PDA

View Full Version : Tolerance And Acceptance Liberal Style



NJCardFan
08-04-2012, 12:46 PM
Did God help Gabrielle Douglas win?


Gabby Douglas is now officially a star. When she won the individual gold medal in women’s gymnastics in London Thursday, the breakout darling of the 2012 games, she immediately found herself a celebrity worthy of a cereal box. If her performance in the women’s individual all-around didn’t blow your mind, you cannot possibly have been paying attention. Yet after her victory, one of the first responses that truly resonated for me was from a colleague who noted, “I would like her more if she were not so, so, so into Jesus.” Which raises the question – what is Jesus going to do now for Gabby Douglas’ career?

Douglas isn’t exactly the only outspoken Christian in America – or even the only high-profile Christian athlete. So jam-packed is this year’s roster with them that Douglas didn’t even make the cut for the Christian Post’s “10 Christian Athletes to Watch.” But her newly minted status as a champion and her unguarded outspokenness about her faith are going to give her a new platform from which to preach. After her win Thursday, Douglas said, “I give all the glory to God. It’s kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him and the blessings fall down on me.”

She’s a 16-year-old with both deep faith and profound gratitude, a girl who yesterday tweeted from the Psalms to her followers, “Let all that I am praise the LORD; may I never forget the good things he does for me” and Friday sent out a retweet from the Faith in God feed. And that clearly authentic image of a hardworking girl with strong values makes her a natural icon to her fellow Christians, just as it makes the somewhat less faithful uncomfortable.http://www.salon.com/2012/08/03/did_god_help_gabrielle_douglas_win/

God forbid someone use something for strength and guidance that doesn't involve drugs.

LukeEDay
08-04-2012, 12:53 PM
When is the left going to boycott her?

God bless that girl. She did a great job this year, and deserves what she got.

Novaheart
08-04-2012, 06:35 PM
God forbid someone use something for strength and guidance that doesn't involve drugs.

Silliness.

Rockntractor
08-04-2012, 06:53 PM
Silliness.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/youre-dispicable-daft-demotivationa.jpg

Zathras
08-04-2012, 07:59 PM
Silliness.

Yes, your argument against the Chik-Fil-A apreciation day and the people who participated in it is exactly that.

JB
08-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Silliness.So is believing someone is born gay.

Rockntractor
08-04-2012, 08:13 PM
So is believing someone is born gay.

But the whole gig falls apart if it is a learned behavior.

NJCardFan
08-04-2012, 10:47 PM
Silliness.

It's a fact. You get more respect from the left by being a drug addict than you do for being a person of faith. But you're a hypocritical douche so you wouldn't understand such things.

AmPat
08-05-2012, 09:54 PM
God forbid someone use something for strength and guidance that doesn't involve drugs.
Or light, or aura, or some other mystical, made-up liberal hippy nonsense.

Hubie
08-06-2012, 02:18 AM
So is believing someone is born gay.

Even the guys who have been cited as "discovering" the "gay gene" have backed off and said homosexuality happens because of a person's environment (family, social exposure, etc.).

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 03:27 AM
So is believing someone is born gay.

Or believing that because you're gay you're not afforded equal treatment under U.S. law.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 08:34 AM
Or believing that because you're gay you're not afforded equal treatment under U.S. law.

Now the gays are saying that their right to get married is the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. *face palm*

Zathras
08-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Now the gays are saying that their right to get married is the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. *face palm*

When the Gays get fire hoses and police dogs turned on them, denied seating at restaurants and separate water fountains get back to me on the civil rights thing.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 08:54 AM
When the Gays get fire hoses and police dogs turned on them, denied seating at restaurants and separate water fountains get back to me on the civil rights thing.

That is my thing as well. It doesn't even compare, and those morons are screaming that it is. I tell you, the black community is REALLY upset about it. I mean P I S S E D! And I don't blame them one bit.

noonwitch
08-06-2012, 09:19 AM
Or light, or aura, or some other mystical, made-up liberal hippy nonsense.


