PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     debate class - Gay Rights
       doods, need gay rights debate info

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, im in debate class, and ive been waiting for 2 years to debate gay rights, and finally, we can do it!  I want to have a super-awsome-kill-em-all point, so any help PRO gay rights would be nice.

Thanx,
          Exxoss


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 08:39 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You actually NEED these people to give you info on a topic you insist you know through and through?  So, I'm on a bad side, I've been wanting to do the side you're on for two years too, but I'm not going to beg for a point, I'd rather get testimonials put up from wanting to post, they're usually better neway.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:49 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hello exoss, it is me nabil...be happy that i got u dat side

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:49 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think you should start with this argument:
no matter what your religious belief, the most important thing to remember is this is a secular society, so rights are not determined by theistic-based moral judgements. our society is grounded in the theory of negative liberty (John Locke), which states basically that one's person's sphere of freedom in which he can behave as he wishes is limited at the point where it infringes on the freedom of others. so the burden of proof lies on anti-gay rights people to show how homosexual behavior infringes on the rights of others. and don't let them get away with saying it degrades society, because this is a moral argument, and if you push hard enough, you'll find it traces back to judgements based on religious belief, which, as I already stated, are irrelevant to a debate about civil rights in a secular society.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:31 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about something like gays make up 3% - 10% of the United States population. This is 5 to 1.5 times more than the Jewish population (2%). Becuase they do not fit into the idea of a "Christian" marriage or don't plan to raise their children with "Christian" values, should that not be legal either? Maybe try to tie in that our country is fighting a war on religious extremism and that we should be waking up and not basing anything anymore on our religions!
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 8:55 PM on December 4, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what im trying to get is experiences pro gay... not exactly, points, but experience PRO that ou guys have had with gays.  Alex, youll be a big help.

Veronica, dont be stuck up.  Im actually geting info, not a point.  And you accuse me of being an asshole.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 12:17 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex, who says this is a secular society?

True, constitutionally it may be.
But the majority of people in America believe that homosexuality is wrong, which is mostly based on the religion that our forefathers belonged to when they wrote the constitution, Christianity.

This may "legally" be a secular society, but it is actually far from it.

As for gay rights, Alex, you already know how I feel.  And I have tried, just for you, to base why I think homosexuality is wrong on non-religious ideas. (your welcome)

I think that, until enough research has been done on what is wrong with a person's mind that causes them to be gay, homosexuality should be treated just like any other disease of the mind.  
People who are mentally retarded don't have the same rights as 'normal' people, they can't drive, for example.
Same for people who have seizures, and people that are deemed 'insane.'

True, homosexuals aren't retarded, they aren't epileptics, and they aren't insane.  But they are, indeed, affected by some inner psychological abnormality that causes them to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

How can I call homosexuality 'abnormal?'
Anything that an organism does, intentionally or not, that would hinder the survival of its species is abnormal.
(and before you ask, no, I can't direct you to any scientific journal from where I got this information, It is just plain common sense.)

In conclusion,
We can't just go around giving 'abnormal' people rights just for the sake of being politically correct.

Alex, I would suggest finding out what it is about other men that you find attractive.  If you dig deep enough (no pun intended) I think you'll find that your desire to be with other men is really a desire to have a normal male-bonding relationship;

This is something that you probably have never had in your life, and you just don't know how to accomplish it; so you achieve this need in your life by having a 'romantic' relationship with another man.

It is a habit that you've gotten into, and it will be hard for you to break.  Even harder because the 'advice' is coming from me, right?

Don't do it for me, do it for yourself.
Don't just assume that your being gay is just "who you are."  Open your mind, and examine the other possiblities of your homosexual origin.



-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 7:56 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okay, hooyah, you and are the same in one respect: we are both biased. I am biased because I am gay and believing it is wrong would be an affront to my lifestyle. You are biased because you already believe it is wrong (I assume originally from religious reasons), and thus find it hard to hear reasoning that contradicts this. Here is the difference between us: I am basing ALL my arguments on logic and evidence, while you are basing a HUGE amount of what you say on presumption. Example: "Alex, I would suggest finding out what it is about other men that you find attractive.  If you dig deep enough (no pun intended) I think you'll find that your desire to be with other men is really a desire to have a normal male-bonding relationship; This is something that you probably have never had in your life, and you just don't know how to accomplish it; so you achieve this need in your life by having a 'romantic' relationship with another man." You aren't debating; you are counseling. And I doubt you are qualified to do so. You have ZERO evidence to back up this presumption. In fact, I am closer to my father than to my mother. The vast majority of my friends are straight males of whom I am no sexual thoughts.
Now, I will DEBATE the LOGIC of your points. The majority of people believe homosexuality is wrong? who cares? in America it is not supposed to be rule of the majority (look for Dsdevil's quote from John Stuart Mill). should slavery only be outlawed when 51% say so? how about civil rights for blacks in the 60s? how about emancipation of women?
You say this may be "legally" a secular society, but it is far from it. So? I am saying what rights people SHOULD have. you are jumping between normative and descriptive points here. you say, constitutionally it may be...yeah, thanks for making my point for me. Do YOU think we should base laws on the constitution, or on the majority rule? again, is right and wrong for you just a numbers game? an interesting argument, coming from a religious person...
here is another ridiculous assumption...that homosexuality should be treated as a disease of the mind. thank god you're not a psychiatrist. Can u imagine a bunch of doctors standing around a patient saying, "well, she's acting funny...Don't know what's wrong...maybe she's sick...well, I don't know...oh, hell, let's just open her up!" yeah, they used to do that...it was when they exorcised devils by flailing people. there is no psychological evidence that shows homosexuality is a disease. i am not a doctor, but i do know a disease has very particular criteria; you don't just classify any "abnormality" as a disease.
next you say: "Anything that an organism does, intentionally or not, that would hinder the survival of its species is abnormal".
you are completely ignoring my earlier arguments about gays and species longevity. you keep making points, and never responding to mine. why is that? i am not going to keep repeating them. find elsewhere what I said about the survival of the species and homosexuality.
ok, you conclude by saying: "We can't just go around giving 'abnormal' people rights just for the sake of being politically correct."
wow, how "Christian" of you to say so.
so I guess infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to marry either huh?
essentially, here is what you've done: you invented ex nihilo a convenient definition for "abnormal", and then added it together with a random assignment of civil rights worthiness, and presto! you got an anti-gay rights platform.
finally, I want to respond to one of your therapy session points, that I should "Open [my] mind, and examine the other possiblities of [my] homosexual origin."
hmm, if you think a person can go through their adolescence wrestling with this identity problem and NOT think about the possibilities of the origin of their sexuality, then trust me, you REALLY shouldn't become a therapist.
and maybe YOU should think about the origin of sexuality. you have yet to respond to any of my arguments.
and exxoss: what do you mean PRO gay experiences? i am happy being who i am for the same reasons happy straight people are. or are u lookin' for something more graphic? haha heehee hoho






