The homosexual agenda

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
HomeLAN said:
They're likely to lose as much as they gain. Just look at Prof's reaction. There's a reason the bankers' world is seen as highly conservative.

Most public-service people need to be fairly conservative anyway. There are few companies that have decided to open up their businesses to homosexuals. Cruise lines are starting to have 'gay cruises' and cities are getting more festivals and parades because of the high 'disposeable income' of gay men and women.

Follow the money!~
 

[b]

New Member
Gato_Solo said:
...do you think I hate you, as a person? (trust me...this is going somewhere. I'll reply after 1900 on 29 AUG04)


In all honesty Gato, I've never really considered it... I don't think you would invite me over for dinner to meet the wife and kids; at the same time I don't think you wish ill of me. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you hate me, but I don't think you really like me much either.

Question? Why does that matter?

 

Professur

Well-Known Member
[b] said:
In all honesty Gato, I've never really considered it... I don't think you would invite me over for dinner to meet the wife and kids; at the same time I don't think you wish ill of me. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you hate me, but I don't think you really like me much either.

Question? Why does that matter?



Not that it's directed at me, but I'd like to field and answer here, if I may.

The simple fact for me, , is that I don't know you. I don't like, hate, or feel at all for people I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, I don't hate any gays. There may be a few people I hate, who are gay. But none that I know of. And definitely none that I hate because they're gay. Disapproval, and hatred are vastly different thing. Example. I disapprove of Bish. He's still my oldest friend. And I still think of him as a friend, despite his behavior. Does that mean I forgive his behavior? Nope. Ignore it? Not a chance. Do I sit silently and just let it go by? No. Why? Because that would be dishonest. And he deserves better than that. Anything less would be an insult to the decades we've known each other. And that, I would never do. We might never speak to each other again, but I'm not gonna hate him for doing what he feels is right, even if I think he's wrong. I'd like to think he could give me the same benefit. But.

Those are my rules. My morals. I can't make him live by them. Any more than I could make gays live by them. But at the same time, I'm not going to encourage him to live otherwise either. That goes back to simple honesty.

Is this making any sense to anyone?
 

HomeLAN

New Member
Professur said:
Not that it's directed at me, but I'd like to field and answer here, if I may.

The simple fact for me, , is that I don't know you. I don't like, hate, or feel at all for people I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, I don't hate any gays. There may be a few people I hate, who are gay. But none that I know of. And definitely none that I hate because they're gay. Disapproval, and hatred are vastly different thing. Example. I disapprove of Bish. He's still my oldest friend. And I still think of him as a friend, despite his behavior. Does that mean I forgive his behavior? Nope. Ignore it? Not a chance. Do I sit silently and just let it go by? No. Why? Because that would be dishonest. And he deserves better than that. Anything less would be an insult to the decades we've known each other. And that, I would never do. We might never speak to each other again, but I'm not gonna hate him for doing what he feels is right, even if I think he's wrong. I'd like to think he could give me the same benefit. But.

Those are my rules. My morals. I can't make him live by them. Any more than I could make gays live by them. But at the same time, I'm not going to encourage him to live otherwise either. That goes back to simple honesty.

Is this making any sense to anyone?



Yep. Crystal clear.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Professur said:
Example. I disapprove of Bish. He's still my oldest friend. And I still think of him as a friend, despite his behavior. Does that mean I forgive his behavior? Nope. Ignore it? Not a chance. Do I sit silently and just let it go by? No.

I'm not going to encourage him to live otherwise either. That goes back to simple honesty.

Is this making any sense to anyone?

Yeah...but how can you do both? In one sentence, you say that that you're not going to be silent about what you feel is incorrect behaviour...then you say that you won't encourage otherwise. How can you dissaprove of one thing without offering an alternative or promoting it?

I know that you dissaprove of my smoking, my non-marriage and my liberal attitude. You encourage me to stop smoking, get married and wake up.

You can either remain in silent disaproval or you can open your mouth and disaprove. Doing so means that you're offering an alternative. Without an alternative solution, your opinion is useless, and less than honest. Any opinions that you might give are based on your morals.

F'r instance. I don't approve of abortion. A friend of mine decided to have one. I don't speak with her about the topic at all. I dissaprove of her decision though. The only way for me to avoid impinging on her morals with my own is to remain silent. It's too late to change her decision.

If, on the other hand, she'd come to me for advice...I would've given it.

Kind of a catch-22
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
[b] said:
In all honesty Gato, I've never really considered it... I don't think you would invite me over for dinner to meet the wife and kids; at the same time I don't think you wish ill of me. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think you hate me, but I don't think you really like me much either.

Question? Why does that matter?

[b ]

Actually, [ b], I think you are quite a likable young man. Your posts have always been forthright and honest. You stand for that which you believe in, and have earned respect. I may never invite you over for dinner with the wife and kids, but that has more to do with not knowing you personally than anything else. Disagreeing with some of your choices does not preclude anger, or hate, for you as a person. Prof is pretty much dead-on in his appraisal of the situation.

As for why it matters? That's harder to quantify. People live their lives looking at only that which they wish to see. When they see something that they do not understand, or do not like, they have only 3 responses...evacuate(run), eliminate(fight), or incorporate(change). As we all know, changing is the most difficult ;).
 