I don't know, I saw people's auras when I went on a macrobiotic diet. I started eating meat again because I figured the auras were just hallucinations caused by a protein deficiency.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 10:03 AM
Now the gays are saying that their right to get married is the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. *face palm*

That's as big an insult as I can think of to the people that fought and struggled during the civil rights movement.

Here are the questions I asked Novatwit on another thread when he was trying this unequal meme:


Have you been denied the right to vote? Have you beed turned away from a restraunt?

Have you been made to sit at the back of a bus? Have you been told that a lunch counter is "straights only?"

Has there been a seperate water fountain for gays at any place you've been to lately?

Are there signs in the town where you live warning gays to "get out of town by sundown"?

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 10:05 AM
When the Gays get fire hoses and police dogs turned on them, denied seating at restaurants and separate water fountains get back to me on the civil rights thing.

Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

The fact that the gay rights movement has been successful in reducing some of these things is not evidence that they never existed or that the kind of people who practiced and promoted these violations would not gladly return to the good old days that they openly and unapologetically lament in their passing.

Nobody turned fire hoses on Orientals and Jews either - but that doesn't mean there weren't civil rights violations there. Where did the Constitution say that Jews and Orientals had a right to buy a house in Chevy Chase? It doesn't. It says that they have a right to equal protection under the law.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 10:09 AM
Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.

I'm sure you have links? Given your proclivity for just making shit up...we need to see links.



Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.


All of which can be taken care of with civil unions. But you already know that. This isn't about being able to marry......it never was...it's about tearing down the foundations of this country and forcing people to accept your alternate lifestyle as normal...something that hasn't happened yet.

And that pisses you off to no end...thta much is obvious in the bile you spew on the subject.

AmPat
08-06-2012, 10:09 AM
I don't know, I saw people's auras when I went on a macrobiotic diet. I started eating meat again because I figured the auras were just hallucinations caused by a protein deficiency.
Did you worship them and give them your soul?:friendly_wink:

Zathras
08-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

Really? Then I'm sure you can provide links to each of those claims then. You know, facts to back up your accusations?

AmPat
08-06-2012, 10:36 AM
Really? Then I'm sure you can provide links to each of those claims then. You know, facts to back up your accusations?
He just knows it and feels it to be true. That is enough for him, can't you just accept his emotional claims?:rolleyes:

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 10:43 AM
That's as big an insult as I can think of to the people that fought and struggled during the civil rights movement.

Here are the questions I asked Novatwit on another thread when he was trying this unequal meme:


Have you been denied the right to vote?

Not personally. Had I been convicted of the felony of being gay, then I would have been denied the right to vote. The right to vote is also effectively denied when a municipality structures its elections so that a minority enclave cannot elect a representative. This is generally done by having at-large elections, which is why courts have ordered many cities to have single district elections.


That's as big an insult as I can think of to the people that fought and struggled during the civil rights movement.

LOL! As if you care.


Have you beed turned away from a restraunt?

Yes, I have been told to leave two different establishments, one in Ocean City Maryland and one in Washington DC. Both violations of my rights took place in the summer of 1978.




Have you been made to sit at the back of a bus?

No, and neither have any black people my age. I have been harassed on a bus and witnessed gay people being attacked on a bus.


Have you been told that a lunch counter is "straights only?"

Asked and answered. That's pretty much what they are telling you when they tell you to leave. But, gosh, it didn't happen at a lunch counter because, well, who the fuck has seen a lunch counter or a Woolworths since 1980?



Has there been a seperate water fountain for gays at any place you've been to lately?

Wow, you really got me there. But wait, has anyone seen a whites only water fountain in my lifetime?



Are there signs in the town where you live warning gays to "get out of town by sundown"?

Gay people are generally aware of the danger zones without signs to direct them. Of course, sometimes the danger zone comes to you as was the case when recently the police invaded a gay bar in Ft Worth and violated the rights of everyone in the place.

Zathras
08-06-2012, 10:49 AM
Gay people are generally aware of the danger zones without signs to direct them. Of course, sometimes the danger zone comes to you as was the case when recently the police invaded a gay bar in Ft Worth and violated the rights of everyone in the place.

