestorm that was thrown at her was not. What was done to her after her answer went above and beyond expressing an opinion.

I just can't believe this shit. What world do you live in? Is it some crazy world where the media doesn't obsess over everything and blow everything imaginable out of proportion? Please direct me to that world.

There are atleast 3 major news networks that run news non-stop for 24 hours a day, every day, all year. They desperately need things to fill up time with, as anyone who's watched CNN at 3AM can tell you.

What is the big deal with this to you guys? You keep on arguing about Miss California while the rest of us are arguing about gay marriage and gay rights, which is what this thread is really about. Forget about Miss California, she's inconsequential to the argument at hand.

None that have PASSED. Because we keep beating them down and voting them away. Don't be so ignorant as to think it hasn't been tried. See: California Proposition 8.

I was unaware that Proposition 8 was a pro-gay marraige bill. Here I was thinking it was the exact opposite. Once again, I've lost you. I said that nowhere in any gay marriage bill has it required rabbis or priests to perform these marriages, and you respond with a reference to Prop 8, an anti gay marraige bill. Wanna go back and try that one again?

Oh and yet another state legalized gay marriage last week. It's only a matter of time before state by state the entire union legalizes it. I give it 10 years at max.

That's correct.

Probably just a typo, I'm pretty sure you meant to put an I and an N before the word correct.

The Constitution has ALWAYS been protected by liberals. Jesus, liberals wrote the damn thing.

Ah yes. From the top ten list of liberal talking points. The Patriot Act. Which stripped nothing, it suspended... much of which is no longer used or needed.

Man, that's some funny stuff right there. "It didn't strip...it suspended!". Which means the exact same thing. When a right is suspended, is it not stripped from you?

No longer used or needed? I'm sorry, privacy and protection from government interfering into your personal life is no longer needed? We live in America, not Orwell's 1984.

An act used to defend the country from terrorism that evidently is a hundred times worse than the blatant seperation of powers violations that FRD did. Who is a liberal hero. The only time liberals defend the Constitution is when it suits them. The rest of the time they are trying to renact the Fairness Doctrine. And if you don't know what THAT is, go ask Chuck Schumer. Clearly you don't have the "passive knowledge of American politics".

A: "Defend the country from terrorism"? The vast, VAST majority of the Patriot ACT has been used on innocent American civilians. The fact that you actually think the Patriot ACT has helped the "war on terror" is yet another nugget of comedic gold from you.

B: FRD? Don't remember that guy. I'm assuming you meant to write FDR. I have no idea what kind of "liberals" you know, but FDR's internment of Japanese citizens has been vilified by liberals for decades.

C: The Fairness Doctrine? As in the FCC policy? When did the Federal Communications Commission become a liberal organization? The only reason any Democrat ever supported the reinstitution of the doctine in the first place was to take a potshot at Fox News and conservative talk radio.

Yet another epic fail on your part.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Gay people have been getting married in the states where it is now legal for quite some time now. Last time I checked, the pope is still alive, the churches are still thriving, and the sky isn't raining locusts. Please inform me of how gay marraige has harmed religion.

*yawns* Old argument is old. You've hit about 4 so far, 6 more to go. You already used Hitler in a previous post. What? We haven't gotten to rednecks yet? Or are you saving that one?

I was actually referring to the modern white supremacist movement, beginning with the KKK trying to get into politics in the 70s. Absolutely nothing to do with Hitler. Hitler did not invent white supremacism buddy.

No, you haven't. In fact, you haven't stated a single referential fact. You want to own something? Go back to the Prison forum.

Right. You keep believing that you're writing up some quality debate. The rest of us here will just continue to enjoy your rantings for what they are; humor.

 

[FromTheSouth]

X:

Is that supposed to be an argument? Please, please inform me of how homosexual culture is being shoved down your throat.

Too funny, and if I am guessing right, very intentional.

I will agree with his argument about Garafolo. No, she's not a politician, but, just like Limbaugh, she is a political pundit. Franken put her on Air America. Her calling Tea Party participants "racist" is stupid. Blacks, whites, hispanics, everyone participated in these events. The one I went to (yes I went) was attended by more Hispanics than any other race.

