Saw a stupid bumper sticker today....

[ris]

marmite miner, not justin's favourite i'm sure

 

[Justintime]

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Monsieur DeLarge
True, but then so has rape and incest - read Bruce Bagehmil's 'Biological Exhuberance' (St. Martin's Press, 1999) for more details. The mere existence of such behaviour in the animal kingdom does not automatically mandate that it's morally acceptable in humans; we have to make up our own minds whether it's right or wrong, and personally I'd say that the current situation - that two out of the three are illegal - is a sensible judgement.

Agreed. The biological arguments about homosexuality are dumb. Biology can no more determine one's preference for a particular gender than it can determine one's preference for a particular hair color. On the other hand, the argument that something is wrong because it "ain't nat'ral" is dumb too. Driving a car isn't natural, and neither is foreplay-- unless a guy wants to strut around with his chest puffed out and call that foreplay. There's not much that humans do that's "natural" in the way normally meant by that term.

The question has to be, is it right or wrong on its on merits? The answer will depend on what your standard of morality is. If it's Leviticus, chapter whatever, verse who-gives-a-damn, then I guess your answer will be yes. Personally, I've never heard a convincing argument for the immorality of homosexuality. (In truth, I've heard very few things on the subject that even qualify as an argument.)

I'm not saying you should be obliged to hide your sexuality to avoid being hunted like dogs, but there remains the conflict of demanding equality in all walks of life while continuing to segregate yourselves voluntarily in events of your choosing (e.g. the parades and Gay Olympics I mentioned earlier).

That kind of silliness is really outside the debate. People who think they're having something "pushed in their face" because it comes into their field of vision need a better understanding of the concept of individual rights. I roll my eyes every time I pass a church sign with some goofy Bible quote or trite saying on it, but the fact that I find them irritating doesn't mean I have the right to have the government outlaw them.

Offhand, I can't think of any. Do you have examples?

Your marital status, who you're dating, what you did over the weekend, what clubs you like to go to, etc, these are all questions related to sexuality that can come up in daily conversations. It can also come up in political discussions, or if some guy mentions that he saw a stupid bumper sticker and starts ranting about gay people trying to push their sexuality in his face.

At no point do you need gay-specific laws to protect yourself.

Agreed. Just to get rid of the laws that prevent the exercise of full rights.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, so I think bible-bashers and God-botherers (see, I have euphemisms for everyone) should be the ones to decide yay or nay, and the Christian God says it just ain't right. I don't think that you should be able to over-ride their religious rights just to give you gay rights, so if you want a white wedding in a lovely chapel, I say tough luck. Go to a Registry Office.

He can't. That's just the point. I don't believe that Christian priests should be forced to perform wedding ceremonies either. I don't think that's what is asking for either. He should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, though, and have the contract respected by the law.

I also think that as long as kids get the crap beaten out of them in the playground because two guys turned up to the PTA meeting the night before, there should be a big question mark over gay adoptions. This is a situation where your lifestyle choice can have a dramatic effect on a third party, and it'd be disingenuous of you to deny that.

It's disingenous of you to pretend that the problem with that scenario is the gay parents. The problem is with the heterosexual parents who are raising a violent little bigot.

PS Still haven't heard your opinion on the Gay Olympics, b - you seemed to skip over that.

Wisely done, since it's irrelevant to the issue of gay rights.

PPS there's also backdoor butcher, chutney ferret, chocolate speedway racer, marmite miner, picking up twigs in the springtime, sphincter sabatour, uphill gardener. I'd say all of them are fairly hilarious and harmless, but that's just me.

They're insulting in the context of a political debate about gay rights between strangers. There's nothing wrong with 's sense of humor.

 

[Guest]

Honk if you love Jesus is my fav.

 

[markjs]

Very much agreed Ardsgaine, but I have tried to leave this debate because nobody is even willing to look at the possibility they might be wrong, and I guess that includes me. I just believe in the freedoms this country is founded on so long as your not hurting anyone else. Obviously for most folks its "freedom to pursue happiness unless I think you're wrong". I still am reading this debate because I made the mistake of leaving the option checked to recieve emails after someone posts. Oh well, some of us are open minded and some are not, it's just that simple.

 

[ris]

don't forget mark, noone but is worth joining into the debate as we're being ignored as fomentors of anger

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by s4
Honk if you love Jesus is my fav.

Which reminds me of the story about the person who pulled up behind a car with that bumper sticker. He honked, and the guy in the other car gave him the finger.

Then there are the rapture stickers, "Jesus Saves," the fish, and a whole host of other goofy things that Christians put on their cars. There are people of all political persuasions who like to plaster their cars with bumper stickers. Ninety-nine point nine percent of them piss me off. I have one sticker on my car and it just says, "Let's Roll!" Still, it probably pisses people off. That's life in a free country.

 

[markjs]

ris, I'll be so bold as to say that anyone who sees our part in this as generating anger or ill will, is being a complete moron , and totally misses the point of the discussion while they think they are a part of it.

