| Author |
 Topic  |
|
School Bus 7
Senior Member
USA
123 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2007 : 10:20:36 AM
|
| No im really 18. I Honestly dont think Gays will be able to ever get married in West Virginia most of this State is against it. But theres one thing that makes me mad is at my old High School if you hold hands or kiss a Girl you get Suspended for 1 Day but Gays can hold hands and kiss all they want if a Teacher or Admin says anything to them they always Pull the "Im Gay and I will take you to Court for Discrimination" (I have heard that said before a couple of times) that word "Discrimination" is used alot anymore for stupid stuff like that if your gonna break the rules you should be punished also. One thing thats off topic that really makes me mad is these people that wanna get 4 Wheelers (A.T.V's) Banned that is one thing that has me all fired up (LOL). |
 |
|
|
IC
Top Member
USA
3410 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 11:53:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
I think 80-RE4's point is that the baby boomers generally tended to be more close minded about issues concerning change or equal rights.
Case in point... the civil rights movement from your era. Segregation, seperate drinking water fountains, seperate schools, banned from voting.
When your generation is more accepting of those who don't follow your definition of the "norm", than you can talk!
By the way, do a little research about the founders of Google.com, Dell Computer Corp, Linux OS and then get back to me about my generation not contributing anything of value.
Furthermore, I'm 26, and I've had a patent out on a design since I was 22 that the US Navy is using around the country. It's not changing the world, but your generation didn't invent it.
And I'd bet my last cent that you think nothing of calling someone a redneck or the like.
"PC" is only for favored groups, eh?
BTW, my generation was at the helm of the civil rights movement....trying (ans succeeding) to overthrow the Jim Crow era (WAY, WAY before us) wrongs you mentioned.
Anybody with a brain is unaffected by their upbring...my father was a racist, an anti-semite, and a homophobe. I am none of those. Sweeping generalizations show your ignorance, pal. |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 1:45:12 PM
|
You stated that my genaration hasn't produced anything of value since Bill Gates or Steve jobs (2 PC groups might I add), yet you think I am the ignorant one? Far from it buddy.
quote:
Anybody with a brain is unaffected by their upbringing...
If that is what you really believe, you're even worse off than I thought. But since this isn't a pyscology analysis thread, I'll leave it alone. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 06/28/2007 1:48:50 PM |
|
|
|
bus724
Top Member
USA
1609 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 2:51:14 PM
|
School Bus 7, you say you live in a state that will never allow gay marriage, yet you talk about guys in high school openly holding hands or kissing. When I was in high school (4 years ago), even admitting to being gay was unheard of and enough to make someone an outcast. Gay students showing any public displays of affection would probably get the you-know-what beat out of them. Yet the state I live in is one of the few to recognize same-sex civil unions. Never say never.
However, I am as outraged as you that your classmates would pull the "gay card" to get special treament--as far as I'm concerned, that behavior is standing in the way of equality just as much as a homophobe screaming obscenities.
Ryan, I hate to disagree with you, but I've met plenty of people from IC's generation who are even more open-minded than you or I.
And IC, since when is "redneck" an insult? |
|
|
|
ATRE 1507
Top Member
United States
673 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 4:07:06 PM
|
I'm a redneck...and I'm proud! =]
Plus...why does all this gay/bi stuff keep comming up?
It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is...you're still human.
Gosh. |
Bus 1507: 2001 AmTran RE
Student
Fairfax County
Area One Transportation |
|
|
|
thomas86_a
Top Member
USA
4404 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 5:09:53 PM
|
IC is right, it was our generation who led the civil rights movement! I marched in civil rights movements on campus in the 1960's and blocked traffic on freeways in protest of the Vietnam war.
My parents were liberals and it was definitely passed on to me. Unique in the fact that most people in their socio-economic circles were and still are republicans. My youngest brother is gay and happens to be a conservative republican. Very interesting how that happened. |
If you have an International, you NEED customer service. |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 6:30:55 PM
|
I will admit that you could be right, both thomas86_a and Phil. I wasn't stereotyping ALL babyboomers as close minded. However, I was speaking from experience in dealing with my geographical area (predominately affluent republican people who are all VERY christian). My point though, was to defend 80-RE4 because I felt that IC took his post of context and unfairly attacked him.
Phil, I couldn't agree with you more about using the Gay card to get special treatment. It's two steps backwards in the battle for equality. |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 7:18:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
When your generation is more accepting of those who don't follow your definition of the "norm", than you can talk!
...
Furthermore, I'm 26, and I've had a patent out on a design since I was 22 that the US Navy is using around the country. It's not changing the world, but your generation didn't invent it.
Just a mention that community acceptance is a mater of choice as well - not to be dictated to a society by you or the courts - least not until a Fascism mentality rules the courts.
And it seems that it must also be mentioned that your generation did not invent the US NAVY. (jk)
What is Fascism? According to Benito Mussolini, 1932
|
Edited by - JK on 06/28/2007 8:46:32 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 7:33:11 PM
|
Thank Lords47, I think that IC did misunderstand my post.
I think everyone is entitled to their point, but as the saying goes, there's no room for hate and just treat people as you would want to be treated!
|
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 9:04:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
When your generation is more accepting of those who don't follow your definition of the "norm", than you can talk!
...
Furthermore, I'm 26, and I've had a patent out on a design since I was 22 that the US Navy is using around the country. It's not changing the world, but your generation didn't invent it.
Just a mention that community acceptance is a mater of choice as well - not to be dictated to a society by you or the courts - least not until a Fascism mentality rules the courts.
And it seems that it must also be mentioned that your generation did not invent the US NAVY. (jk)
What is Fascism? According to Benito Mussolini, 1932
jk, benito wrote that in 1932.
and January 3, 1932- British arrest and intern Mohandas Gandhi
Anyways, It was my misunderstanding that got this generation thing started, I thought that schoolbus7 implied that he was from the 30's or 50's era, so I apologize.
Can we please stay on topic.
Point: Let's keep this thread free of any discrimination. Thank you. 
R E S P E C T
|
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 9:37:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
... Can we please stay on topic.
Point: Let's keep this thread free of any discrimination. Thank you.
My post is on topic - and is deliberately presenting a limited response. The thread itself is probably not appropriate to these forums, in my opinion. And based on past history, to engadge any deeper into this thread with additional on topic perspectives would likely escalate this thread and result in its eventual deletion. My descision at this point is to make only a slight mention and to then leave this thread's limited perspectives remaining within itself. (jk)
What is Fascism? According to Benito Mussolini, 1932 |
Edited by - JK on 06/28/2007 9:53:07 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 09:52:12 AM
|
Jk, why do you keep adding "What is fascism" to your post? Why isn't this thread appropriate to the forums? I assume we are all respectful individuals who can hold a responsible RESPECTFUL conversation.