Oh, so recently is 2 years ago? That happened in 2009 and resulted in good things happening for the LGBT community in Ft. Worth....nice try but you fail yet again.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Not personally. Had I been convicted of the felony of being gay, then I would have been denied the right to vote. The right to vote is also effectively denied when a municipality structures its elections so that a minority enclave cannot elect a representative. This is generally done by having at-large elections, which is why courts have ordered many cities to have single district elections.

Gerrymandering? You mean like making convoluted districts that ensure only Liberal democrats ever get elected?

There's far more evidence of this going on from your party Nova. Turn off your projector...you're looking silly.




LOL! As if you care.

More than you will ever admit. Unlike Liberals I judge people by the content of their character not skin color or special protected class.

You on the other hand have no trouble showing your ignorance on what the Civil Rights movement was about as you moronically attatch the idiocy that is gay "rights" to what was a real violent deadly struggle for equality.

Minorities had legitimate grips in the early toi mid part of the 20th century...the "rights" you want are a fraud.




Yes, I have been told to leave two different establishments, one in Ocean City Maryland and one in Washington DC. Both violations of my rights took place in the summer of 1978.

And for what reason? Did you notify the authorities? Or did you get kicked out for making an asshole of yourself.




No, and neither have any black people my age. I have been harassed on a bus and witnessed gay people being attacked on a bus.

Sure you have. :rolleyes:




Asked and answered. That's pretty much what they are telling you when they tell you to leave. But, gosh, it didn't happen at a lunch counter because, well, who the fuck has seen a lunch counter or a Woolworths since 1980?

Point still is that this phony "rights" movement you are so militant about didn't...nor will it have to go through half the indignation and insults blacks did 50 years ago.

And again we don't know why you were asked to leave...my guess is still you were just being an asshole. Not because you were gay.




Wow, you really got me there. But wait, has anyone seen a whites only water fountain in my lifetime?

:rolleyes:




Gay people are generally aware of the danger zones without signs to direct them. Of course, sometimes the danger zone comes to you as was the case when recently the police invaded a gay bar in Ft Worth and violated the rights of everyone in the place.

Link?

NJCardFan
08-06-2012, 11:08 AM
I'm still waiting links backing up nova's claims and I want said links to come from unbiased sources and not from LGBGT sites.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 11:09 AM
And for what reason?

For dancing with a same sex partner.



Did you notify the authorities?

You don't call the police when something like that happens. The police have no authority in that situation. You call a lawyer, and yes we did.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Sure you have. :rolleyes:

Then there isn't much point in discussing it with you.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 11:11 AM
I'm still waiting links backing up nova's claims and I want said links to come from unbiased sources and not from LGBGT sites.

links for what?

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 11:17 AM
Oh, so recently is 2 years ago? That happened in 2009 and resulted in good things happening for the LGBT community in Ft. Worth....nice try but you fail yet again.


Well just a week or so ago you guys were cheering on bad and breakfast owners and championing their right to discriminate in public accommodations. Mind you I support the right to discriminate in public accommodation, as long as it's an open right to discriminate for any reason. But folks around here sure get their panties in a knot anytime they can convince themselves that "christians" are being discriminate against. What a joke.

Zathras
08-06-2012, 11:17 AM
links for what?

Short term memory loss problem Nova? Or don't you have facts from a neutral source to back up the claims you made in post #17 in this very thread?

Zathras
08-06-2012, 11:21 AM
For dancing with a same sex partner.



You don't call the police when something like that happens. The police have no authority in that situation. You call a lawyer, and yes we did.

So what you're saying is we have to take your word that it happened with no proof that it actually happened. Sorry, that's not going to fly because you have an agenda and are likely to make stuff up to futher that same agenda.

Zathras
08-06-2012, 11:25 AM
Well just a week or so ago you guys were cheering on bad and breakfast owners and championing their right to discriminate in public accommodations. Mind you I support the right to discriminate in public accommodation, as long as it's an open right to discriminate for any reason. But folks around here sure get their panties in a knot anytime they can convince themselves that "christians" are being discriminate against. What a joke.

The only joke here is you and your claim that you get unequal treatment under the law.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 11:50 AM
The only joke here is you and your claim that you get unequal treatment under the law.