-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:57 AM on December 7, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A great post on all levels.
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 10:17 PM on December 8, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex, Alex, Alex... You and your LOGIC!

Everything isn't about logic.
EVEN THOUGH...I have tried to use non-religious arguments, you still claim that I am not responding to any of your points?

You say "who cares" that most people think that homosexuality is wrong?
When a lot of people think something is wrong, you can't just ignore that!  IF it were just a few people, that would be different, but almost everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.  There I said it...IMMORAL!

Do I think that we should base laws on majority rule?  The answer is that we already do!  Do YOU think we should base laws on MINORITY Rule?

You keep saying that I'm not responding to your argument on homosexuality and survival of the species...
What's so hard to understand about that?  It's simple fact...homosexuals don't reproduce!  True...gays may contribute other things to society, and I wasn't saying that they didn't....I was merely saying that it is "illogical" (hey that is a cool word) and abnormal for a human being not to WANT to procreate!
Oh, and I didn't create my definition "out of nothing!"  Homosexuality is obviously abnormal.

And why do you keep calling me religious?
I never said that I was religious...did I?
I said that I believe in God, but I don't affiliate myself with any religion.  I speak of Christianity because it's basically THE religion of this country.

When Congressmen/women in Washington vote on bills, when judges render verdicts, when the President gives orders to the military, do you think that their religion doesn't influence everything that they do?

Of course, it does!  The constitution may separate church and state, but it REALLY is not separate!

The truth is, that most of the people in this country have Morals, whose origins are from Christianity.
Don't kill, rape, do harm to others!  Do unto others...! Even homosexuality.
And whether or not church and state are separate, the officials of this country are going to be influenced by their religious beliefs.

We're not going to stand by and let our morals be cast out one-by-one!  They are what define us, as a country!

Alex, what would it hurt to let gays get married? Probably nothing!
But it's the principle of the thing that I'm arguing.  If we, as a moral society, allow homosexuality to become "OK," what's next?

If we base everything in this country on what's politically correct, what the hell would we have to live for?

Our morals are what hold us together, take them away....and we'll fall apart.

peace


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:31 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you didn't answer my question. i asked do YOU think majority rule is always right? SHOULD slavery only be ended when 51% say it wrong? you dodged the question by saying "we already do!". so? civil rights movements exist to CHANGE the WAY things are. and no, i don't think there should be minority rule. those are not the only two options. we struggle in a democracy to rule by law but also to change laws when we see the minorities being trampled.
it is abnormal for a person not to want to procreate? what about straight people who don't want to have kids? should they not be allowed to marry?
how do u define "abnormal"?
if you believe in God, you are religious.
i read elsewhere in this site than only 38% of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
you talk about presidents, judges, and congresspeople being influenced by religion as if it is a good thing. do you think laws in a state that endeavors to be secular should be based on christian theology?
you say the constitution separates church and state, but in real life it isn't. how is that an argument? do YOU think we should uphold the constitutiom?
YOUR morals do not define ME.
and the things you listed, "don't kill, etc.". they are things most people can agree on no matter what religious belief they have, because they are obviously bad for society. then you lump homosexuality in the same category, but give no reason for doing so. HOW is it bad, other than offending YOUR moral vision of the world?
what principle of the thing are you arguing? if homosexuals can marry, what exactly is next? do you realize what a tyrannical bigot you sound like? sorry, have to say it. "What, if dem negros get to be free, what'll be next? the right to vote? drink outta the same water fountain! hell no! we gotta keep the morals of this here nation together!"
who's talking about political correctness? i am talking about civil rights. you have no evidence that 1. homosexuality is a disease, 2. it is bad for society. you can't say, oh these people here shouldn't have this right, cause some day someone will ask for the right to sleep with their pet. you can say yes to one thing and no to another down the line. at the end of the day, we all still have our faculty of reason.



-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:06 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well, in ur point of view hooyah has not given you evidence that homosexuality is bad for society. but if i remember correctly, hooyah did answer your question earlier when he said that homosexuality goes against the laws of nature because it does not reproduce. so in hooyah's mind, he answered your question


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 09:12 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here was his first response to question of how it goes against nature.
"Anything that an organism does, intentionally or not, that would hinder the survival of its species is abnormal.
(and before you ask, no, I can't direct you to any scientific journal from where I got this information, It is just plain common sense.)"

sorry, i don't accept it as common sense. Hooyah's "common sense" does not stand as scientific evidence.

here is his second comment on the matter:
"I was merely saying that it is "illogical" (hey that is a cool word) and abnormal for a human being not to WANT to procreate!
Oh, and I didn't create my definition "out of nothing!"  Homosexuality is obviously abnormal"
what a bunch of BLAH! what about, as I said, heteros who don't want to have children? his definition IS out of nothing. show me a "law of nature" that says creatures SHOULD procreate. there is no SHOULD in nature. there is do or die. natural selection. i have a SERIOUS problem with people who read a DESIGN or PURPOSE into evolution.




-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:40 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there goes alex with his "logic". this guy is right up there with all the great philosophers like plato, aristotle, and socrates.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:33 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 3:33 PM on December 9, 2002 :
there goes alex with his "logic". this guy is right up there with all the great philosophers like plato, aristotle, and socrates.