I would hope, JK, that if a co-workers of yours was gay or lesbian, you would not treat them any differently than a straight co-worker, because you are better than that (I hope)? |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 12:53:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
... you would not treat them any differently than a straight co-worker, because you are better than that (I hope)?
Perhaps, but there are plenty of sexual interest perspectives that could make the same demand to be understood and accepted. The attitude of some to attack other diverse perspectives is self-evident - even though many of the alternative perspective are also lobbying congress and the courts to make their preferences acceptable. The narrow one-sided perspective in this thread is again self-evident to many as it is to me, but to expand perspectives is not something some on this thread can manage with out an escalation. As long as I continue not to read accusations of a nature excessively unbecoming toward heterosexual perspectives then I can leave this thread to itself and with its limited perspectives. Might be better to leave well enough alone since the last thread concerning this issue resulted in plenty of diverse perspectives presented, which then resulted in an escalation, and which then resulted in the thread's deletion - rightly so in my opinion. I can leave this thread to itself at this point, but can also consider such threads something other than just a discussion about diverse opinions or even an acceptance discussion. It is, after all, a right to leave a thread's exclusive acceptance perspective to itself when provided all participants can accept that method of dealing with this issue and can manage their manners in that respect. I can at this point.
Benito Mussolini's 1932 definition, still used today in European education to promote Fascism, was included simply because he made some interesting points on how the state behaves when it determines itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality - and as an absolute. Such conscious personalities are not servants to the people but much like the courts today consider themselves conscious masters over a 'living constitution' and over the people. That is where we seem headed these days with the states and with the courts. The result lends toward collectives forcing their agendas through the court and the state. Such happenings is a dangerous attribute, according to Thomas Jefferson and especially concerning the courts, one that can eventually lead to its members becoming despots. That is my relevant concern eluded to and somewhat demonstrated here in this thread, a concern that presents itself when any special interest acquirers too much force over the community's decisions through the state and the courts.
Have a nice day. (jk)
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarcy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal...knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." [Sept 28, 1820 letter to William Jarvis]
What is Fascism? According to Benito Mussolini, 1932
|
Edited by - JK on 06/29/2007 1:05:38 PM |
|
|
|
BusFreak
Top Member
USA
798 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 1:55:27 PM
|
| What? |
= |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
3169 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 04:21:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thomas86_a
I marched in civil rights movements on campus in the 1960's and blocked traffic on freeways in protest of the Vietnam war.
On a lighter note:
Damn hippy |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 08:19:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
However, I was speaking from experience in dealing with my geographical area (predominately affluent republican people who are all VERY christian).
Ahh yes... I know the type (I'm associated with some of them)
MONDAY- Drink myself ragged and go home... Cursing & Swearing
TUESDAY- Borrows the neighbor's lawn mower (without asking) after he is done mowing his yard because, "He won't mind" and "Mine is a piece of Junk"
WEDNESDAY- Back at the Bar... this time doesn't go home... goes to the Strip Club down the Street.
THURSDAY- Receives job promotion by pointing out his competition's "questionable, personable life problems"; even though said competitor is more qualified and compassionate for the job.
FRIDAY- Back at the Bar... Tonight he goes home... but this time with the 22 year old bar tender (now... is the bar tender Male or Female? You pick)
SATURDAY- All DAY at the Race track (there goes that Pay check)... All NIGHT at the bar.
SUNDAY- Sits in Church for the WHOLE service, in the first Pew reciting "AMEN" and "PRAISE GOD" after every sentence the Preacher speaks... and tells everyone how they should model there lives after him. "BEING HOLY FOR 3 HOURS ON SUNDAY DOENS'T MAKE UP THE OTHER 165 HOURS DURING THE WEEK THAT YOU WEREN'T!"
Now... before I get "burned at the Cross" for this one. Even though I'm admittedly Gay... I'm still a practicing person of United Methodist faith, and have been raised in this Capacity. I talk one on one with my Lord everday in prayer just like a Friend... the way we're supposed to... and he knows that I don't believe in the "Christian actions" I've listed above... and to date... he doesn't seem to mind. |
kEvIn
|
Edited by - disp29 on 06/30/2007 08:29:11 AM |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 08:25:07 AM
|
OK... thanks everyone... I feel better now.
Again... on a lighter note....
"YEAH... what He said, DAMN HIPPIE!"  |
kEvIn
|
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 10:33:21 AM
|
I don't believe in this post you "have to" (but you can if you want) disclose your personal preference, so don't feel pressured, even though the topic's name is bi or gay.
I think it should be a safe area in school bus fleet for people to discuss matters relating to the topic that are relatively o-n-t-o-p-I-c.
Meaning (an ex),: If someone was talking about how cute domesticated cats were and how friendly they were, I hope someone would not find a way to take such a statement out of context and use it in this manner:
(Just say the topic was about cats being allowed to live with humans, if they weren't allowed to, if say, we lived in 1930)
"Even though domesticated cats are loveable and friendly animals and are usually pets at home, because domesticated cats such as short haired cats have rights to live in people's houses in Massachusetts, now, Bobcats are seeking the same rights, to live in homes"
I am just presenting that as an example, and I don't even know if it makes sense to some, but I think that it will make sense to those that need it to make sense, or at least to a certain few who will try to somehow manipulate the topic.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by JK
[quote]Originally posted by 80-RE4
... you would not treat them any differently than a straight co-worker, because you are better than that (I hope)?
Perhaps, but there are plenty of sexual interest perspectives that could make the same demand to be understood and accepted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jk, I am referring to TWO consenting ADULTS in their quest for equality. Furthermore, respect is different than acceptance. I don't believe you have to accept what two consenting adults value in their life such as the right to share love to respect them.
(you don't have to accept but you should respect)
So, my question: Yes or No: Would you treat a gay or lesbian co-worker any differently than a straight co-worker?
Obviously you don’t need to answer if you wish not to. I respect your right.
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 06/30/2007 10:49:45 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 10:59:40 AM
|
"Even though domesticated cats are loveable and friendly animals and are usually pets at home, because domesticated cats such as short haired cats have rights to live in people's houses in Massachusetts, now, Bobcats are seeking the same rights, to live in homes"
Interesting, and can hold a position as long as not going too deep into your example.
Are you then saying that your sexual preference is included in the, "Domesticated," category while those sexual preferences you might disagree with are in the Wild Animal category?
I would think that were this a forum primarily involved in such discussions, then plenty of wives would seem to prefer and affectionately refer to their husbands as a wild animal in the bedroom. (jk)
Note: Free brochure for parents - "The seven highly effective steps to keeping your child safe" - Click Here for Link
FREE School Bus Safety Ads & Photo Library
Post Check, Hostage Takeover, Bus Fire and special effects photos now available Free to use at websites, in newsletters, memos, the local press, letters to parents and more. This is a very popular Website. If you can't get in bookmark the page and try again later.