Calling the Libs the party of tolerance and equal rights is a bit of a stretch too. Republicans freed the slavesand gave them the right to vote. Democrats made them equal. Republicans empowered them with opportunity, Dems gave them a little shove to the front of the line. I think that over the last 150 years both parties have done a lot to help minorities. That being said, I think both parties benefit from keeping them down. Dems want to increase welfare because it incentivises staying where you are. That way the Dems can give them more, and get more votes. The Republicans benefit from keeping monorities down in that poor people tend to also be uninformed, and the uninformed don't vote. It goes both ways, and from both parties.

I just don't see the connection between not liking gay marriage and being homophobic. Carrie Prejean never said "all **** should die." She simply said that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with her. I think that gays should get hospital visitation rights, property transfer rights, and adoption rights, I don't think gays should be harmed, deported, shunned, or lynched. I think that killing someone because they are gay IS a hate crime, just like a lynching. I just feel that marriage is a separate issue. Does that make me a homophobe? My gay friends would say no.

Marriage, for 5,000 years, has been between a man a woman. Changing it now opens a can of worms. Just because the state refuses to accept your union, doesn't mean you can't be married in the eyes of God, your friends, and your families. The state not recognizing these unions is simply to prevent a slippery slope. After black men received a new interpretation of civil rights, women pushed for theirs. After that, it was Hispanics, and then gays. This is all good, but every time the push for civil rights for a group happens, it seems that the next group is smaller than the last. At what point does the American population look at you and say your group is too small? It has to happen somewhere, and this is the current point where we draw the line. Maybe you're right. Maybe in 20 years, we will look back and say that we were stupid to deny these people certain rights, but none of these movements has gotten every victory overnight. California was the litmus test. The most liberal state in the union wasn't up to it, so, there is not way the fly overs will be. Allow some time, and the view will soften, but right now, America just isn't ready. Maybe, if the gay population could rally behind a Martin Luther King-type figure instead of Perez Hilton and gossip queens, the process would speed up. But Perez Hilton isn't helping the cause, and there are no serious advocates stepping up with reasoned responses, just name calling and titty pictures. Maybe they should hire you, X, as you have given more common sense reasons than any spokesman or pundit. Next will be polygamists (which is not legal, by the way. The second and third wives are not recognized as spouses by the state, even Utah), then bestialists, then pedophiles, then God knows what other alternative lifestyle. Sure, right now we think that a 14 year old shouldn't be able to marry a thirty year old man, but the more permissive we become, the less offensive certain atrocities seem to become. Look at how desensitized children who watch violent movies are to actual violence. You don't think that the same desensitization will occur in the area of alternative lifestyles? Remember, todays kids are the parents of tomorrows kids, and the next days politicians.

The burden of proof rests on the gay community. There are legal methods available to procure all the rights of a married couple, and there is no uncalled for burden to obtaining all these rights. There are no blazing (The original post said flaming, but that would have been bad, and unintentional) walls of razors to jump over to write a will for a gay man.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

So refusing someone certain rights and privelages based on their sexuality isn't discrimination? Clearly you don't understand what the word means.

Yes, I do. But there's a difference between denying existing rights and being hesitant about handing out new ones like candy. The thing here is that gays don't have EXISTING rights that are being denied. They want IN to NEW rights they don't ALREADY have. There is a line there that does have degrees of seperation. The word descrimination can have MANY levels of usage. If I pick the big heavy strong hitting on the baseball team over the runt when bases are loaded, that's TECHNICALLY descrimination. That doesn't mean I have hatred for the rest of the team. Racing towards the harshest words you can find in the most extreme meanings doesn't make a more valid argument.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Please, please inform me of how homosexual culture is being shoved down your throat.

Because its not about tolerance anymore. Gay tolerance was in 1999. This is 2009. In 2009 you have to celebrate homosexuality. You can't even just be PASSIVE about it anymore, lest you get branded a hate monger. I don't need a Straight Person parade, I don't need to wear a funny armband to throw parties about my sexuality. Gays have gone from being an opressed minority group to a political special interest group. And like any other special interest group, its never going to shut up, and it will scream forever and ever that they deserve more, long after they got what they orignally wanted. Power like that doesn't just go away. I'm pretty sure that blacks have just about every right that whites do at this point. Their political special interest groups are still around screaming for more special privelages. You think that every gay is going to shut up and disband their organizations if all 50 states legalize full gay marriage? If you do, then YOU are in the dream world.

See, that last line right there strips away more validation from your argument than I ever could. The vast majority of homosexuals are not "lisping, limp wristed and fashionably wise", the majority are regular everyday people who you couldn't pick out of a crowd to save your life.