This is a forum for debate. This obviously isn't debate.


And from a few posts back:

"but almost everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.  There I said it...IMMORAL!"

I'm not asking as a joke, and I'm not assuming your wrong, but what do you have to back this up?

And even if "almost everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral", does this mean every one thinks homosexuals don't deserve rights?

(Edited by mrmazet 12/9/2002 at 5:19 PM).
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 5:18 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falling, what is the matter with using logic?  It certainly makes more sense than using faith extensively as you do.  By admitting something is believed on faith, you really must remove it from the realm of discussion.  Yes logic is limited, it is limited to the facts.  If you ignore the facts you are left with nothing but hypotheses or wishful thinking.

Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence.  Faith has never been consistent with logic.  Faith. by its invocation, is a transparent admission that what you believe cannot stand on it own two feet.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:58 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do I think that the majority should always rule?
Why do we vote?  'at the end of the day' the majority wins.

As much as I dislike the idea of homosexuality, I will agree, and stand by our constitution's 1st Amendment, that gays do have rights.
But the only right that is guaranteed to you is the right to BE gay.  That's your freedom of choice, however abnormal it may be.

Should straight people who don't want to procreate be allowed to marry?
Hmmm, can you not see the difference here?
A man and woman are MEANT to be mates!  (and I'm not speaking just religiously, but scientifically, biologically, anatomically, etc...)
If they are sterile and unable to reproduce, then that is an abnormality...do you not agree that not being able to reproduce is abnormal?

We obviously have different meaning of what religion is....to me being religious, is when you belong to some particular denomination...which I do not....although I have been mostly influenced, as all of us have, by Christianity.

Should we uphold the constitutiom?
Yes, absolutely....but the point I'm trying to make is that the constitutiom was heavily influenced by the Christian religion.

How is homosexuality bad?
My goodness, have you not read any of my posts....I have tried to base as little as possible on my morals, trying to use something (LOGIC) that you could relate to.

"Tyrannical bigot?"
Did I say anything about 'lettin' dem negros loose?"  "drinkin' from da same fountain?"
Those are not moral issues, those are ignorance issues.

Alex, again, you have the RIGHT to BE gay.  But nothing else.  People also have the right to (God forbid) have a romantic attraction to their pets.  Should someone be able to marry their dog...horse...sheep (baaaahh)!   ?

You've said "So What!" to me saying that most people feel that homosexuality is wrong.
Parents don't want their children to be gay!
Just the same as parents don't want their children to be retarded, or paralyzed, or without a brain, or limbs.
I'm trying to make you see that homosexuality IS abnormal.  (even though I know you'll still require more LOGIC to understand that)

Even YOUR parents, Alex, when YOU were born, they didn't want you to turn out gay, I can almost 100% guarantee you that.
When they found out that you chose to be homosexual, if they even know, were they glad?  Did they jump up and down with glee....YIPPEE!!!
I somehow doubt it.

Mrmazet: what EVIDENCE do I have to back up--
"but almost everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.  There I said it...IMMORAL!"
I've said before, and I'll say it again, some things don't need evidence to back them up.
If you need evidence, just ask yourself, and take a small survey of people that you know, "Do you think that homosexuality is wrong?"
Not, "Will you tolerate it?" but "Do you think it is WRONG?"

It is absolutely abnormal.  If we were to send someone from America into outer space to meet another intelligent life form to represent us, what type of person would we likely send?
Would they be retarded, would they be overweight, would they be handicapped, would they be homosexual?

No. it would be a NORMAL person.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 6:33 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mrmazet: what EVIDENCE do I have to back up--
"but almost everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.  There I said it...IMMORAL!"
I've said before, and I'll say it again, some things don't need evidence to back them up.
If you need evidence, just ask yourself, and take a small survey of people that you know, "Do you think that homosexuality is wrong?"
Not, "Will you tolerate it?" but "Do you think it is WRONG?"

It is absolutely abnormal.  If we were to send someone from America into outer space to meet another intelligent life form to represent us, what type of person would we likely send?
Would they be retarded, would they be overweight, would they be handicapped, would they be homosexual?

No. it would be a NORMAL person

***

"some things don't need evidence to back them up" : How can anything be assumed true without evidence? No one believes anything without at least some evidence may it be someone saying it, them reading it, or them observing it. Evidence may be false or misinterpreted.

Well, actually, everyone I'm at all close to (freinds and family) omiting my step-grandfather and possibly my grandmother certainly tolerate homosexuals, certainly think they deserve rights, and almost certainly don't think it's wrong! Although this might just be the kind of people I associate with. I am planning to take a little survey tomarrow of classmates. I'll post the responce regardless of what it is! And, don't insult me by pointing out the difference between toleration and thinking it not wrong. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me stupid.

Abnormal? If you mean threatening the survival of the species you've changed the real definition of the word and also said something false. homosexuality reduces overpopulation which threatens our entire population.

To group all those people in one is odd. Handicapped, overweight, and retarted would simply not be able to handle going into space. Otherwise, they would certainly be willing to send an overweight person. The only reason they wouldn't send a homosexual is if they felt tests might be done on the persons body including how we reproduce which would be different for a gay person or if... well... people like you were running the choosing program.