There is no school bus driver shortage!
Properly train, effective support and pay that retains.
|
Edited by - JK on 06/30/2007 1:34:25 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 11:07:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
"Even though domesticated cats are loveable and friendly animals and are usually pets at home, because domesticated cats such as short haired cats have rights to live in people's houses in Massachusetts, now, Bobcats are seeking the same rights, to live in homes"
Interesting, and can hold a position as long as not going too deep into your example.
Are you then saying that your sexual preference is included in the, "Domesticated," category while those sexual preferences you might disagree with are in the Wild Animal category?
I would think that were this a forum primarily involved in such discussions, then plenty of wives would seem to prefer and affectionately refer to their husbands as wild animals in the bedroom. (jk)
Note: Free brochure for parents - "The seven highly effective steps to keeping your child safe" - Click Here for Link
FREE School Bus Safety Ads & Photo Library
Post Check, Hostage Takeover, Bus Fire and special effects photos now available Free to use at websites, in newsletters, memos, the local press, letters to parents and more. This is a very popular Website. If you can't get in bookmark the page and try again later.
There is no school bus driver shortage!
Properly train, effective support and pay that retains.
Oh Gosh, Leave it up to you JK!! Very funny |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 12:34:15 PM
|
Does anyone else see what is happening here? JK has pointed out that here, as on television and in politics and in university classrooms around the nation, those who are advocating for respect and acceptance for a particular bahavior or ideology are simultaneously working to squelch any other perspectives relating to said subject. The tactics employed by groups such as the ACLU and Freedom From Religion group as well as Outfront and PFLAG and anti-defamation league have all of the social grace and finesse of a bulldozer. And all of the acceptance and respect of a certain German political party in the 1930s.
If you cannot see the parallels between fascism in Italy circa 1932, Canadians giving up their right to free speech in the past ten years and the general direction of society in the US currently, then you have your head in the sand. Or, you consciously or sub-consciously see what is happening and do your part to encourage it because you agree with the process and feel that the bill of rights only applies to those who share your points of view.
It seems that there are four categories of reactions to this process: those who gleefully promote it, those who see what is happening and are outraged, those who just don't care and those who are swayed or fooled by the propaganda.
Those who just don't care aren't vocal so we don't hear from them. Those who are swayed or fooled by the propaganda often chime in with increasing vociferation in order to be accepted and approved by the perpitrators. Those who see what is happening and are outraged often fall victim to their own emotions and react in a way that does cross the line in terms of violence or undue cruelty of mouth. This is why those able to calmly and coolly articulate a point such as JK has done are needed.
Please note the following irony:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by 80-RE4
... you would not treat them any differently than a straight co-worker, because you are better than that (I hope)?
Perhaps, but there are plenty of sexual interest perspectives that could make the same demand to be understood and accepted. The attitude of some to attack other diverse perspectives is self-evident - even though many of the alternative perspective are also lobbying congress and the courts to make their preferences acceptable. The narrow one-sided perspective in this thread is again self-evident to many as it is to me, but to expand perspectives is not something some on this thread can manage with out an escalation. As long as I continue not to read accusations of a nature excessively unbecoming toward heterosexual perspectives then I can leave this thread to itself and with its limited perspectives. Might be better to leave well enough alone since the last thread concerning this issue resulted in plenty of diverse perspectives presented, which then resulted in an escalation, and which then resulted in the thread's deletion - rightly so in my opinion. I can leave this thread to itself at this point, but can also consider such threads something other than just a discussion about diverse opinions or even an acceptance discussion. It is, after all, a right to leave a thread's exclusive acceptance perspective to itself when provided all participants can accept that method of dealing with this issue and can manage their manners in that respect. I can at this point.
Benito Mussolini's 1932 definition, still used today in European education to promote Fascism, was included simply because he made some interesting points on how the state behaves when it determines itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality - and as an absolute. Such conscious personalities are not servants to the people but much like the courts today consider themselves conscious masters over a 'living constitution' and over the people. That is where we seem headed these days with the states and with the courts. The result lends toward collectives forcing their agendas through the court and the state. Such happenings is a dangerous attribute, according to Thomas Jefferson and especially concerning the courts, one that can eventually lead to its members becoming despots. That is my relevant concern eluded to and somewhat demonstrated here in this thread, a concern that presents itself when any special interest acquirers too much force over the community's decisions through the state and the courts.
Have a nice day. (jk)
Matt charges right past the logic that should have stopped him in his tracks and persists:
quote:
Jk, I am referring to TWO consenting ADULTS in their quest for equality. Furthermore, respect is different than acceptance. I don't believe you have to accept what two consenting adults value in their life such as the right to share love to respect them.
(you don't have to accept but you should respect)
So, my question: Yes or No: Would you treat a gay or lesbian co-worker any differently than a straight co-worker?
Obviously you don’t need to answer if you wish not to. I respect your right.
Note the words "have to" "should" "respect."
Interesting that he can tell someone else what they should do but that person cannot even disapprove of another person's behavior.
Funny that he planted himself firmly in the center of the point being illustrated.
So, who decides who has to do what? Who decides what is respectable bahavior? Who is acting as the thought police trying to evict just a hint of an idea that is unacceptable from an individual in order to label that person and shame him into submission?
To the discerning reader, please forgive my lack of subtlety. The art is lost on some.
(edited for a spelling error) |
Spicer is nicer. |
Edited by - Peter on 07/02/2007 11:21:31 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 1:39:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peter
Does anyone else see what is happening here? JK has pointed out that here, as on television and in politics and in university classrooms around the nation, those who are advocating for respect and acceptance for a particular bahavior or ideology are simultaneously working to squelch any other perspectives relating to said subject. The tactics employed by groups such as the ACLU and Freedom From Religion group as well as Outfront and PFLAG and anti-defamation league have all of the social grace and finesse of a bulldozer. And all of the acceptance and respect of a certain German political party in the 1930s.
If you cannot see the parallels between fascism in Italy circa 1932, Canadians giving up their right to free speach in the past ten years and the general direction of society in the US currently, then you have your head in the sand. Or, you consciously or sub-consciously see what is happening and do your part to encourage it because you agree with the process and feel that the bill of rights only applies to those who share your points of view.
It seems that there are four categories of reactions to this process: those who gleefully promote it, those who see what is happening and are outraged, those who just don't care and those who are swayed or fooled by the propaganda.
Those who just don't care aren't vocal so we don't hear from them. Those who are swayed or fooled by the propaganda often chime in with increasing vociferation in order to be accepted and approved by the perpitrators. Those who see what is happening and are outraged often fall victim to their own emotions and react in a way that does cross the line in terms of violence or undue cruelty of mouth. This is why those able to calmly and coolly articulate a point such as JK has done are needed.
Please note the following irony:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by 80-RE4
... you would not treat them any differently than a straight co-worker, because you are better than that (I hope)?