Keep repeating that lie and let me know if it makes it true.

Meanwhile, read what intelligent people have to say on the subject.

After three years of delay, that trial was finally held, and on December 3, 1996, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the refusal of the State of Hawaii to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the Hawaii State Constitution, and that the state had failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that could justify this “discrimination.”

Zathras
08-06-2012, 12:33 PM
Keep repeating that lie and let me know if it makes it true.

The only lies that are being repeated are the ones you keep saying about unequal treatment under the law.


Meanwhile, read what intelligent people have to say on the subject.

After three years of delay, that trial was finally held, and on December 3, 1996, Judge Kevin Chang ruled that the refusal of the State of Hawaii to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the Hawaii State Constitution, and that the state had failed to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that could justify this “discrimination.”

How can this violate the State Consttution of Hawaii when Article 1, Section 23 of the same document states the following...


MARRIAGE

Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

LINK (http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html)....See Nova, unlike you, I actually back up what I post with links from an unbiased source.

Looks like your so-called "intelligent people" aren't so smart after all.

Odysseus
08-06-2012, 01:54 PM
Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

The fact that the gay rights movement has been successful in reducing some of these things is not evidence that they never existed or that the kind of people who practiced and promoted these violations would not gladly return to the good old days that they openly and unapologetically lament in their passing.

Nobody turned fire hoses on Orientals and Jews either - but that doesn't mean there weren't civil rights violations there. Where did the Constitution say that Jews and Orientals had a right to buy a house in Chevy Chase? It doesn't. It says that they have a right to equal protection under the law.

Okay, you've been persecuted. Welcome to the club. We have T-shirts.

The issue isn't whether you've suffered, but whether your demands are valid. To answer that, we have to ask if that makes gay marriage (a) a good idea for the rest of the culture and (b) a critical offset to your prior suffering? As I've repeatedly argued (without referencing religious arguments), the redefinition of marriage to encompass things which it was never meant to be will open the floodgates to all manner of pernicious changes to marriage and culture. The fairness arguments apply equally to polygamy, incest and every other form of "marriage" that someone might want to indulge in. It becomes one of a long string of attacks on marriage that began when the various socialist movements recognized that socialism would be resisted by stable families that expected rational property rights and saw children as their own, rather than the state's. It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda. Destroy the family and you destroy the structure that raises self-sufficient adults. Destroy marriage and you destroy the family. So, the answer to the first question is, no, gay marriage, as another nail in the coffin of marriage, is not good for the culture as a whole. That leaves the second question, whether it is of value as remedy for past discrimination, and since we have demonstrated that it will be destructive to the culture as a whole, it will therefore have significant negative impacts to the subcultures, including yours. That makes it a poor compensation for prior injustices, unless you are seeking revenge. Are you?

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 03:00 PM
Okay, you've been persecuted.

One step at a time.


Welcome to the club.

Except that as a rule, Jews were persecuted by their host culture or oppressor culture not their own culture. Philosophically, I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.





The issue isn't whether you've suffered, but whether your demands are valid. To answer that, we have to ask if that makes gay marriage (a) a good idea for the rest of the culture and

Wrong, the question is not what good gay people bring (even though the evidence is easily seen) , it's what the "compelling state interest" would be in discrimination. To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest. When they try, they always end up saying something relating to religion or tradition (which in this case is the same as religion). Thousands of years of slavery didn't justify its continuation. Centuries of European nations keeping Jews second (or third or fourth) class citizens did not justify its continuation in America.



As I've repeatedly argued (without referencing religious arguments), the redefinition of marriage to encompass things which it was never meant to be will open the floodgates to all manner of pernicious changes to marriage and culture.

Who defined marriage as we know it? What was the context of that definition? When you say "it was never meant", meant by whom? What difference does that make today?


The fairness arguments apply equally to polygamy, incest and every other form of "marriage" that someone might want to indulge in.

We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins. In Europe, Asia, and Africa our ancestors did these things, and we pay a lot of money to go see their homes and monuments.



It becomes one of a long string of attacks on marriage that began when the various socialist movements recognized that socialism would be resisted by stable families that expected rational property rights and saw children as their own, rather than the state's. It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda.