Should overwieght and handicapped people not get rights too since they are abnormal?!
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 8:10 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its good that maynard feels that u have the right to be gay, but the question is can u practice it freely? i personally would be fine to make an equivilant of marriage for homosexuals, a civil union of sorts that vests all the same rights as marriage. Whether its abnormal in just the fact that "normal" is what's commonplace and homosexuality might not be is fine, but under that broad a definition abnormality isnt necessarily a bad thing.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:59 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you still never answered my question. for the third time, do YOU think we SHOULD have majority rule? voting is only one way of exercising power. there is also a civil society with grassroots movements. like civil rights groups in the 60s. you say I have the right to be gay. gee, thanx, but actually I don't have that right now. in many states sodomy is illegal. why is that? any of the heteros on this site gotten a blowjob lately? that's sodomy.
what's the difference you cite between gays and heteros? men and women were made to be mates? of course. but they can be mates without a legally binding marriage regulated by the government. there is no connection between nature and sex and marriage. marriage is a human invention, a social convention. just because men and women procreate does not mean they have a right to economic and political benefits that gays have.

did i hear you right? did you compare two HUMAN BEINGS (with the faculty of reason) of the same sex having sex with each other to a person having sex with an ANIMAL? bestiality is wrong because it is an animal rights issue. the animal cannot give its consent.

your definition of morality is so out of whack. something is not immoral just because it is aesthetically unpalatable to you.

my rights go beyond being gay. the right to be gay means i have the right to be gay AND not at the same time share the rights of heteros. don't you get it? if by being gay i lose other rights, that really means by default i don't have the right to be gay, because i am being punished for it.

and dsadevil is right. abnormality does not mean wrong, and even if it did, there are many "wrong" things people do that are not punished by the government, like smoking cigarettes.
(although I am still not agreeing it is abnormal. in my opinion, true heterosexuality is just as rare as true homosexuality. today's society is just full of repressed people who can't even consciously acknowledge homosexual tendencies, let alone experiment, because of the taboo.

hmmm, my parents. my parents were very happy for me, because i was happy. but thanx again for presuming, Dr. Hooyah. my parents are both in psychiatry and understand this a lot better than you or I. my dad didn't even blink an eye (i am lucky, most gays' parents don't take it well, but that's because there are more parents like you in this world). in fact here's exactly how it went:
Alex (not my real name, duh!): uh, dad, i have to tell you something...
Dad: okay. what?
Alex: um, it's kinda hard to say...
Dad: ok, spit it out.
Alex: I'm bisexual (just a psychological transition phase for me, i didn't acknowledge that I was wholly gay yet)
Dad: That's it?
Alex: uh, yeah...I guess.
Dad: what do you mean bisexual?
Alex: I like boys and girls dad.
Dad: Okay.
blahblahblah. funny thing is, my dad figured i was really gay  and not just bisexual (he didn't say anything cause he figured i needed to decide on my own) before i did.
so, in answer to your question, yes they were happy. really happy actually. they were very excited to meet my boyfriend. (of course, i know you could just say they were faking it for my benefit, but i'm not stupid. i know my parents). and do i think they actively hoped I was gay when i was born? of course not. but i don't believe they cared one way or the other. i certainly won't. i'll tell you one thing though...I hope YOUR kid isn't gay.
and by the way, what a person HOPES in no way determines what is abnormal or normal - it just indicates what prejudiced people see as abnormal or normal. you're basically saying:
"it is abnormal. see, these guys also think so, so it is. It just is." that's dumb, dumb, dumb.
same with your dumb outerspace example. fourty years ago, would the United States government have been willing to send a black man into space? NO. so what does that example prove beyond how mean and ignorant most people are?






-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:36 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to: HOOYAH

Two gay men fall in love, get married and live happily ever-after.  

Is that IMMORAL for them?  Or you?

If they both find straight-sex ABNORMAL AND IMMORAL for them, what is the answer for them? Not you.

As you define morality, by what is "normal".  For gays you have no answers.  Only for yourself, *The homophobe*. Who is not gay.

How can they have a loving NORMAL relationship?  If they are gay, and their form of love is ABNORMAL FOR YOU?

You are basically ignorant on this issue.  You are straight (or hate being gay).  So you then use that in your assumption that being gay is abnormal. (you having a gay relationship)

You don't think like.., "How can gays live NORMALLY, AS GAY"?  But you actually consider the following, "How can gays live normally as straight"? haha, it's funny now that I type it.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, UNLESS he-or-she tries too live STRAIGHT.  Thats abnormal for them.

If a gay man or woman falls in love, it's no different FOR THEM, than it would be for you in straight love.

Lets get too the facts. You're homophobia and you try too make Gay's Immoral and abnormal, THAT IS WHAT'S perverse too the message of God, in the name of acceptance and love.

I hope, that you will welcome this and take into heart what i've written and move away from you sinfull lifestyle of homophobia, hate and fear.  :-)

-Robert
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:42 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell me, tell me, tell me then...
Why do you think that you are GAY in the first place.  Is it genetic, environment growing up, what?

If it's genetic, then you almost have to admit that that "gene" in your DNA that codes for "gayness" is ABNORMAL.  Obviously, there are far more people who are not gay than those who are.
True, every organism has variations, within its species, of DNA sequences.  This is actually the raw material of evolution itself.  Nature selects the individuals who possess the genes that are best fitted to the environment.
Those individuals who ARE best suited to their environment will gain the opportunity to pass their genes on to their offspring.

What I am saying is that the ABNORMAL genes are "weeded out" over time.

Okay, so maybe you'd argue that there has been plenty of time since the beginning of the homo sapiens for these "genes" to be "weeded out" by now.

If that's the case....then perhaps it must be the environment (nurture) that causes "gayness."  Did you get that?  The environment CAUSES you to be DIFFERENT than what most people are.  In other words, causes you to be abnormal.

AB=away from
NORMAL=1. Conforming with an accepted standard.  2. occurring naturally; corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc...   3. comformity with the prescribed rule or accepted pattern for its kind.  (That's straight out of the dictionary)

That's Webster's definition of ABNORMAL, and it is also mine.

So which is it, nature or nurture?  Either way, homosexuality is abnormal.  But, again, if you choose to be abnormal, that is your right.

To Mr. NoName: Maybe I'd take you a little more seriously if you'd register.  It makes me feel as if the subject of homosexuality is not something you take seriously, and therefore I can't take you seriously.

But, to humor you, I am not a homophobe.

Dsa, are you calling me Maynard? Or were you actually talking to Maynard?  Because Maynard hasn't posted in this thread.

Mr. Mazet: it seems that you've judged me based on 1 post.  Most of my arguments have been biological, not moral.  You, too, should not insult MY intelligence by saying that "How can anything be assumed true without evidence?"
I know that!  But you can't argue on evidence alone.