Angry Again

Banned
Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

"It's never been tried before." "The Bible doesn't mention it." "Civilized people have never done things this way." "No society in the 6000 years of the history of civilization since Gilgamesh has suggested such a thing." "It'll create social chaos, ultimately destroying the nation." "It's just too radical an idea for people to accept."

Those were the arguments put forth in the 1760s and 1770s as the American colonies split - divisions that often tore apart families - on the issue of whether a free people could govern themselves in a democracy or should stay with England's king. They were trotted out in the 19th century over the issue of freeing America's slaves. They appeared again in the 20th century over whether women should be allowed to vote and fully participate in society. And these voices were heard again early in my lifetime when the Supreme Court forced public schools to allow white and black children to attend class together.

Gay marriage is simply the logical and appropriate extension of the idea that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic a vital function of government is to protect the rights of minorities. It's called "civil rights."

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."

American representative democracy was an experiment in 1776 that had never before been tried among "civilized" people. The world watched with curiosity and awe, and during the Civil War figured it was at an end.

Even by 1900 there were only a handful of democratic nations in the entire world, and if you define democracy to require the enfranchisement of all people, male and female, black and white, the first true democracy didn't appear until 1920 when we passed the 19th Amendment.

Since that time, liberal democracies have exploded across the world. Of the 191 member nations of the UN in 2003, 140 hold multi-party elections and 81 are considered "fully democratic" by the UN's standards. Through democratically elected representatives, citizens themselves rule nearly all of North and South America, Europe, Australia and most Pacific Islands, South Africa, and many parts of Asia.

This is all startlingly new - an eye blink in the history of what we call civilization. Democracy and civil rights are not "traditional values." The Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas sanction slavery. Women have been the property of men for nearly all of our history. And the idea that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of often-unpopular minorities so shocked Colonial conservatives that many took up arms against the revolutionaries, fled to Canada, or returned to England.

George Washington was speaking directly to the issue of civil rights when, in 1790, he said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

The history of America and the history of modern democracies is one of expanding civil rights. First we freed white males from the kings and queens. Then we freed those of us whose skin varied in color. Then we freed women. While none of us are yet completely free, the ancient kings are returning in the guise of multinational corporations, and the battles for civil rights continue against conservative forces, it's essential that we recognized that "We, the People" means all of us.

It's no coincidence that when the Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts recently looked at constitutions written in the 1700s, inspired by the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, they discovered therein the rights of gays and lesbians to civil unions and marriage.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple, and entirely in keeping with the egalitarian vision of this nation's Founders. It's time for us to honestly and frankly face and accept that fact, and act appropriately.
 

PT

Off 'Motherfuckin' Topic Elite
Re: Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

Angry Again said:
Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

"It's never been tried before." "The Bible doesn't mention it." "Civilized people have never done things this way." "No society in the 6000 years of the history of civilization since Gilgamesh has suggested such a thing." "It'll create social chaos, ultimately destroying the nation." "It's just too radical an idea for people to accept."

Those were the arguments put forth in the 1760s and 1770s as the American colonies split - divisions that often tore apart families - on the issue of whether a free people could govern themselves in a democracy or should stay with England's king. They were trotted out in the 19th century over the issue of freeing America's slaves. They appeared again in the 20th century over whether women should be allowed to vote and fully participate in society. And these voices were heard again early in my lifetime when the Supreme Court forced public schools to allow white and black children to attend class together.

Gay marriage is simply the logical and appropriate extension of the idea that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic a vital function of government is to protect the rights of minorities. It's called "civil rights."

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."

American representative democracy was an experiment in 1776 that had never before been tried among "civilized" people. The world watched with curiosity and awe, and during the Civil War figured it was at an end.

Even by 1900 there were only a handful of democratic nations in the entire world, and if you define democracy to require the enfranchisement of all people, male and female, black and white, the first true democracy didn't appear until 1920 when we passed the 19th Amendment.

Since that time, liberal democracies have exploded across the world. Of the 191 member nations of the UN in 2003, 140 hold multi-party elections and 81 are considered "fully democratic" by the UN's standards. Through democratically elected representatives, citizens themselves rule nearly all of North and South America, Europe, Australia and most Pacific Islands, South Africa, and many parts of Asia.

This is all startlingly new - an eye blink in the history of what we call civilization. Democracy and civil rights are not "traditional values." The Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas sanction slavery. Women have been the property of men for nearly all of our history. And the idea that one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of often-unpopular minorities so shocked Colonial conservatives that many took up arms against the revolutionaries, fled to Canada, or returned to England.

George Washington was speaking directly to the issue of civil rights when, in 1790, he said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

The history of America and the history of modern democracies is one of expanding civil rights. First we freed white males from the kings and queens. Then we freed those of us whose skin varied in color. Then we freed women. While none of us are yet completely free, the ancient kings are returning in the guise of multinational corporations, and the battles for civil rights continue against conservative forces, it's essential that we recognized that "We, the People" means all of us.

It's no coincidence that when the Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts recently looked at constitutions written in the 1700s, inspired by the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, they discovered therein the rights of gays and lesbians to civil unions and marriage.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple, and entirely in keeping with the egalitarian vision of this nation's Founders. It's time for us to honestly and frankly face and accept that fact, and act appropriately.


http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1078.aspx

The part you forgot to copy/paste
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk show. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Re: Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

I sure do hope this guy's illegal posts don't get the site shut down.
 
Top