Perhaps, but there are plenty of sexual interest perspectives that could make the same demand to be understood and accepted. The attitude of some to attack other diverse perspectives is self-evident - even though many of the alternative perspective are also lobbying congress and the courts to make their preferences acceptable. The narrow one-sided perspective in this thread is again self-evident to many as it is to me, but to expand perspectives is not something some on this thread can manage with out an escalation. As long as I continue not to read accusations of a nature excessively unbecoming toward heterosexual perspectives then I can leave this thread to itself and with its limited perspectives. Might be better to leave well enough alone since the last thread concerning this issue resulted in plenty of diverse perspectives presented, which then resulted in an escalation, and which then resulted in the thread's deletion - rightly so in my opinion. I can leave this thread to itself at this point, but can also consider such threads something other than just a discussion about diverse opinions or even an acceptance discussion. It is, after all, a right to leave a thread's exclusive acceptance perspective to itself when provided all participants can accept that method of dealing with this issue and can manage their manners in that respect. I can at this point.
Benito Mussolini's 1932 definition, still used today in European education to promote Fascism, was included simply because he made some interesting points on how the state behaves when it determines itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality - and as an absolute. Such conscious personalities are not servants to the people but much like the courts today consider themselves conscious masters over a 'living constitution' and over the people. That is where we seem headed these days with the states and with the courts. The result lends toward collectives forcing their agendas through the court and the state. Such happenings is a dangerous attribute, according to Thomas Jefferson and especially concerning the courts, one that can eventually lead to its members becoming despots. That is my relevant concern eluded to and somewhat demonstrated here in this thread, a concern that presents itself when any special interest acquirers too much force over the community's decisions through the state and the courts.
Have a nice day. (jk)
Matt charges right past the logic that should have stopped him in his tracks and persists:
quote:
Jk, I am referring to TWO consenting ADULTS in their quest for equality. Furthermore, respect is different than acceptance. I don't believe you have to accept what two consenting adults value in their life such as the right to share love to respect them.
(you don't have to accept but you should respect)
So, my question: Yes or No: Would you treat a gay or lesbian co-worker any differently than a straight co-worker?
Obviously you don’t need to answer if you wish not to. I respect your right.
Note the words "have to" "should" "respect."
Interesting that he can tell someone else what they should do but that person cannot even disapprove of another person's behavior.
Funny that he planted himself firmly in the center of the point being illustrated.
So, who decides who has to do what? Who decides what is respectable bahavior? Who is acting as the thought police trying to evict just a hint of an idea that is unacceptable from an individual in order to label that person and shame him into submission?
To the discerning reader, please forgive my lack of subtlety. The art is lost on some.
Peter, I think you and JK have the same thought process because it was once again turned into something it should not have been. I haven't studied nor know enough about the ACLU to comment on them and what exactly they stand for, so I can't say anything about it.
To make myself more clearly and to guide anyone who might have misread my post because maybe I presented it the wrong way…What I tried to say was that gay/bi/straight/transgender people are HUMANS and are entitled the same rights as straight people. Gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgendered people are not SECOND class citizens in the United States.
When I first started college, I was involved in the gay, straight, bisexual and transgendered alliance, which promoted a healthy relationship on the college campus between those who had different views. To try to stop the everyday hate towards those who are gay or bisexual, lesbian or transgendered.
Maybe you are one to assume you know everything that gay/lesbian people stand for, but :THOSE: kind of people contribute to society just as well and deserve to be treated fairly and it’s about time.
If one does not want to accept another person for being gay/lesbian, than they don't have to.
But everyone has rights to live a happy life, free from discrimination. (ADD: Within reason, I have to remember to back myself up so it doesn't get turned into something else, I am talking about gay,bisexual,lesbian,STRAIGHT,transgendered, LAW ABIDING people)
So you and JK can take my post and twist them around and reword them anyway you want to. 
All the quotes that you give from the 30's, why don't you try something from current times?
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Dr. Seuss and a lot more
"Anytime I can support the gay community in whichever way I can, I want to really show up big."
Alanis Morissette (explaining why she changed the lyrics of "Ironic" to be more gay inclusive)
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 06/30/2007 2:11:02 PM |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 10:04:18 PM
|
quote:
because it was once again turned into something it should not have been
What has it become? What should it have been?
JK said, quote:
The narrow one-sided perspective in this thread is again self-evident to many as it is to me, but to expand perspectives is not something some on this thread can manage with out an escalation.
and this is what I have also noticed. It is not surprising, given the trends in popular media and academia as I pointed out in my previous post but no less alarming no matter where it occurs. You demanded an answer to a question designed to elicit a response that would either assure compliance with your ideology or expose the respondant as one to be maligned. I do not demand a response, merely request that you think about whether you truly can handle expanding perspectives without rushing to judgement, as you implore others to do for you and your chosen ideology.
quote:
So you and JK can take my post and twist them around and reword them anyway you want to.
I see no evidence of anyone rewording your posts here, simply copying and pasting what you've written in order to quote you and respond.
quote:
All the quotes that you give from the 30's, why don't you try something from current times?
History has a lot to teach us. It may be cliche, but it's true that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. |
Spicer is nicer. |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 11:01:15 PM
|
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. Dr. Seuss and a lot more."
Well okay then, quote Dr. Seuss and any modern character that suits your fancy. No objection here.
Myself will go ahead and be who I am and say what I feel, which includes some history for those interested in that sort of thing.
Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin organized the American Civil Liberties Union, originally named the Civil Liberties Bureau, in 1917.
Eastman, considered by some to be a Marxist and others to be a Socialist/Communist, defined herself a Feminist and a Suffragist. Baldwin had a close relationship with the Communist Party but later moved away from that philosophy. He eventually accepted himself described a Pacifist.
The ACLU eventually evolved their agenda - to remake our form of government, which is a representative form of a Christian Ethic Republic, to something more to the ACLU's liking. It would seem that the ACLU must drive God out of the public square if they are to have it their way.
Some groups do not respect a prosecutor until he has imprisoned an innocent man. But what of greatness is it to imprison an entire nation?
I agree with Peter that the ACLU and other special interests promote a shame agenda in an attempt to block other views. Doing so too often does work for them, which is probably why so many of the various special interest collectives keep doing it to the masses. They want new masses that think their way.
The Europeans generally consider the Americans to be barbarians, because so many in America, and after all the court battles to remove God from the public square and including from our public schools, still believe in a power greater and wiser than the state.
1.) Seems necessary to mention here that were God put back in the public schools by the absolute authority of the state, then that would be a dangerous adventure and a deception, in my opinion.
Too often these days the terms 'progressive' or 'modern thinking' are used to encourage a want by some special collectives in our society, so-called modern thinkers attempting a permission of sorts to proceed that the majority of the people do not want. And so often these agendas proceed in arrogance, because they knowingly proceed without the voters' approval, doing so through the best route able to function as a despot - the courts. And the personage of the State's personality and might seem to act obedient to the courts as an excuse to be Master over the people.