To end: I never said that I hate gays, in fact, I have said that I don't believe in persecuting gays.  They have a right to be that way; if they choose.  I am simply arguing that it is ABNORMAL.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 02:59 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh I almost forgot, Alex, forgive me.

Do I think that the majority should rule?
YES!
That's what democracy is all about; the people governing themselves.
Does it make more sense to please the majority of the nation, or the minority?
If you want the same rights as straights, you'll first have to prove that homosexuality is NORMAL.
If we discover in the future that homosexuality is a normal part of nature, then my hats off to ya'!  Get married, adopt, whatever!
But until then, we'll have to treat homosexuality as being abnormal....we can't just let people who are possibly attracted to the same-sex because of some sickness, whether it be psychological or genetical, to "blindly" do something (get married, adopt) that may be unhealthy.  Especially for the children being adopted.
"Daddy?, Where's Daddy?"


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 03:14 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alexander - hopefully I can translate since you stated "okay, hooyah, you and are the same in one respect: we are both biased"

You questioned whether we should live in a society where the majority rules - your evidence if I read it right dealt with slavery. You felt (and correctly I believe) that the majority can get it pretty wrong sometimes. I think the logic you so love of this argument is self evident.

Hooyah for your part you said the following "Do I think that the majority should always rule?
Why do we vote?  'at the end of the day' the majority wins."

Your argument flows like so if I understand - We elect our leaders, who in turn represent us (democracy). Because in elections we have a winner takes all approach the majority selects leaders who in turn ostensibly represent the majorities interests. This too is sound logic.

So we are left with two things in my opinion. First it is not best to leave decisions exclusively to majority rules. Second we live in a nation where the major interest holds power over the minor interst.

Just my two sense.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:15 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i don't know for sure what makes people gay. neither does anyone else. i do not agree with most gays who just say: "It's not a choice." that's just an excuse; we shouldn't be making excuses. I think it is probably, like most things, both genetics and environment. i have decided to accept your definition of abnormal. that sounds fine to me. I just disagree about the conclusion you make after that. why does abnormal mean wrong? why can't abnormal people have the same rights as other people? if I person is so retardd they can't take care of themselves, sure they should not be allowed to have a kid. but that makes sense. what about being homosexual makes someone not be able to be married, or adopt kids. you don't decide who has rights based on their normality. you base the decision on whether their rights will intrinsically infringe on the rights of others. i don't see how homosexuals marrying and adopting kids infringes on the rights of heterosexuals.

i think you use the word abnormal as if by virtue of difference something is bad. diversity enriches peoples' lives and makes society stronger. as an American, you should see this. and stop referring to homosexuality as a disease when there is no evidence to support this categorization.

and something about voting...in my opinion when we vote we don't just vote for someone's beliefs or platform. we vote because we respect their judgement. I never vote for someone who agrees with me about everything. besides, there never is a candidate about that. and the people who are voted for by the majority have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. that is how it SHOULD be in a just society. a white heterosexual Catholic president should protect the rights of, and struggle for more rights for the blacks and gays and Jews. otherwise, we have a tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what we often degenerate to in this country.  i love America, not because it is perfect but because we have a system created with the most important purpose of self-improvement. the constitution was created knowing society would change and thus had a mechanism of ammendments to improve our system.

we got rid of slavery. we gave women and blacks the right to vote. we are trying to get rid of segregation and racial inequality. some of these things are done by the government, some things are done by grass roots movements, and some are done through force. i don't believe in giving gays rights through force. i DO believe we are a group of people who are repressed and treated badly, and for no reason other than we offend some peoples idea of normality. that is bigotry. i hate the word homophobia...it doesn't apply in a lot of cases. i prefer the word bigot. i think it means someone who can't accept differences. i think hooyah is a bigot. you are still a bigot even if you cover it in the veil of intellectuality. so far, in summary he is basically saying: you are different, abnormal...so it must be a disease...someone like this should not have the same rights as other people. there is nothing to support the idea that it is a disease. sooo, leaving that out, it becomes: you are different...so you can't have equal rights.  that's bigotry.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:31 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the majority of citizens are pro-abortion. but that does not mean that majority is always right. i honestly believe years from now, abortion will be viewed in the same way that slavery currently is today. and people will look back on our nation and think "how could people back then possibly have excused the murder of millions of babies?".  the same way that we today say "how could people back then possibly have excused enslaving millions of blacks?"


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 09:55 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you may be right. that thought crosses my mind a lot. to be honest, I am totally uncertain about my pro-choice stance. in fact, i until recently was very pro-life (ya see, us liberals are not just narrow-mindd jerks sticking to the same ol' rhetoric all the time), and now feel myself moving back into that mindset again. i have trouble putting my mind to rest on either side because the science eludes my understanding. but my gut tells me abortion is bad. (but I think calling abortionists murderers is a bit too simplistic. the issue really isn't that obvious. the science makes it fuzzy, even for good people. i don't think you can equate the callousness of enslaving a person just like you except for skin color with disagreement over the scientific definition of a zygote)

and...you are right about the majority not always being right. in fact, history shows the minority view often overturning the former majority view. that's progress. I think of James Brown at Harpers Ferry. Violence is bad, but maybe that was the only way. I think slavery and the extermination of the Native Americans are the most evil legacies of America. The repression of gays is evil in my mind too, but I think we can fix it peacefully. i cite my favorite quote, which always makes me warm and fuzzy and optimistic whenever I see bad stuff in the world...

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS."
                                     - Gandhi

but, falling, you say all this...and forgive me if you've already said this and I just don't remember...but do you think gays should have same the rights as heteros? isn't this just another clear example of a time when tyranny needs to be overthrown by the way of love and truth?



-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:12 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice Alex, just when I start to dislike you you go and do something like this.  We all need this type of mindset, otherwise what is the point of all this?  Without an open mind we are only creating divisions.

I was just kidding about not liking you.