What a crock of shit. The USSR, China, and Cuba were and are in descendant forms openly hostile to even minor improvements in gay rights. These places were obsessed with "decadence of the West". China requires mediation in contested divorces.


It's no coincidence that every leftist movement in history has demanded free love, abortion on demand, collective childcare, single motherhood, abnormal family arrangements and the rest of the left's social agenda.

Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.


Destroy marriage and you destroy the family. So, the answer to the first question is, no, gay marriage, as another nail in the coffin of marriage, is not good for the culture as a whole. That leaves the second question, whether it is of value as remedy for past discrimination, and since we have demonstrated that it will be destructive to the culture as a whole, it will therefore have significant negative impacts to the subcultures, including yours. That makes it a poor compensation for prior injustices, unless you are seeking revenge. Are you?



What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?

Zathras
08-06-2012, 03:12 PM
Hey Nova, still waiting for the links to unbiased sources for your claims in post #17.....or are they, like everything else you believe in, a total crock of shit? I'm going to go with the latter because, if you did have links to what you've claimed, I'm sure you would post them.

txradioguy
08-06-2012, 03:18 PM
Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.

Seriously Nova you make this too easy.

NARL

Planned Parenthood

The Democrat Party of America

National Organization for Women


I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.

Please tell me you're not trying to claim "gay" as an ethnic minority?



We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins.

Like?



What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?

Obviously sharpened it to a point where you're unable to keep up with his logical train of thought.




To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest.

So by that line of thinking...there's no compelling state interest to allow them to discriminate against me if I want to marry a goat?

m00
08-06-2012, 03:43 PM
What I don't get is this. Gay men have a stereotype of thin, neat, affluent, and sensitive. Why wouldn't I want to remove them from my dating pool? Go ahead, get married. The more gay men the better. Makes it easier for fat insensitive slobs like me to get a date! Just sayin'

If every man was gay but me... it would be good times.

Odysseus
08-06-2012, 04:58 PM
One step at a time.
Nobody denies this. I certainly don't. But there's persecution and there's persecution.



Except that as a rule, Jews were persecuted by their host culture or oppressor culture not their own culture. Philosophically, I'd say that it's much more normal to persecute an ethnic minority, especially one which holds on to an exotic culture while taking up residence in the country of another nation.
Irrelevant and pointless. First off, while Judaism is a religion, Jews have sought to assimilate in every culture that we have encountered. The shock of the Holocaust was that the Germans, who had the most thoroughly assimilated Jews on the continent, were leading the charge. We expected pogroms from the Poles, Russians and other Eastern Europeans, and the French had blamed their loss in the Franco-Prussian War on one of us, but the Germans had been far more accommodating and tolerant. And, let's also remember that some of the most virulent anti-semites started out with Jewish roots. Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Frederic Engels and a host of others have demonstrated that we Jews can excel at anything, even antisemitism.


Wrong, the question is not what good gay people bring (even though the evidence is easily seen) , it's what the "compelling state interest" would be in discrimination. To date, no American government has justified its discrimination in the law; no government has proven a compelling state interest. When they try, they always end up saying something relating to religion or tradition (which in this case is the same as religion). Thousands of years of slavery didn't justify its continuation. Centuries of European nations keeping Jews second (or third or fourth) class citizens did not justify its continuation in America.
First, the argument of benefits vs. compelling state interest is semantics. In this case, the two are the same, because the issue is not discrimination. It is not discrimination to define marriage as the permanent union between a man and a woman, any more than it is discrimination to define a biscuit as a mixture of flour, water and other specified ingredients that has been baked. If a cat has kittens in an oven, they are not suddenly biscuits, and if two people of the same sex proclaim their undying love, that's not a marriage. What you have to prove is a compelling state interest in redefining marriage to accommodate your lifestyle, and that means that you must examine the costs and benefits. As stated previously, there are no benefits, except your self-esteem, but the costs are potentially astronomical.


Who defined marriage as we know it? What was the context of that definition? When you say "it was never meant", meant by whom? What difference does that make today?