Both terms - 'progressive', 'modern thinking' - and 'diversity' as well and as applied by special collectives are fallacies, in my opinion. Such arrogant self-puffery is nothing other than an attempt by a collective to force a special want that the majority does not want.
Keep in mind that the United States has only been in existence a few hundred years. The US government has existed in essentially the same form since 1789. The 'Roman Republic' phase was a very successful government. It lasted from 510 BC until 23 BC - almost 500 years.
Rome's glory dominated the known planet for some two thousand years. The Romans believed that their city, dubbed 'the eternal city', was founded in the year 753 BC. Modern historians though believe the beginning of Rome was the year 625 BC and that the eastern part of Rome was finally conquered by the Turks under their leader Mohammed II in the year AD 1453.
Even today historians can not explain, that is all agree with certainty how Rome was destroyed. It is believed that barbarians overran the Western part of Rome from the north and east of Europe. That great migration involved millions of migrants that apparently proved too much for the Romans to stem.
Such a great nation, a super power in those days with a superior army and such absolute dominion, weapons, power and might - yet destroyed by barbarians.
A nation that becomes abundant in everything humans could possibly want, and well beyond their needs, seem then inevitably destined to give permission to every human pursuit imaginable, but eventually destroying every human right as well, and to retire themselves early on the work of past generations, a nation's credit of sorts, or on borrowed time some might say and until destroyed.
There seems no logic to this anomaly, nor some flaw or human mental defect that must always prevail - simply history repeating itself. When enough of 'the now people' fail to study history and to discern what they study - history does seem to then eventually visit those lands again.
The so called 'new age', which too often starts out as a series of one or more false new ages, is eventually destroyed and an actual new age begins, much like an old forest recovers after a great fire or other devastation. It seems that from the ashes come the values that restores a destroyed forest - and it all begins anew amongst the ruins of the previous government.
The real absolute, concerning this nation's "grand experiment," was that the people were Master and that the representative government, a Republic, was servant to the people. The founders made this country a place where many diverse religions could flourish without government interference - the 'free exercise thereof' clause, which does actually exist in our Constitution. The few events where government had the authority to intervene (such as human sacrifices, polygamy and such), where mutually created and supported by the churches.
Considering this arrangement it is entirely reasonable for the people to decline homosexuality special rights by a majority decision, but does not justify injuring or killing, which the state does have every right to intervene in.
The rules of our government have apparently changed while we the people slept in comfort with our eyes closed.
With regard to relevancy in this thread, it is not consistent with a Republic and was considered unwise by our nation's founders to ever allow too much control supported by the state focused within special collectives forcing a want on the majority that do not want the additional right. A peoples affections -yes - a special collectives wants - No. Earn the peoples approval for that sort of thing.
World history may eventually visit this nation, and perhaps this time more toward what Benito Mussolini preferred. A rather interesting document (Click Here) that he wrote in 1932 promoting the state as the absolute authority, not the people.
This does not mean that tomorrow a regime is going to start knocking on doors and drag dissenters away to prisons and experimental labs for re-education. Regardless, a birthing is present for a dramatic change in direction in the not too distant future. Another terrorist attack would help serve to escalate a direction one way or the other - good or not so well. It would probably depend more on the people of that time than on the government.
Nations as great or greater in the human intellectual sense than apparently any nation's generation currently on this planet, and within this human context and their documentation, were not significantly different in their thinking than what is on the minds of humans these days. And many of those great nations cultures simply disappeared - evaporated from within or became so indifferent and distracted that they were easily reduced to insignificance by invaders.
We ought to appreciate what we have, thank God everyday that we are thus far spared from much of what is happening in many parts of the world. I do not believe our nation can sustain many more generations unless we abandon our European compulsion to self-destruct after we have all the wants a people could possibly want.
The founders of this nation seemed aware of this anomaly revealed in human, government and spiritual development, as well as in nature. Regardless, seems too often that the later generations fail to grasp the whole meaning until after it is too late:
History is like the blade of a guillotine in descent over time. There is time for innocence, a mere child, to stop the blade at its beginning descent. But hesitation and question and distraction and fearfulness can reach a point where all the might in the world can not stop that blade's descent upon its target, the target's head then falling into a bucket. And no one can take the blame for that, because their bodies had already lost their heads.
It would seem a great nation survives only so long as the people are able to stay ahead of their wants with a greater abundance and self-discipline toward what they and the next generations of their nation's children need.
Seems simple enough to for a common people and a Republic to achieve but for the fact that history has proved otherwise.
Have a nice day. (jk)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." ~W. Edwards Deming (1900 - 1993)
1.) "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ~Adolf Hitler |
Edited by - JK on 07/02/2007 12:35:11 AM |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 04:17:15 AM
|
Both Peter and JK, through their ramblings of giving us a history lecture, ACLU lecture, and fascism lesson, demonstrate more how close-minded you really are more than you think. Why against change? Isn't change how this country was even started? Why did the Pilgrims sail to America? For the freedom of religion and to escape the tyranny of the British control. Good thing they did, else this country wouldn't be what it is today. You wouldn't be against that right?
Good thing the slaves fought against the 3/5 of a person law. You must remember that. Back in the days of slavery where Africans were only considered to be 3/5's of a person under US law. Good thing they fought that change and demanded more respect than that. You wouldn't be against that right?
What about women's rights? What about that time in history where women were not allowed to hold any type of job except teach? They weren't allowed to vote. Many politicians of that era are probably turning in their graves if they ever turned on the TV and saw Condoleezza Rice giving a speech. You aren't against that right?
I'm pretty sure the US wasn't destroyed like Rome because of these "changes" and demand for "respect" by the people. So why should the population of homosexuals not be any different? More and more are coming out of the wood work. There are a lot more out there than you think. Maybe even someone in your immediate family. Then what? Turn your back on them because the US may end up like Rome if we accept them?
The point of this thread, which both JK and Peter should go back and look for, has evolved into discussing equal treatment and respect for those that may have a different sexuality than you. You can cite that this thread is only one sided until you're blue in the face - but there seems to be a lot more people in here, in our state, and country calling for equal treatment, respect and end to hate crimes than you're giving credit to.
Are you advocating hate crimes? Was the death of Matthew Shepard justified because he was different? Did he deserve to be tied to a fence, beaten and tortured and left for death because of who he was attracted to? Was his sexuality REALLY going to be the demise of our civilization as you, my dear friend James, have suggested in your history dissertation? Seems a little far fetched to me.