-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 12:34 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, hooyah, sorry for calling u maynard, u have the same avitar. Dear dear.
I echo alex's position on abortion, I used to be pro-choice, now i am on the fence. My gut says its wrong, but their are too many nuances and shades of grey to make a blanket pronouncement.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:43 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i respect you alex a little more now that i know that you have given both sides some thought (not that it matters whether or not i do respect you or anything). as far as gay rights, i dont think that they should be discriminated against or that they should not have equal opportunity. they should be allowed to be in the military, for example. at the same token, i still think that it is a sin, but we live in a free country not a theocracy.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:01 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. Mazet: it seems that you've judged me based on 1 post.  Most of my arguments have been biological, not moral.  You, too, should not insult MY intelligence by saying that "How can anything be assumed true without evidence?"
I know that!  But you can't argue on evidence alone.



I've based you on every post of yours I've read.

and I quote you: "some things don't need evidence to back them up."

and when asked 'How can anything be assumed true without evidence?':
"I know that!"

You can only base things on evidence, as I said "may it be someone saying it, them reading it, or them observing it."

You hearing other people say it is immoral is evidence. But it's opinions not facts and not reliables enough to base judgement and rights on!

Must I make dumb comparisons to a majority of people saying "salvery is moral" at one time?
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 8:06 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a perfect example of incoherence!

You'll have to break that one down for me, mazet.

Alex, this debate with you has, at the least, been fun.  Surprisingly enough, though, you have "gotten through" to me just a little.  Maybe your "kind" are repressed and treated badly by the rest of society, and for that I am sorry.

So let's talk about COMPROMISE.
I believe that gays 'infringe' on my rights to live and raise my children in an environment free from the things that I think are immoral.

So here's my compromise.
The Federal Government should give the power to "ban" homosexual marriages, adoptions, to the individual states.
Who, in turn, should grant that power to the individual communities and cities in their respective states.
I believe the people of a community have the right to create their own "environment."
If a certain community wants to allow gays rights, then that's fine.

We've debated enough, I think, on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, normal or abnormal....let's do something productive, compromise with me, how can we reach a middle ground on this issue.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:05 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ohh.. mr. oooyah..

I thought you actually had a point.  Guess not.

Being gay is only AB-NORMAL for a straight person. lol.  As for me registering, I don't know what that has too do with you, using an "abnormal" argument too support your homophobia.  lol, get over it.  We can all smell your bigotry and fear of ANYTHING GAY.

A gay person has gay sex.  This is not abnormal for them.  It's only abnormal for a straight person too have gay sex.  So, as I said and you reinforced.. for you IT IS ABNORMAL because you are straight.

I hope you take this too heart, and move past your need too make people "abnormal".

In short.. WHO CARES!  Why do you want too believe gay-people who have gay sex are ab-normal? lol
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:05 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay mr: noname mr guestperson....how should I address you, sir/maam?

I have made many points, both logical, and yes, morally, why I think homosexuality is ab-normal.  It is ab-normal PERIOD!  From any viewpoint, be you gay or straight.

Talk about being afraid of something, why don't you register?  This is all I have to say to you until you do.  bye

Alex, I'm not bringing up to abnormal thing again, but rather just trying to straighten (no pun intended) this guy out.

I still want to compromise.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:14 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HE SAID: "I believe that gays 'infringe' on my rights to live and raise my children in an environment free from the things that I think are immoral.

I SAY: Use your brain.  How do gays infringe on your rights?  Just by excisting?  What an idiotic statement.

HE SAID: So here's my compromise.  The Federal Government should give the power to "ban" homosexual marriages, adoptions, to the individual states.
Who, in turn, should grant that power to the individual communities and cities in their respective states.
I believe the people of a community have the right to create their own "environment."
If a certain community wants to allow gays rights, then that's fine.

I SAY: Well, gays getting married is a blessing for us all.  You probably complain about aids and "promiscuity" among gays, yet you would not give them the oppertunity too marry.  Secondly, more and more people are comming out of the closet and loved ones support them and their right too get married so it seems as though what you hope for will never happen.  As I would consider denying someones right too fall in love, the most pathetic form of control.  I also want too make a plea for you and others too stop comparing gay-love too human-animal love.  There is no such thing.  There arent a group of 1-10% of the population FALLING IN LOVE WITH ANIMALS, nor claiming they were born only attracted too dogs. lol, you and I both know thats an absurd correlation.

HE SAID: We've debated enough, I think, on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, normal or abnormal....let's do something productive, compromise with me, how can we reach a middle ground on this issue.

I SAY: A realistic compromise would be for YOU, my friend too drop you homophobia and just accept that some people are born, or "turned" gay and that just because you allow gays too have gay-marriage, that doesnt infringe on your rights or your kids.  Your kids wont turn gay because they can have a gay marriage. lol  UNLESS THEY ARE GAY!

-Robert  ( I registered! )



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:24 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, I wasnt logged in correctly the first time!

HE SAID: "I believe that gays 'infringe' on my rights to live and raise my children in an environment free from the things that I think are immoral.

I SAY: Use your brain.  How do gays infringe on your rights?  Just by excisting?  What an idiotic statement.

HE SAID: So here's my compromise.  The Federal Government should give the power to "ban" homosexual marriages, adoptions, to the individual states.
Who, in turn, should grant that power to the individual communities and cities in their respective states.
I believe the people of a community have the right to create their own "environment."
If a certain community wants to allow gays rights, then that's fine.

I SAY: Well, gays getting married is a blessing for us all.  You probably complain about aids and "promiscuity" among gays, yet you would not give them the oppertunity too marry.  Secondly, more and more people are comming out of the closet and loved ones support them and their right too get married so it seems as though what you hope for will never happen.  As I would consider denying someones right too fall in love, the most pathetic form of control.  I also want too make a plea for you and others too stop comparing gay-love too human-animal love.  There is no such thing.  There arent a group of 1-10% of the population FALLING IN LOVE WITH ANIMALS, nor claiming they were born only attracted too dogs. lol, you and I both know thats an absurd correlation.

HE SAID: We've debated enough, I think, on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, normal or abnormal....let's do something productive, compromise with me, how can we reach a middle ground on this issue.