It makes all of the difference in the world. Marriage predates recorded history, but has always been a union of a man and at least one woman. The Greeks were the first to have monogamous marriage, with the Romans following suit. The purpose of marriage in both cultures was to ensure property and inheritance rights and secure the protection of women. In polygamous or none-matrimonial cultures, women are reduced to chattel, and at constant risk of violence. We see this today, not just in the polygamous regions of the world, but in those areas of the west where marriage has collapsed as an institution, such as urban ghettos. Marriage protects the weakest members of society, women and children, by creating permanent, stable bonds with the strongest members, men.


We celebrate historical figures who had many wives and concubines. We celebrate historical figures who married siblings, nieces, and cousins. In Europe, Asia, and Africa our ancestors did these things, and we pay a lot of money to go see their homes and monuments.

Wow. Talk about irrelevant. We celebrate historical figures as men and women of their times, but that doesn't mean that we have to copy every aspect of their lives. Alexander the Great died of a fever at 31. Shall we abandon medical science in order to emulate that? Washington and Jefferson were two of the most enlightened men of their generation, but we don't own slaves today. The point is to discard the failures and learn from the successes. Gay marriage is not a success, but a trendy fad among intellectuals, like pacifism in the 1930s, or militarism in the 1910s.


What a crock of shit. The USSR, China, and Cuba were and are in descendant forms openly hostile to even minor improvements in gay rights. These places were obsessed with "decadence of the West". China requires mediation in contested divorces.
Within their own borders, these states are extremely restrictive, but prior to coming to power, they were quite open to anything that undermined traditional families, and while the Soviets and Cubans are viciously antigay, they also used the coercive powers of their states to suppress family loyalties. Children were taught to inform on parents, and taught that family is a bourgious concept, and that only the party is entitled to their loyalty. And, as stated, the Soviets and Cubans are viciously anti-gay within their borders, but they constantly support movements in the west that advance sexual anarchy. The Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Party USA support gay marriage, not to mention the full gamut of feminist politics.



Seriously? Give me a list of leftist movements demanding abortion on demand.
Seriously? You want them alphabetically or in descending order of importance? Abortion on demand is a leftist position, going back to the early days of the Progressive Movement, when Margaret Sanger argued for it as both a means to liberate women and to control undesirable populations (various leftist groups were hardcore eugenicists, and only changed their tune after they saw where that would lead in the Holocaust, but today, they are coming full circle, with Peter Singer leading the way). In fact, it would be a substantially shorter list of leftists who weren't in favor of abortion on demand. However, since you asked, I'll hit a few of the obvious ones. A full list would fill my hard drive:

Green Party
ACLU
Planned Parenthood
RCP
CPUSA
Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviets had the highest per capita abortion rate in the world)
Communist Party of the People's Republic of China (Not just on demand, but on command of the state)
National Organization of Women
ACTUP
The Democratic Party
The United Nations
International ANSWER
People for the American Way
EMILY's List
NARAL
Alan Guttmacher Institute
etc.


What the hell have they done to your mind at Belvoir?

They've basically left it alone, which is why I'm able to think, and ask questions that you cannot or will not address. The real question is whether you will do anything with your mind.

JB
08-06-2012, 06:24 PM
waaahhhhh. People are bullied. All the time. People are bullied for being too fat, too skinny, for being too rich, for being too poor, for wearing glasses or clothes someone doesn't like. Cry me a river Nova. You were just bragging the other day about how you bullied someone in a parking lot. With the intention of doing so. What kind of a douche does that make you?

You're the biggest racist I've ever seen on CU. You hate blacks, hispanics and anyone that is religious. Your world consists of you and probably four other atheist gay dudes. Mazel tov homie.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 06:47 PM
waaahhhhh. People are bullied. All the time. People are bullied for being too fat, too skinny, for being too rich, for being too poor, for wearing glasses or clothes someone doesn't like. Cry me a river Nova. You were just bragging the other day about how you bullied someone in a parking lot. With the intention of doing so. What kind of a douche does that make you?

You're the biggest racist I've ever seen on CU. You hate blacks, hispanics and anyone that is religious. Your world consists of you and probably four other atheist gay dudes. Mazel tov homie.