Whether you choose to believe it or not - people who are gay actually did not choose it. It wasn't a function of their environment growing up, it wasn't because they were molested, or played with Barbie dolls. It's hard wired into them. No one in their right mind would ever choose a life of persecution, ridicule, humiliation and rejection from the public. Yet they are what they are, living normal lives with their partners having their reputation smeared by the media, stereotypes and televangelists holding up signs saying "God Hates Fags". Did you know that in my state (MA) and the neighboring state of RI, the number one group of those infected with AIDS is heterosexual, African American women? I only say that because over the years, AIDS has mistakenly been associated as a homosexual disease.
So again, I reiterate, homosexuality is not a choice and those who are gay populate this country, pay their taxes, abide by the laws, and whether you choose to like it or not, they are included in the rules and laws of our country. So I'll end my post by again asking - why do they not deserve fair, civil treatment and equal opportunity? They aren't going to try to convert you to be gay, it's not a disease you can catch, its not even something in the water. You may not understand why they are gay, but all that is being asked for is respect and decent treatment. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 07/02/2007 04:22:02 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 06:31:40 AM
|
I agree with Ryan and thought he brought up some really good points and most of all I didn't have to spend an hour trying to figure out what he wrote and I didn't get a headache.
JK and Peter, why don't you two come back to the future instead of living in the 30's? |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 08:44:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lords47
Both Peter and JK, through their ramblings of giving us a history lecture, ACLU lecture, and fascism lesson, demonstrate more how close-minded you really are more than you think.
Please explain how it can be close minded to open up discussion involving more perspectives/diversity concerning these sorts of behaviors?
Do you know the source of this chant?
"We're Young! We're Gay! We're Going To Rule The World!
Don't sound docile to me, and what about the repeated failure of the press to report on hetero bashing and other increasing threats to heteros by gays? Isn't that a hate crime? Why not?
History is useful to some, especially those that want to at least try to open their minds to realities repeated adequately in the past and avoid them.
What happens in this country is more dependent on the people than the government or gays or Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. That is a reality that you seem rather close-minded concerning. Do you think silence from the people means victory? Do you think George Washington believed that silence meant agreement?
Nixson seemed to think silence meant the people agreed with him. How bout you?
You seem to present yourself as a modern thinker when as far back as Sodom and Gomorrah the certain behaviors were intellectualized and acted out. And confronted I heard.
There was lots of, shall we say, 'modern' or 'progressive' thinkers' activities going in that town and in Egypt and in Rome and Greece, and later in other nations towns as time proceeded - to these days, there are so-called progressive activities sought in the world and in this country that some of which you probably would be against. I think it so anyway.
Simply not new. And resisting is not new. In 1827 Sir John [somebody] published a legal work where he concluded against the activity you support - called it an effective way to drag a nation into decline and on and on about that, four volumes worth.
So what do you really mean by close-minded when others and myself have been listening all along? And, in reality, have been gentle so that some on your side do not escalate and cause this thread to be deleted - rightfully so if SBF decides to do that at some point. It is certainly their right, is it not?
You seem only wanting to hear the drumbeat of your version while expecting all others to listen and agree. Do you give any consideration to other more radical perspectives than yours, such as supporting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's strange agendas?
And slavery? Come on, read your history. The majority of churches in the north and many in the south, although it seems much more softly spoken in the south, favored abolishing slavery. Why do you think the churches in the south spoak so softly concerning that issue?
Some plantation owners disobeyed state law, by allowing their slaves to study in hidden schools on the their plantations - even helped slaves that wanted to learn a trade to do so, then set them free if they wanted to make a go it on their own.
But the southern states governments and the big plantation owners were dead set on forcing slavery and on keeping the slaves ignorant.
So who are you associating with concerning the slavery issue?
Same with many issues in those days, in that the churches favored improving the lives of the people, including women. What philosophy or institution if you will, do you think started pubic education in this country and founded universities?
But never mind all that, the education you got apparently tells another story or no story at all.
But this you have in your favor. History can help you prove that Benito Mussolini agrees that majority rule is a bad thing. For what reason would Benito not be quoted, since that is the path the special collectives seems to be using these days. Are you close-minded to that reality as well?
Not saying a radical approach is necessarily all bad, just interesting, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that it is not illegal in this country to have another government philosophy preference. Do you think it is?
Would it be close-minded to mention that Margaret Sanger founded the first birth control clinic in the US, which eventually evolved into Planned Parenthood? She had no qualms about her philosophy - which goes way beyond birth control. Read her books. So, why are some of the special collectives so sensitive to disagreement toward their agendas these days?
No need to answer any of these questions. These are simply questions I'm asking myself.
Have a nice day. (jk)
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, said, "The growth of the Court's powers was something to fear, and attempt to limit."
"The facts are that independent schools in America are racially integrated, good at teaching tolerance, and excellent at imparting democratic values to their students. In fact, they often do a better job in these areas than their public school counterparts." --U.S. Department of Education conducted by Jay P. Greene, a University of Texas assistant professor of government.
|
Edited by - JK on 07/02/2007 09:16:26 AM |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 09:13:53 AM
|
I'm not proclaiming to be a modern thinker. I don't even think my post was close minded whatsoever, nor do I think i'm beating to my own drum. Read my post. I'm talking about ONE issue, and ONE issue alone. No need to read to much into about whether or not I support Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I know it can be hard for you, but lets try to stay on subject. All I did was ask that yourself and others respect a delicate issue that many people struggle with - a struggle that is NOT a choice.
Since you didn't get the slavery link, let me see if I can brake it down into bite size pieces for you. In our nation's history which I learned just as you did (nothing special about my education, though I am humbled you seem to think mine was a little better), prior to the Civil War, there was a bill called the 3/5th's of a person act which stated that african citizens only amounted to 3/5's of a person on US soil. Pretty low if you ask me. It was irregardless of who wanted to abolish slavery. I was pointing out the lack of respect that the african citizens were subjected while some, as you stated, wanted more respect and a better life for them. Kind of like the gay issue huh? By the way, Thank you for throwing a little more fuel on my fire. But I digress. During Lincoln's reconstruction period, that law was abolished when the slaves were set free. Pretty radical huh since half the country was still split on the issue. Now look where we are today?
In any event, lets try a hypothetical. Try for an instant to think what if your Mrs. was actually a Mr? You've been together all these years, share a bond, live normal, decent lives. But she's a man. Now imagine that you and your "Mr." are subjected to ridicule, embarressment, stereotypes and hate crimes because you are a couple. Does that seem fair to you? Some say its a battle of religion. "The bible says...". Well, Episcapols have elected a gay bishop. How many priests have been in the news for molesting alter boys (which is NOT condoned might I add, regardless of sexuality). So I find that source unreliable in some ways.
I've heard and tried to understand both sides, James, whether you choose to believe or not. Being Christian myself, having grown up being taught "do unto others as you want them to do unto you". Or the fundamental "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all". Both philosphies I'm sure you've taught your children and grandchildren. There is just no excuse for maltreatment of someone who has a different sexuality than yourself.