I SAY: A realistic compromise would be for YOU, my friend too drop you homophobia and just accept that some people are born, or "turned" gay and that just because you allow gays too have gay-marriage, that doesnt infringe on your rights or your kids.  Your kids wont turn gay because they can have a gay marriage. lol  UNLESS THEY ARE GAY!

-Robert  ( I registered! )



-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 12:27 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am glad you're changing your mind, but there is no middle ground for me. that's like saying to a black guy in the 60s, "oh, how bout this, let's just let Alabama decide on its own whether it wants to integrate schools or not..."
NO way, sorry. but by the way, that's the way it already is, each state decides if it wants to legalize adoption or civil unions for gays. that's nonsense. that's just the federal gov't's way of ignoring the issue.

You said: "I believe that gays 'infringe' on my rights to live and raise my children in an environment free from the things that I think are immoral." Sorry, that is not a right. If I think Jewish customs offend me morally, my state cannot tell Jews to not practice their religion. It is not a civil right to have the things which offend you isolated from you.




-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:28 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mrmazet at 8:06 PM on December 10, 2002 :
Mr. Mazet: it seems that you've judged me based on 1 post.  Most of my arguments have been biological, not moral.  You, too, should not insult MY intelligence by saying that "How can anything be assumed true without evidence?"
I know that!  But you can't argue on evidence alone.



I've based you on every post of yours I've read.

and I quote you: "some things don't need evidence to back them up."

and when asked 'How can anything be assumed true without evidence?':
"I know that!"

You can only base things on evidence, as I said "may it be someone saying it, them reading it, or them observing it."

You hearing other people say it is immoral is evidence. But it's opinions not facts and not reliables enough to base judgement and rights on!

Must I make dumb comparisons to a majority of people saying "salvery is moral" at one time?


Wait... Wait... I sort of lost track of the debate in my head there... let me try this again:

Firstly, I've based you on every post of yours I've read.

Secondly, you said "some things don't need evidence to back them up." but when I said 'How can anything be assumed true without evidence?' you replied "I know that!"
Conclusions can only b based on evidence, although, as I said before, evidence can be hearing someone say it, reading it somewhere, or observing it.

[About this far through my original message I forgot this started as you saying most people thoguht it was immoral not as you saying it was immoral]

You can't base whether or not most people think it is immoral on your personal observations! It just has too great a change of error. To debate over the majority's opinions is rather silly since neither of us has any concrete proof. I was asking, because I thought you might, if you had any concrete evidence (like a study of it or soemthing).

Also, just because people say it's immoral, this isn't very hard evidence to prove it's true.

Then, I compared it to a majority of people saying slavery was alright.
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 06:31 AM on December 11, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, Alex..
So you're wanting the FEDERAL government to step in and FORCE the states to make gay marriages, adoptions, etc...legal?

I think that the job of the Federal gov't is to make laws that are general in nature, allowing the individual states to room to design a state suited to its environment and people.
A law such as forcing gay rights on the states is too specific.

Taking it a step further, I think that the individual states should stay out of it, and let the individual communities decide what they want.

The state that I live in, Texas, has made gay sex illegal.  I (thanks to you) now think that the few people in Austin shouldn't have the right to decide for everyone in Texas.  Let the municipal and county governments decide.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, on the county or city level, you can better "please" more people.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 01:28 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you think that in the 60s each state should have been able to decide if they wanted to end segregation, or allow interracial marriage? certainly actions taken by the federal gov't "displeased" many people. Should people who care about equality and justice really give a rat's ass about how "pleased" Governor Wallace of Alabama was? and since when was the purpose of the law to "please" the majority? i think it so strange for a person such as yourself who believes in a higher power and absolute good to see justice as merely the expression of the majority's desire. aren't laws in a just society supposed to pursue justice and fairness EVEN when the majority is "displeased" by it?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:32 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you think that in the 60s each state should have been able to decide if they wanted to end segregation, or allow interracial marriage? certainly actions taken by the federal gov't "displeased" many people. Should people who care about equality and justice really give a rat's ass about how "pleased" Governor Wallace of Alabama was? and since when was the purpose of the law to "please" the majority? i think it so strange for a person such as yourself who believes in a higher power and absolute good to see justice as merely the expression of the majority's desire. aren't laws in a just society supposed to pursue justice and fairness EVEN when the majority is "displeased" by it?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:36 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm.. strange..

Wahoohooo, could you tell me specifically how letting gay people adopt kids and getting married actually is an intrusion on YOUR RIGHTS?


-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 03:04 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay first of all, how can you compare segregation and gay rights?

I agree that segregation was wrong, and it was stupid.  Blacks being in the same building with whites is not 'immoral' or abnormal; a man being with another man IS.

Now about the majority thing.
If I were a minority (which I realize that I'm not and couldn't really understand what it's like), I would 'respect' what the majority thinks.

If this nation was 99% Homosexual, and you all said that Straight marriages were wrong and illegal, I would respect that because I would be living in YOUR world; I'm just a 'guest.'

If the majority of this country voted to pass something that I didn't believe in, I would still respect that.

The people who founded this country were tired of being run by the "minority" (The king and his family.)  And they created a country where the people could govern themselves. Most every aspect of our government is based on majority rule.

If our Federal Government passes a law that forces the states to allow gay rights, then THAT does infringe on most everyone's rights.  It would mean that the vast majorit of America is not being properly represented by the officials that they elected.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 9:56 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you realize you've lost this debate.

I'm not really even sure if you know exactly what your point is.

You can't even articulate WHY, letting gay men and women adopt kids and get married is an intrusion on YOUR RIGHTS.   You know why?  

Because it isnt.

Stoping GAYS from Getting Married, or Adopting is infringing upon THEIR RIGHTS.

You want too intrude or, take away potential RIGHTS of others.  NOT the other way around.

You and I both know that you are simply using the "ABNORMAL ARGUMENT" too allow you too justify your homophobia and too further push anti-gay rights nonsense which is based on your false, Gay = abnormal idiotic statment.  

EVERYTHING IN NATURE IS NORMAL!

I mean, have you actually read your posts?

Whites used too think BLACKS WERE "ABNORMAL" and that WHITES WERE the "norm".  