Ya know. All this talk about gays being discriminated against gives me an idea. I am going to start a petition to stop St. Patrick's Day. Why? Because it is a day to celebrate the Irish, and me being Italian feel it is a day that is discriminating against me. Sure I could go down to the local bar and drink some green beer, and have a great time with my fellow man, and not be treated any different because I'm not Irish, but hey, it is still discriminating against me. And every time I see the celebration of a nationality that isn't my own, my heart sinks, and I feel like I am not wanted.

Who is with me?

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 06:48 PM
Ya know. All this talk about gays being discriminated against gives me an idea. I am going to start a petition to stop St. Patrick's Day. Why? Because it is a day to celebrate the Irish, and me being Italian feel it is a day that is discriminating against me. Sure I could go down to the local bar and drink some green beer, and have a great time with my fellow man, and not be treated any different because I'm not Irish, but hey, it is still discriminating against me. And every time I see the celebration of a nationality that isn't my own, my heart sinks, and I feel like I am not wanted.

Who is with me?

That's why we have Columbus Day.

LukeEDay
08-06-2012, 06:50 PM
That's why we have Columbus Day.

One, Columbus was Spanish. And two, you either totally ignored my point, or do not get it.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 06:52 PM
........You were just bragging the other day about how you bullied someone in a parking lot. ............

.......... You hate blacks, hispanics and anyone that is religious. .....

You can't support these claims.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 07:00 PM
One, Columbus was Spanish. And two, you either totally ignored my point, or do not get it.

Really.

JB
08-06-2012, 07:05 PM
You can't support these claims.Coming from you Nova, that's comedy gold right there.

Novaheart
08-06-2012, 08:25 PM
How can this violate the State Consttution of Hawaii when Article 1, Section 23 of the same document states the following...

The ruling predates the change (with huge Mormon support) to the Hawaii constitution.



LINK (http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html)....See Nova, unlike you, I actually back up what I post with links from an unbiased source.

Looks like your so-called "intelligent people" aren't so smart after all.


I'm aware of the sequence of events. The amendment to the Hawaii constitution doesn't alter the fact that the court found that the state had failed to prove a compelling state interest. The change to the constitution made the suit moot. None of which will matter when the USSC finds such laws to be unconstitutional.

Zathras
08-06-2012, 08:57 PM
The ruling predates the change (with huge Mormon support) to the Hawaii constitution.

I'm aware of the sequence of events. The amendment to the Hawaii constitution doesn't alter the fact that the court found that the state had failed to prove a compelling state interest. The change to the constitution made the suit moot. None of which will matter when the USSC finds such laws to be unconstitutional.

You are? That's funny because what I posted was the original Hawaiian Constitution Article 1, Section 23 wording. The Bill listed there changed the wording to recognise only Man & Woman marriages as legal. Sure doesn't look like you're very aware of anything are you. As for the USSC changing the law? Don't bet on it. It's been 14 years since the law was passed. If someone had taken it to court they would have done it by now.

Oh and while we're at it, where are the links to back up your claims in post #17 in this thread?

NJCardFan
08-06-2012, 10:40 PM
Coming from you Nova, that's comedy gold right there.

Ain't it.

NJCardFan
08-06-2012, 10:44 PM
links for what?


Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

The fact that the gay rights movement has been successful in reducing some of these things is not evidence that they never existed or that the kind of people who practiced and promoted these violations would not gladly return to the good old days that they openly and unapologetically lament in their passing.

Nobody turned fire hoses on Orientals and Jews either - but that doesn't mean there weren't civil rights violations there. Where did the Constitution say that Jews and Orientals had a right to buy a house in Chevy Chase? It doesn't. It says that they have a right to equal protection under the law.
:rolleyes:

txradioguy
08-07-2012, 03:26 AM
You can't support these claims.

We've got your own words right here that highlight your intolerance and bigotry.

Odysseus
08-07-2012, 08:27 AM
That's why we have Columbus Day.

Which is subjected to exactly the same kinds of protests that Luke was describing. Elizabeth Warren's people have been trying to ban Columbus Day for years, and successfully kept the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America from being celebrated as it ought to have been (1992 was a particularly low key Columbus Day).