I'm not stuck on my own drumbeat, i'm not shoving my view down your throat nor am I looking for a parade. I'm just stating my view, my opinion and trying to open your eyes to other opinions than your own. So i'll sit back and let you climb back on your pedestol. I'm eager to see what you are going to say in response.
Should the thread get deleted while I'm waiting, that's ok with me. I've said my part, I've been respectful to some memeber's struggle with the issue, and I've been sensitive to both sides of the issue. I've read different views from different people - all the while nothing has gotten heated or emotional. No wrong here. Where as I agree with you that the original poster's intent to ask people to post their sexuality on a public forum isn't in good taste, the thread has evolved into a much larger discussion.
By the way, how nice and non-sarcastic of you to wish those who present valid and opposing views of yours to wish a nice day. Mine is pretty good, thanks. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 07/02/2007 09:26:26 AM |
|
|
|
bus724
Top Member
USA
1609 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 09:25:17 AM
|
This is the problem with summer...bus drivers have WAY too much free time.
My personal opinion is for EQUAL rights, not special rights. I don't believe in giving gays rights denied to straights. I don't believe in the hetero-bashing JK noted. It does happen, and if I witness it I will speak out--as I stated above, seeing gay high school students cry discrimination to get speacial treatment denied their hetero peers hurts our fight for equal rights.
I am not demanding acceptance by asking anyone to change their personal beliefs. I am, however, demanding tolerance by stating that we are human beings, deserving the same respect given to any other human being (or even the respect given to us prior to discovering our sexuality).
JK, let me ask you this: If someone attacked your school bus safety ideals on the basis that cutting "unnecessary" education spending was in the public's best interest, how would you react? This person would probably have the support of the uneducated majority, and could present plenty of arguments on that issue equally valid to yours on this issue. |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 11:43:01 AM
|
quote:
Both Peter and JK, through their ramblings of giving us a history lecture, ACLU lecture, and fascism lesson, demonstrate more how close-minded you really are more than you think.
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Seeing that the inherent incongruity between what you demand from others and from yourself has been highlighted, you immediately attempt to shift the focus from the idea at hand to the presenter, using base tactics such as name-calling in an attempt to silence and shame that person.
This has been the focus of my attention all along. If there is room for your opinion, why isn't there room for anyone else's opinion? If you really want to persuade people to agree with you, wouldn't it be better to allow open dialogue where everyone can discuss the matter at hand without fear and the brilliance of your position would eventually become apparent to all? |
Spicer is nicer. |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 12:08:25 PM
|
Well, well well isn't this nice. How come, jk, you are bringing that judge back into the picture like you did last time, and why would you quote adolf hitler? I did a google searh on her and can't find what she did so bad, maybe I'll try later ( i typed in stuff to find her bio, and it only talks about her upbringing http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html).
I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the MidWest/West. |
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/02/2007 12:18:18 PM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 09:05:27 AM
|
Just, "trying to open your eyes to other opinions than your own. So i'll sit back and let you climb back on your pedestol. I'm eager to see what you are going to say in response."
Glad to hear you experienced a pretty good day. Would be a mistake to assume I mean anything less than have a nice day.
It would seem that I'm not as willing to deny perspectives as some in this thread might claim. What I've presented was, in fact, to provide some awareness toward more diverse perspectives and to consider their effect at some point down the road. That would seem again not well understood.
It would again be a mistake to assume what I present is all encompassing. Jamestown included a share of secularists that came to America looking for gold and wealth, not just freedom of religion. And federal laws concerning slavery did exist in the North and the South. Regardless it is the North under Lincoln's able leadership that ended slavery.
Some of the Native Indian tribes would consider what effect a council decision would have on their people seven generations later.
There might exist a flaw in your comment, "There is just no excuse for maltreatment of someone who has a different sexuality than yourself."
What is defined as maltreatment and how far does that, "different sexuality," reasoning go?
If referring to gay bashing, then I already mentioned the few events where government had the authority to intervene (such as human sacrifices, polygamy and such), and that these things were mutually created and supported by the churches. Thomas Jefferson is one of the fellows I found that said the government had the right to intervene in violence. He said it much fancier than me, but the gist is sufficient and again had the support of the churches.
What, for discussion, are the age limitations involved for a, "different sexuality," defense? Does today's imposed limits apply tomorrow?
Imposed diversity limits that applied yesterday in time do not appear to apply today in time, but some diversity seemed to apply for a time and throughout time. So, what will the limits be tomorrow this time?
At what point tomorrow in time will you decide to say that the diversity and freedoms that other special collectives want's is unacceptable? How European do you think this nation ought to become?
The past has value when realizing that in Egypt it was lawful to intermarry - even an adult to marry a very young child. And more recently children older than in Ol' Egypt were marrying at age twelve in the Ol' West, which is the age Ol' Ginsburg promoted for sexual freedom in America these days when involved with the ACLU. Just one of her strange diversity issues.
I suppose it sort of maters to me because Ginsburg does not have my support in that matter and ain't gonna get it anytime soon or anytime later. Guess I'm not diverse enough for at least one Supreme Court Justice. That could be a problem later on down this so-called road called diversity and acceptance.
Intellectualizing sexual desires can risk opening doors that ought to not been opened in the first place. Expanding of all sorts of desires continues as restraint eases and permission is granted until eventually all can claim a defense that that they can not help who they are and for that reason ought to be allowed to continue their special behavior.
My questioning all along has not been so much about homosexuality being a good or bad thing, but simply including relevant sexual diversity concerns, essentially that the current excuses for one collective's behavior can become no different than even more diverse behaviors that follow after - that is a continued pushing onward by special collectives for their right to permission some might say.
That is a difficult reality to acknowledge, even what special collectives pushing their own agenda might call an exaggeration or not on topic when history suggests no such exaggeration and is actually right on topic. Is there a covenant sealed away somewhere that current special collectives can claim such expansions will not ever be allowed?
Seems that such a covenant would ring familiar, a claim that I might have heard when young from heterosexuals concerning such matters manifesting these days.
And what about that so-called 'Living Constitution?' And those founders almost constant reference to God in their documentation? Some have said that was just the way they talked in those days. Guess that's true because those politicians sure did talk often about God, religion and morality. Just differently then most of today's politicians, except when they are on the campaign trail. Ever notice that?
Myself must be exaggerating and wrong thinking, you think? You don't seem concerned about special collectives perusing their special expressions. Very courageous of you I would suppose.
Just trying to open your eyes to other opinions than your own, as well.
Have a nice Independence day. (jk)
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." ~ Thomas Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United States of America. |
Edited by - JK on 07/04/2007 09:30:17 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 09:17:43 AM
|
quote:
... I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the MidWest/West.
Massachusetts - interesting state.
I presume your lack of info is referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We may have to give her a pass, since she is claimed a very nice person.