You are the bigot.

You are the one who wishes too take rights away from people.

and, we both knew you wouldnt respond to my posts.  Even if I did register.  




-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 05:36 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you want me to proofread your post?  We could do without the double spacing.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 1:02 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't see what I'm writing in this little box otherwise! lol


-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 2:06 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

minorities arent "guests" in the land of the majority.
Does "abnormal" = "immoral"?
If so, then desegregation was immoral, for it certainly was abnormal at the time for whites and blacks to be in the same room together. if not, the while homosexual MAY be abnormal, that doesnt make it wrong. pick one.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:02 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay...I guess this debate has turned into Segregation...

btimsah: Why must you repeatedly call me a Homophobe?  I DO NOT HATE GAYS!  I don't believe they should be persecuted.  They have every RIGHT to BE gay!  And I am certainly not afraid of homosexuality.  Are you AFRAID of everything that you argue against?

And since most of you keep bringing up the "wrongness" of slavery, segregation, etc..., Like many of you, I think it was all wrong, and I'm glad that they now have equal rights.  But....most of you have expressed (in another forum: Affirmative Action) that you think affirmative action is wrong; basically because you're pissed off that blacks are taking advantage of their gaining EXTRA advantages because of their "situation."  Ever since blacks have gotten equal rights, they have constantly tried to (and have successfully done so in many aspects) gain MORE rights; taking advantage of their once oppressed race.
Do you not think that homosexuals will do the same thing; seeking EXTRA rights and special advantages for themselves.  That's all we need is another "quota" for schools and companies to meet!

What this entire debate boils down to really is morality.  I know, "Duh!"  Right?

I have proven that being gay is abnormal, and some of you have even accepted that.  The arguments I provided for this were all based on science, facts, even plain common sense.

Is it wrong?  I certainly think so; along with the majority of America.  For those cities that choose to 'tolerate' or even 'promote' homosexuality, let them offer rights to gays.

As for those cities in America that think homosexuality is wrong, I think it is their 'right' to ban gay rights in their community with either a simple majority or maybe 2/3rds vote of its citizens.

Again, I'm tired of arguing the origin and "wrongness" of homosexuality; There are only 3 groups of people when it comes to homosexual rights:
1. Those who believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
2. Those who will 'tolerate' homosexual rights.
and
3. Those who don't believe nor will they tolerate homosexual rights in their community.

There will NEVER be a consensus on this issue; and for that reason I think the Federal Gov't should stay the heck out of it!

Isn't that the real argument, anyway?
Like I've said, the Federal Government's role should be the "glue" that holds the states together.  A collection of beliefs (morals, if you will) that the majority of us believe in.

The states are the "glue" that holds its communities together; again, a collection of beliefs the majority of that state believe in.

The communities are the "glue" that hold its PEOPLE together; once again, a collection of beliefs the majority of its citizens believe in.

Basically, I HAVE A RIGHT to have a SAY in our government.  The only way anyone can really have a SAY is at the LOCAL level.
If you take that away from me, then you ARE infringing on my rights.

Again, let gays have their rights; so long as it doesn't infringe on what I've said above.

Thank You
peace


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 9:23 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hooyah says: If we give gays rights, they will want more "special rights" (similar to aff ation)
I say: How does that justify not giving them those rights in the first place? If you, hooyah, had the foresight to see that aff action would follow desegregation, would u opposed deseg on that ground? I hope not. We can support equal rights without supporting "Special rights."
Hooyah says: this debate boils down to morality
I say: no, it boils down to negative liberty. These people can do whatever they want until it infringes on your right to do something (my right to wave my fist ends at your nose). Them getting married doesn't infringe on your rights in any manner. People who thinks gays are wrong can rant and rave about it all they want until they start infringing on homosexuals liberties. Morality doesn't come into play.
Hooyah says: being gay is abnormal
I say: maybe so. How does that correlate to it being bad? There is no warrent to suggest that whats abnormal is wrong and whats normal is right.
Hooyah says: its wrong because most people believe its wrong.
I say: Can you say circular logic? Besides, hooyah, what do you think would have happened had we left mixed-race marriages up to individual communities? Some would say "great, legalize it." some would say "its 'abnormal.' screw the rights, ban it." Rights aren't subject to a majority vote, they are guarenteed to all mankind.
Hooyah says: govts. are layers of "glue."
I say: to an extent. but deeper than that, they safeguard our most cherished rights. And that is a more sacred obligation than maintaining unity.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:40 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dsadevil at 11:40 PM on December 13, 2002 :
Hooyah says: govts. are layers of "glue."
I say: to an extent. but deeper than that, they safeguard our most cherished rights. And that is a more sacred obligation than maintaining unity.


So just screw unity, right?
We're nothing without unity: "United We Stand!"

And anyway, those "cherished rights" are exactly what I was talking about.  AS A NATION, collectively, we have "cherished" rights.

The individual states have their own "cherished" rights; which are limited by the above.

And so on with the communities "cherished" rights, which are limited by the state's; which are in turn limited by the Nation's.

By the way, when you refer to our "cherished rights," what do you mean by "our?"  As a nation?  And exactly what "right" are we talking about here, Gay rights or Freedom of Speech?  Because they are obviously two different things.
Freedom of Speech is a broad, general right; Gay rights are a specific right within the subcategory of Freedom of Speech, do you agree?
I'm sorry but evidently I should repeat this since no one has responded to this idea:
GENERAL RIGHTS are vested in our Federal Government.
SPECIFIC RIGHTS are vested in the individual States.

Please understand that I am not arguing so much for myself in this debate as I am arguing against the National Government's involvement in the States' business. (Except, again, in the case of those "cherished" rights which we, AS A NATION, all hold dear to our hearts.)

I believe in freedom of speech, as said, but it's sad to know that there are people like you out there that will defend "political correctness" to the bitter end; even if it means the downfall of our country!

And by the way Dsa, waving your fist in someone's face can be considered assault.

peace and Merry Christmas

(Edited by hooyah 12/14/2002 at 01:34 AM).


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 01:30 AM on December 14, 2002 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.