And now you just misquoted me and contradicted yourself with FromTheSouth. First off, I didn't say vast majority. YOU did. But the vast majority of postal workers aren't gun toting maniacs, people still make "going postal" jokes. BECAUSE gays tend to look like everyone else, it IS the lisping limp wrists that become the symbols of the homosexual interest groups.

And just because it's a public perception doesn't mean it's right. It was once public perception that black people were property, and not people.

No, but it is what it is. Public perception that is Barack Obama is a GOD, and anyone who thinks differently is full of hate, so don't talk to ME about the unfairness of public perception.

I highly doubt you know "plenty" of homosexuals. Highly doubt it. A: Because you're extremely uneducated about homosexuals, and B: Because homosexuals are still a very small minority of the American population, and the odds are that you'd be lucky to know one. But sure, if you say so, you've got a whole cavalcade of homosexual buddies. Right on.

A.) Uneducated HOW?
B.) Define "Small minority".

You know, just saying again and again that the arguments aren't the same doesn't actually verify that.

Well, if you wouldn't keep GOING to that dry well over and over again, I wouldn't HAVE to.

You keep saying this, yet you can't come up with even one reason why they aren't similiar.

You... want to compare 30 years of public ostracism to thousands of years of slavery? Seriously? You really wanna go there?

Anti-semitism. Persecuting someone for their personal beliefs. What is the anti-gay movement all about? Thats right kids! Persecuting someone for their personal beliefs. If you don't see the similiarities with the black argument, you have to see the similiarities here.

No. Again, no. Now you've contradicted yourself twice. Its not about BELIEFS. Furthermore, a lot of jewish hate is based on hating them for their blood, not their religion. Many parts of the world considers jews as a race. Like blacks. Gays are not a race. And you have to pick one now: are gays something genetic from birth or is a set of beliefs? Make up your damned mind.

I wasn't aware that Janeane Garafolo was a politician. Who gives two shits about what some quasi-celebrity has to say?

Evidently every fucktard that agrees with Perez Hilton's blog. And the idiots that believed Edward Norton when he said that if we all turned off all the lights in our house at 8:00PM that we'd save a ton of power for the planet. It didn't. People follow celebs like sheep.

Do you know how many hateful, racist things conservative celebrities have said?

Probably a ton, based on YOUR hugely broad definitions of what qualifies as a hateful racist comment.

Should I post up videos of Rush Limbaugh, who's entire career has been founded on hatred?

Knock yourself out, I know more about El Rushbo than you will ever know, because people like you are too busy making ANCIENT jokes about Oxycotin to present a solid conversation about him. I've never in my life seen anyone debate something he's said that wasn't taken wildly out of proportion from the rest of the sound byte, from the Phony Soliders scandal... to Michael J. Fox... to the I Hope He Fails comment.

The fact that you actually believe the shit that's coming out of your computer right now makes it twice as funny.

What kind of weak willed idiot DOESN'T believe what he says? What sense does that make?

Liberals have always been the party of tolerance and equal rights, and the fact that I actually need to argue that with you really takes away even more credibility you might've had.

Ehhhh... you're half right. Liberals PORTRAY themselves as the party of tolerance and equal rights. That much is correct.

Really? Because I don't remember mentioning anything about evangelicals, at all.

Because you are using old liberal arguments that more directly target the "Bible-thumping rednecks" than basic intelligent Conservative ideas.

What's that? Raise taxes by a small percentage?

Um... what? Do you have any idea what kind of numbers we are talking about? Have you looked at them? At all? Have you actually gone through the stimulus package, or ANYTHING he's proposed or signed?

Please explain to me how having the leader of America fail would not hurt America. Please, I'm begging you, Explain to me how the failure of our first black president, who has about twelve million times the global support that George Bush could ever have dreamed of, would be a good step for America.

Wow. I don't even know where to start with that drool worthy opening. Fuck, I don't even have enough TIME to answer that properly. Just... go find a book on Socialism and flip to a random page.

Again, I seriously am wondering whether you actually think before typing, or do you just copy and paste your drivel from the "Crazy Neo-Con Weekly".

This is actually Classic Conservatism, not Neoconservatism. Get your ideologies straight.

Yes, you keep believing that I'm the one who's looking foolish here.

Don't mind if I do.

I'm quite certain even FromTheSouth is embarassed by your incredibly ham-fisted attempt at a debate.