President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1993. Ginsburg was Former General Counsel of the ACLU and their former lead lawyer. In 1972, the ACLU picked Ginsburg to head the historic Women's Rights Project Research her positions and comments when involved with the ACLU. A few that I can personally recall include her position that prostitution must be legalized, that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts must be merged into one program - "sexually integrated," and that the age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to twelve years of age.
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg demonstrates an increasing interest to interpret a European perspective on American Constitutional law. Justice Antonin Scalia opposed Gisburg's position and encouragement to promote a European influence in a Texas sodomy law ruling. Justice Scalia said that, "the court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." And so it would seem Ginsburg favors European law concerning sodomy and that Supreme Court Justice Scalia does not.
It amazes me that the press says very little about Ginsburg's radical position's, all while Dateline presents "To catch a predator," which involves adults seeking consensual sex with young boys and girls. Not a word about Ginsburg's influence in this country in that regard.
So, why isn't Ginsburg' and the ACLU attacking Dateline's popular traditional activities presented for America to witness on TV? There is resistance to that show, you know, some calling Dateline's activities, "tainted by the involvement of amateurs," even though Dateline has some of the nation's best experts and direct professional law enforcement involved setting up the stings.
The ACLU and Ginsburg could certainly help intervene and offer their 'must lower the age of consent' agenda. Not yet I would suppose - timing is important to Ginsburg.
Meanwhile, MURPHY (Texas) is busy helping prep the ACLU and their agenda. Accuse a school bus driver of murder for unintentionally killing a child, but let child predators go free and clear. Click Here for source.
And what about all those other special collectives perspectives? How is it that they are somehow denied their rights to certain sexual freedoms. They are lobbying and fighting to end discrimination as well. Ought we to be defending their interests and rights as well?
Does not Charles Rust-Tierney -- a former president of the Virginia ACLU and a DC public defender have rights and freedoms without opposing opinions toward his preference? (Click Here and Here.)
It gets interesting when considering how so-called freedoms can get twisted out of control when attempting to force rights into the issue. History keeps few secrets about that sort of thing.
Too all a great independence day, one where at least here in this thread a variety of opinions are being expressed without too much escalation from any side at the moment. (jk)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America. |
Edited by - JK on 07/04/2007 09:42:15 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 09:55:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JK
quote:
... I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the MidWest/West.
Massachusetts - interesting state.
I presume your lack of info is referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We may have to give her a pass, since she is claimed a very nice person.
President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1993. Ginsburg was Former General Counsel of the ACLU and their former lead lawyer. In 1972, the ACLU picked Ginsburg to head the historic Women's Rights Project Research her positions and comments when involved with the ACLU. A few that I can personally recall include her position that prostitution must be legalized, that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts must be merged into one program - "sexually integrated," and that the age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to twelve years of age.
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg demonstrates an increasing interest to interpret a European perspective on American Constitutional law. Justice Antonin Scalia opposed Gisburg's position and encouragement to promote a European influence in a Texas sodomy law ruling. Justice Scalia said that, "the court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." And so it would seem Ginsburg favors European law concerning sodomy and that Supreme Court Justice Scalia does not.
It amazes me that the press says very little about Ginsburg's radical position's, all while Dateline presents "To catch a predator," which involves adults seeking consensual sex with young boys and girls. Not a word about Ginsburg's influence in this country in that regard.
So, why isn't Ginsburg' and the ACLU attacking Dateline's popular traditional activities presented for America to witness on TV? There is resistance to that show, you know, some calling Dateline's activities, "tainted by the involvement of amateurs," even though Dateline has some of the nation's best experts and direct professional law enforcement involved setting up the stings.
The ACLU and Ginsburg could certainly help intervene and offer their 'must lower the age of consent' agenda. Not yet I would suppose - timing is important to Ginsburg.
Meanwhile, MURPHY (Texas) is busy helping prep the ACLU and their agenda. Accuse a school bus driver of murder for unintentionally killing a child, but let child predators go free and clear. Click Here for source.
And what about all those other special collectives perspectives? How is it that they are somehow denied their rights to certain sexual freedoms. They are lobbying and fighting to end discrimination as well. Ought we to be defending their interests and rights as well?
Does not Charles Rust-Tierney -- a former president of the Virginia ACLU and a DC public defender have rights and freedoms without opposing opinions toward his preference? (Click Here and Here.)
It gets interesting when considering how so-called freedoms can get twisted out of control when attempting to force rights into the issue. History keeps few secrets about that sort of thing.
Too all a great independence day, one where at least here in this thread a variety of opinions are being expressed without too much escalation from any side at the moment. (jk)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America.
quote:
JK Wrote: Does not Charles Rust-Tierney -- a former president of the Virginia ACLU and a DC public defender have rights and freedoms without opposing opinions toward his preference?
No, he does not have any rights or freedom towards his preference. He is a sicko. The only rights he should have is to be hung by his toe nails with a bullet shoved down his throat and left to die.
Better yet, by his toes. He is a sexual predator and anyone who advocates for him is just as sick.
There is a fine line between what is right and what is wrong.
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 07/04/2007 10:07:12 AM |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 11:45:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
... No, he does not have any rights or freedom towards his preference. He is a sicko. The only rights he should have is to be hung by his toe nails with a bullet shoved down his throat and left to die.
Better yet, by his toes. He is a sexual predator and anyone who advocates for him is just as sick.
There is a fine line between what is right and what is wrong.
Remember who said this? "JK and Peter, why don't you two come back to the future instead of living in the 30's?"
I believe you said that and so much more about acceptance, diversity and compassion and rights and on and on.
And I do believe that you also said this, "I think JK and Peter have won two round tickets to Provincetown, Massachusetts! You'll love it and I bet you'll never want to go back to the MidWest/West."
And someone said this: "There is just no excuse for maltreatment of someone who has a different sexuality than yourself."
Interesting that a person you are calling a, "sicko," merely watched some videos. There's no evidence Charles Rust-Tierney acted out his special interest in a physical way, and he certainly has plenty of friends and colleges, and even his former wife defending him.
Isn't there some sort of right to watch any videos after they have been published? According to the ACLU there should be.
You now suddenly sound like a basher and also just like some of those humans that criticize special interests beyond heterosexual behaviors - you seem suddenly demanding and repressive with no compassion for the diversity of others special preferences that go beyond your own personal diversity.
Interesting.
You realize, of course, this thread is now very near an escalation. People get angry and start working on the proof that they need not change when a so-called rights agenda turns out just another special preference that society overall frowns upon. And when that does not work some begin to lash out.
This thread may well end up deleted yet again, unless some here can find a way to debate this thread's issue without becoming angry. (jk)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - October 11, 1789, spoken by John Adams, former President of the United States of America.
|
Edited by - JK on 07/04/2007 12:26:00 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
bi or gay