 

[ris]

wou got to be careful with those bumper stickers, ardsgaine, they are shoving things down people's throat, especially 'let's roll', that's the worst of them

 

[Luis G]

why do you look at those stupid stickers anyway?

you have 2 points penalty on your license.
Focus on the road

 

[[b]]

Personally, I'd love it if you came out with those euphemisms - it would demonstrate some light-heartedness that too many advocates of political correctness seem to lack. If you can't detect any humour in 'jobby wheecher', 'keg-pipe cosmonaut' or 'riding the northern line' (neither of which I'd heard of until my gay work colleague helped me compile the post), then you must be living a really grim-faced life.

It's not that I don't have a sense of humor about that kind of thing (How do you fit four gay men on a barstool? Turn it over.) but I think Ardsgaine said it best:

They're insulting in the context of a political debate about gay rights between strangers.

I wouldn't just come out and call you a breeder because I don't know if you would find that funny or not. For me, it's about respect. Once we know each other, playful banter like that might be considered ok.

[by b] "There are so many situations where the issue of sexuality does come up that the only way for me to hide who I am is to lie."

Again, I have to thank Ardsgaine for his insight here:

Your marital status, who you're dating, what you did over the weekend, what clubs you like to go to, etc, these are all questions related to sexuality that can come up in daily conversations. It can also come up in political discussions, or if some guy mentions that he saw a stupid bumper sticker and starts ranting about gay people trying to push their sexuality in his face.

The rest were quite obviously a laugh, as I mentioned at the start of this post, so chill out. You'll be a lot closer to general acceptance when you learn to have a giggle at your own expense, and no-one likes a sourpuss.

Once I know you, and know that your words are meant in jest and are not meant to be mean, we're cool. Some people, in defense of gay rights, have used homophobic and anti homosexual to label other members of this board. Since something has been said about that not being right, I feel both sides should refrain from name calling, even it is in jest. Not everybody can laugh that kinda thing off.

At no point do you need gay-specific laws to protect yourself. Maybe that's the real reason I roll my eyes at gay rights activism; the number of lawyers it causes.....

All of my posts have been for equal treatment, not special treatment. As Ardsgaine said (damn, he's beaten me to every point) just get rid of the laws the prevent exercise of full rights.

MDL Marriage is a religious sacrament, so I think bible-bashers and God-botherers (see, I have euphemisms for everyone) should be the ones to decide yay or nay, and the Christian God says it just ain't right. I don't think that you should be able to over-ride their religious rights just to give you gay rights, so if you want a white wedding in a lovely chapel, I say tough luck. Go to a Registry Office.

ArdsgaineHe can't. That's just the point. I don't believe that Christian priests should be forced to perform wedding ceremonies either. I don't think that's what is asking for either. He should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, though, and have the contract respected by the law.

MDL I also think that as long as kids get the crap beaten out of them in the playground because two guys turned up to the PTA meeting the night before, there should be a big question mark over gay adoptions. This is a situation where your lifestyle choice can have a dramatic effect on a third party, and it'd be disingenuous of you to deny that.

Ardsgaine It's disingenous of you to pretend that the problem with that scenario is the gay parents. The problem is with the heterosexual parents.

Ditto to everything Ardsgaine said. You can read my thoughts on gay adoption in this thread on JJR512. I'm towards the bottom of the page.

As for the gay Olympics, I don't see what difference it makes if they exist or not. If I were good at some sport, I would want to compete in the regular Olympics so that I could say, "I'm the best damn runner in the world and I'm gay." Not, "I'm the best gay runner in the world." I think that participants in the gay Olympics may be selling themselves short by competing in a restricted competition like that. On the other hand, if Cleveland had seen a gay man running at the 2002 Olympics wearing a pink tank top and rainbow running shorts, who's to say he wouldn't of started up a thread here saying that the runner was shoving his sexuality in peoples faces. The gay Olympics are there so that gay people who are afraid of the way they might be treated at an event that is dominated by straight people can be free to be themselves and compete as openly gay athletes.

 

[lorrimar]

Originally posted by Cleveland
One indisputable fact that proves Gay is not right.

Two gay men CANNOT reproduce. Two Gay women CANNOT reproduce. Nature prevents it.

& somehow more of them keep showing up. weird isn't it?

 

[Cleveland]

Wow... I guess I hit a nerve.

 

[Guest]

i think gays should have every right to bear children if they can reproduce. if not then fuck no.

 

[markjs]

The can and do reproduce all the time, so I guess that ends that argument, gays, should be allowed to raise children. Is a single parent household preferable to a gay two parent family? I'd rather see a kid raised by two well adjusted gays than by a 14 year old drug addicted slut. But she is the one with legal rights....go figure!

 

[Guest]

how many well adjusted gays do you know?

 

[ris]

i've met loads

 

[Guest]

not me

 

[ris]

pity, my missus and i used to go out on the lash with a couple of gay guys on friday nights, they were a great laugh.

 

[Guest]

i keep thinking of Rosie o' Donnel and Mr. Gay oh what's his name? that aerobics guy