Really? You know that for certain? And you think I'm the one that is presumptuous?

I just can't believe this shit. What world do you live in? Is it some crazy world where the media doesn't obsess over everything and blow everything imaginable out of proportion? Please direct me to that world.

There are atleast 3 major news networks that run news non-stop for 24 hours a day, every day, all year. They desperately need things to fill up time with, as anyone who's watched CNN at 3AM can tell you.

And yet they all slant so far left they should require a cane to stand up straight. And then all by itself you have Fox News, demonized daily. Cheers. Go back to PMSNBC.

What is the big deal with this to you guys? You keep on arguing about Miss California while the rest of us are arguing about gay marriage and gay rights, which is what this thread is really about. Forget about Miss California, she's inconsequential to the argument at hand.

You do know that Miss Califronia is in fact the title of the thread, right? Did you read the original post at all?

I was unaware that Proposition 8 was a pro-gay marraige bill. Here I was thinking it was the exact opposite. Once again, I've lost you. I said that nowhere in any gay marriage bill has it required rabbis or priests to perform these marriages, and you respond with a reference to Prop 8, an anti gay marraige bill. Wanna go back and try that one again?

Nope, had it right the first time. Because Propostion 8 was in response to a judges overturn. Don't take that attitude that judges don't legislate from the bench. Because they do. They ignored a huge swell of votes regarding gay marriage, in DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION. Something is hugely wrong when you can vote for something and have it pass and it doesn't matter because four liberals with gavels can say you don't matter. The fact that Prop 8 even had to go up was a slap in the face to American rights and freedoms. To the voters! And if you read line by line what the FAILURE of Proposition 8 would have entailed, then you would know why those pastors were worried.

Oh and yet another state legalized gay marriage last week. It's only a matter of time before state by state the entire union legalizes it. I give it 10 years at max.

Very possible. Doesn't justify the purpose of this threads original topic - the one sided slaughter of Miss California at the hands of a bigot. News flash: hatred doesn't just come from straight, rich, old, white people.

Fairness Doctrine? As in the FCC policy? When did the Federal Communications Commission become a liberal organization? The only reason any Democrat ever supported the reinstitution of the doctine in the first place was to take a potshot at Fox News and conservative talk radio.

FCC policy dictated from the Hill by democrats, struck down in 1987 and an attempted ressurection by the left to silence the only part of the media they don't have eating out of their hand.

Gay people have been getting married in the states where it is now legal for quite some time now. Last time I checked, the pope is still alive, the churches are still thriving, and the sky isn't raining locusts. Please inform me of how gay marraige has harmed religion.

If you don't get it by now, you never will. Just stay confused. Its simpler for you that way.

I was actually referring to the modern white supremacist movement, beginning with the KKK trying to get into politics in the 70s. Absolutely nothing to do with Hitler. Hitler did not invent white supremacism buddy.

And there's the KKK reference. You win Liberal Bingo. We also would have accepted "failed policies of the past", "everything is George Bush's fault", or "Obama is for change!"

The rest of us here will just continue to enjoy your rantings for what they are; humor.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[X]

I will agree with his argument about Garafolo. No, she's not a politician, but, just like Limbaugh, she is a political pundit. Franken put her on Air America. Her calling Tea Party participants "racist" is stupid. Blacks, whites, hispanics, everyone participated in these events. The one I went to (yes I went) was attended by more Hispanics than any other race.

Personally I can't stand Garofalo, so yeah she probably did make a fool of herself. But I wouldn't really call her a political pundit, more just like an actress who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up. Every actor/actress think their opinion on politics matters; it doesn't!

Calling the Libs the party of tolerance and equal rights is a bit of a stretch too. Republicans freed the slavesand gave them the right to vote. Democrats made them equal. Republicans empowered them with opportunity, Dems gave them a little shove to the front of the line. I think that over the last 150 years both parties have done a lot to help minorities. That being said, I think both parties benefit from keeping them down. Dems want to increase welfare because it incentivises staying where you are. That way the Dems can give them more, and get more votes. The Republicans benefit from keeping monorities down in that poor people tend to also be uninformed, and the uninformed don't vote. It goes both ways, and from both parties.

Y'know, I know we're supposed to be arguing or something here, but I pretty much completely agree with that paragraph there. Like I said before, I'm not biased towards Democrats and Liberals or think that they're untouchable saints. Politicians, left or right, are universally usually masters of deception an manipulation in my book.

What I meant though was that over the years, atleast public perception has been that Democrats and liberals are much more inclined to social issues like equal rights.

I just don't see the connection between not liking gay marriage and being homophobic. Carrie Prejean never said "all **** should die." She simply said that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with her. I think that gays should get hospital visitation rights, property transfer rights, and adoption rights, I don't think gays should be harmed, deported, shunned, or lynched. I think that killing someone because they are gay IS a hate crime, just like a lynching. I just feel that marriage is a separate issue. Does that make me a homophobe? My gay friends would say no.

No it doesn't make you a homophobe. Look, everything you've just listed basically sums up the rights that marriage affords people.

See, I think the main issue people who are against gay marriage have are their personal religious problems with the idea. But the truth is that religion really has nothing to do with it for gay people. They don't want to invade your churches and force your priests and rabbis to perform their ceremony. All they want is the title of marriage. I just don't understand what's the big deal over a freakin' word. Furthermore, not allowing a group of people a certain right because of your own personal beliefs just isn't right in my book. Personal beliefs about morality and religion should have no bearing on any law.

Marriage, for 5,000 years, has been between a man a woman. Changing it now opens a can of worms.

I really don't think it does though. There's an actual large amount of Americans who are homosexual and want marriage. Using your examples of bestiality and polygamy, those two cultures are so out on the fringe with such a miniscule amount of supporters that the legalization of gay marriage would have no bearing on them whatsoever.

Just because the state refuses to accept your union, doesn't mean you can't be married in the eyes of God, your friends, and your families. The state not recognizing these unions is simply to prevent a slippery slope. After black men received a new interpretation of civil rights, women pushed for theirs. After that, it was Hispanics, and then gays. This is all good, but every time the push for civil rights for a group happens, it seems that the next group is smaller than the last. At what point does the American population look at you and say your group is too small? It has to happen somewhere, and this is the current point where we draw the line. Maybe you're right. Maybe in 20 years, we will look back and say that we were stupid to deny these people certain rights, but none of these movements has gotten every victory overnight. California was the litmus test. The most liberal state in the union wasn't up to it, so, there is not way the fly overs will be. Allow some time, and the view will soften, but right now, America just isn't ready. Maybe, if the gay population could rally behind a Martin Luther King-type figure instead of Perez Hilton and gossip queens, the process would speed up. But Perez Hilton isn't helping the cause, and there are no serious advocates stepping up with reasoned responses, just name calling and titty pictures. Maybe they should hire you, X, as you have given more common sense reasons than any spokesman or pundit. Next will be polygamists (which is not legal, by the way. The second and third wives are not recognized as spouses by the state, even Utah), then bestialists, then pedophiles, then God knows what other alternative lifestyle. Sure, right now we think that a 14 year old shouldn't be able to marry a thirty year old man, but the more permissive we become, the less offensive certain atrocities seem to become. Look at how desensitized children who watch violent movies are to actual violence. You don't think that the same desensitization will occur in the area of alternative lifestyles? Remember, todays kids are the parents of tomorrows kids, and the next days politicians.

Fantastic points all around FTS, but I disagree that it's a slippery slope. After race, creed, gender and sexuality there really isn't anything left. I mean, bestiality and pedophilia almost always involve violence and forcing someone to be with you, so that can hardly be called a justifiable movement.

But one thing struck me as odd here. If they can still be married "in the eyes of God" as you say, then exactly what issue do you have with them being a married couple? If God him/herself doesn't have a problem with it, why should you?

The burden of proof rests on the gay community. There are legal methods available to procure all the rights of a married couple, and there is no uncalled for burden to obtaining all these rights. There are no blazing (The original post said flaming, but that would have been bad, and unintentional) walls of razors to jump over to write a will for a gay man.

I think in the end what the gay community really wants is to not be viewed as inferior. No matter what way you slice a civil union, it still is viewed as inferior to actual marriage. They just want to be on equal footing with straight couples, and not have their unions viewed as somewhat lesser then a straight married couple.

Great points though all around FTS, I'm glad there's someone with intelligence debating me on this issue, instead of that Evan Snow guy who really is just making his position look weaker and weaker with each post.

Speaking of him, time to crush his feeble arguments again.

 

[X]

Yes, I do. But there's a difference between denying existing rights and being hesitant about handing out new ones like candy. The thing here is that gays don't have EXISTING rights that are being denied. They want IN to NEW rights they don't ALREADY have.

Jesus Christ man, please STOP before you type and THINK...THINK! about what you are saying. Because this is just becoming far too easy.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF ANY KIND HAS BEEN ABOUT NEW RIGHTS. The black civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, every one of them was about attaining new rights. I can't believe I actually had to explain that to you.

There is a line there that does have degrees of seperation. The word descrimination can have MANY levels of usage.

Not really. Discrimination is an incredibly simple term. If you do not allow someone certain things, or exclude them from things that you allow other people of a different race/gender/sexuality, that is discrimination. That is the definition of the word, really quite black-and-white.

If I pick the big heavy strong hitting on the baseball team over the runt when bases are loaded, that's TECHNICALLY descrimination. That doesn't mean I have hatred for the rest of the team. Racing towards the harshest words you can find in the most extreme meanings doesn't make a more valid argument.

No, it's technically not discrimination. Seriously man, it'll take you all of 10 seconds to google the definition of the word, is that so much to ask for? That scenario you just gave would be discimination if you didn't pick that "runt" because of his skin color/religion/sexuality. All you just said was an example of picking someone over another because of their talent in a particuliar skill. I'm not sure how you could possibly think these are the same thing.

Because its not about tolerance anymore. Gay tolerance was in 1999.

Really now? Did I fall asleep and miss the Great Gay Rebellion of 1999? As I seemingly keep asking you, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!. I have no idea where you get these ideas from.

This is 2009. In 2009 you have to celebrate homosexuality.

Again you are spouting bullshit. Is that your job or something? Who says we have to celebrate homosexuality? Homosexuals are still just as ridiculred and humiliated as they ever were.

You can't even just be PASSIVE about it anymore, lest you get branded a hate monger. I don't need a Straight Person parade, I don't need to wear a funny armband to throw parties about my sexuality.

Because you're not a minority and your group of people haven't been discriminated against for hundreds of years. Why would straight people go out of their way to say something is great when no one has ever said that it wasn't? At this point you're not even bringing up valid points, but the usual talking points that quite frankly I usually hear from the white supremacists I argue with on YouTube.

Gays have gone from being an opressed minority group to a political special interest group. And like any other special interest group, its never going to shut up, and it will scream forever and ever that they deserve more, long after they got what they orignally wanted. Power like that doesn't just go away. I'm pretty sure that blacks have just about every right that whites do at this point. Their political special interest groups are still around screaming for more special privelages. You think that every gay is going to shut up and disband their organizations if all 50 states legalize full gay marriage? If you do, then YOU are in the dream world.

What perfect world do you live in that blacks and whites are completely equal? If that's so, explain to me why a black man is 4 times as likely to be imprisoned for the exact same crime that a white man committs and goes free on. Explain to me why the amount of poor African Americans vastly outnumber the amount of poor whites. Blacks have all the civil rights whites do, but to claim that both races of people are perfectly equal in terms of their economic and social standings tells me that you're completely oblivious to reality.

And now you just misquoted me and contradicted yourself with FromTheSouth. First off, I didn't say vast majority. YOU did. But the vast majority of postal workers aren't gun toting maniacs, people still make "going postal" jokes. BECAUSE gays tend to look like everyone else, it IS the lisping limp wrists that become the symbols of the homosexual interest groups.

How have I misquoted you? You said it, not me. And you implied that all gays were that way, don't act as though you meant anything else by your statement.

So your argument is that groups of people are usually percieved the same as the lunatic fringe minority of those groups? As usual, your points make little to no sense.

No, but it is what it is. Public perception that is Barack Obama is a GOD, and anyone who thinks differently is full of hate, so don't talk to ME about the unfairness of public perception.

Really? So you have some sort of verifiable data proving that public perception is that Obama is a God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fox News a part of the public perception? They certainly don't think he's a god.

A.) Uneducated HOW?

How about the fact that you adhere to offensive stereotypes about homosexuals? How about the fact that you think they don't deserve the same rights that you do? That's what I mean by uneducated.

B.) Define "Small minority".

Do I really need to? Do you actually not understand what those two words mean? Because they're rather elementary. By small minority I mean exactly that---homosexuals represent a small minority of the American population. Are you attempting to argue otherwise?

You... want to compare 30 years of public ostracism to thousands of years of slavery? Seriously? You really wanna go there?

30 years of ostracism? Where do you keep coming up with these utterly random and incorrect dates? You really think homosexuals have only been discriminated against for 30 years?

I mean, after that line, I now officially realize that you just are not an equal opponent for me. You clearly don't even understand the basic facts about the debate at hand.

No. Again, no. Now you've contradicted yourself twice. Its not about BELIEFS. Furthermore, a lot of jewish hate is based on hating them for their blood, not their religion. Many parts of the world considers jews as a race. Like blacks. Gays are not a race. And you have to pick one now: are gays something genetic from birth or is a set of beliefs? Make up your damned mind.

Where have I contradicted myself, even once? Please show me how I have contradicted myself in any way.

And the idea that anti-semitism is about hating Jews for their blood is just false. Want to know why? Because Jews are not a natural born race of people, like blacks, but a religion. And like every religion, someone had to come up with those beliefs for it to come into existence. Judaism is nothing BUT a set of beliefs.

Evidently every fucktard that agrees with Perez Hilton's blog. And the idiots that believed Edward Norton when he said that if we all turned off all the lights in our house at 8:00PM that we'd save a ton of power for the planet. It didn't. People follow celebs like sheep.

I agree with you about Perez Hilton, I don't give two shits about his opinion, or most celeb's opinions.

Probably a ton, based on YOUR hugely broad definitions of what qualifies as a hateful racist comment.

I haven't given any clue whatsoever as to what I personally belive constitutes a hateful, racist comment, so not sure where you're getting this from.

Knock yourself out, I know more about El Rushbo than you will ever know, because people like you are too busy making ANCIENT jokes about Oxycotin to present a solid conversation about him. I've never in my life seen anyone debate something he's said that wasn't taken wildly out of proportion from the rest of the sound byte, from the Phony Soliders scandal... to Michael J. Fox... to the I Hope He Fails comment.

So are you trying to argue that Rush Limbaugh and all conservative figures have never said anything hateful or racist?

As for trying to defend the Michael J. Fox controversy...I really don't know how you possibly could. Michael J. Fox has a disease. Rush Limbaugh made fun of him for the effects of that disease, and called him a liar. That's the end of the story, no spin you put on it could possibly make that a right thing to say.

Um... what? Do you have any idea what kind of numbers we are talking about? Have you looked at them? At all? Have you actually gone through the stimulus package, or ANYTHING he's proposed or signed?

Yes, I have. But like I've said more then once now, I'm not some crazed Obama supporter. I voted for the guy, and I support some of his policies, but I'm not gung-ho about the guy. So far I think he's done an average job. Not particuliarly great or bad.

But this isn't about Obama, this is about gay marriage.

Wow. I don't even know where to start with that drool worthy opening. Fuck, I don't even have enough TIME to answer that properly. Just... go find a book on Socialism and flip to a random page.

I get the impression you probably don't know much about socialism. First off, I'm guessing what you were probably referring to is the various ways that Communist (note: Different from socialist. Very different.) leaders have destroyed their countries. As for socialism however, please inform me of how the country of Sweden has been ravaged by the evil socialist plague and how badly they regret socialism. They will laugh in your face. And they'd be right to.

[/quote]And yet they all slant so far left they should require a cane to stand up straight. And then all by itself you have Fox News, demonized daily. Cheers. Go back to PMSNBC.[/quote]

Which again, has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You do know that Miss Califronia is in fact the title of the thread, right? Did you read the original post at all?

This thread is quite clearly about the topic of gay marriage. That's what the entire Miss California controversy was about.

FCC policy dictated from the Hill by democrats, struck down in 1987 and an attempted ressurection by the left to silence the only part of the media they don't have eating out of their hand.

My god, I don't know how many more times I can say that I'm not a Democrat or a Liberal before you get it. All of this left vs. right bullshit you're trying to stir is irrelevent to the topic at hand.

If you don't get it by now, you never will. Just stay confused. Its simpler for you that way.

That's your response? Not once in this thread have you touched upon how gay marriage will harm religion. And instead of doing that here, you dismiss it.

And there's the KKK reference. You win Liberal Bingo. We also would have accepted "failed policies of the past", "everything is George Bush's fault", or "Obama is for change!"

You really enjoy not answering questions or responding to points don't you? I only brought up white nationalists because what you were saying sounded exactly like some of the things they do.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

If I were you I would just stop replying at this point, because for every good point that FTS makes to support your side of the argument, you make three that diminish it. You're hurting your own argument.