The ruling predates the change (with huge Mormon support) to the Hawaii constitution.

It doesn't really matter what the Mormons said or did, since they are not the majority in the state. The law passed because the judge's ruling defied common sense.



I'm aware of the sequence of events. The amendment to the Hawaii constitution doesn't alter the fact that the court found that the state had failed to prove a compelling state interest. The change to the constitution made the suit moot. None of which will matter when the USSC finds such laws to be unconstitutional.

That doesn't mean that the previous law was discriminatory. Demanding that the state sanction alternatives to marriage and then screaming discrimination when it declines to do so doesn't make this a civil rights issue. There is no compelling state interest to define lots of things that have existed for millenia, simply because they are self-evident. The judge imposed his bias for the law, so that people like you would laud his "intelligence" and so that he could pat himself on the back, but there is nothing in the law that forbids gay marriage. You can get married in any church that will have you, but you are demanding legal sanction, which means that you are demanding that the majority of the legislature and the voters approve of your marriage, and when they demonstrate that they don't, you scream bigotry and demand that a single judge throw out the law. Thanks to rulings like this, the laws of the land are now arbitrarily stricken when a judge decides that his personal biases are more important than the right of the people to govern themselves. There is no end to the mischief that this issue is creating, both in terms of societal decay and legal anarchy.


One, Columbus was Spanish. And two, you either totally ignored my point, or do not get it.

Uh, Columbus was Italian. He sailed for Spain because they were willing to finance his trip.

NJCardFan
08-07-2012, 11:47 AM
Uh, Columbus was Italian. He sailed for Spain because they were willing to finance his trip.
Actually he's Genoese. Semantics I know but just saying.

LukeEDay
08-07-2012, 12:16 PM
Uh, Columbus was Italian. He sailed for Spain because they were willing to finance his trip.

I know, I got confused with where he sailed from and where is was from for a second. That happens some times...

Odysseus
08-08-2012, 11:42 AM
Actually he's Genoese. Semantics I know but just saying.
Which was in Italy. But, it was an independent city at the time, so you are correct.

I know, I got confused with where he sailed from and where is was from for a second. That happens some times...

It's okay. Obama still thinks that there are 57 states.

LukeEDay
08-08-2012, 02:28 PM
It's okay. Obama still thinks that there are 57 states.

Isn't that the truth. I wonder if he visited them all yet?

Zathras
08-08-2012, 02:43 PM
Homosexuality has been a felony for most of the history of this country.
Homosexuals have been denied education, employment, and housing.
Homosexuals have been (and are still) a target of discrimination and violence.
Homosexuals have been extorted by the police as individuals and businesses.
Homosexuals have been (and still are) targeted by the police for selective enforcement and with intimidation tactics.
Homosexuals continue to be treated differently and unequally under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments in regards to marriage, taxes, and benefits.

I guess these claims are bullshit....a normal person would provide links to claims they make to back up what they post with verifiable facts. Then again we know Nova is nothing but a drama queen in the first place, all BS over substance, so it's no surprise he'd run like a coward when challenged.

m00
08-08-2012, 02:58 PM
I guess these claims are bullshit....a normal person would provide links to claims they make to back up what they post with verifiable facts. Then again we know Nova is nothing but a drama queen in the first place, all BS over substance, so it's no surprise he'd run like a coward when chalenged.

The only court case I'm particularly familiar with is Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). But sodomy (even heterosexual oral sex) was banned in some states until 2003. Reason being that sodomy laws were conveniently used selectively to persecute gays (what was happening in the privacy of their bedroom in their home mind you), if not to gain an actual conviction, then to legally harass. Texas was interesting because gays and heterosexuals were treated differently, which the court ruled violated the 14th. Sexual privacy had already been established as a right in the 1960s and 1970s

But you really have to put this in context. Until 1972, cops could legally bust down your bedroom door on suspicion of having sex with someone you weren't married to (two consenting adults of different genders). I don't think gays were being particularly singled out; really it was about a loosely defined sense of sexual morality clashing with the 1960s counter culture. Thing is, once straight people won the sexual privacy right the 14th implied it also held for gays.

Zathras
08-08-2012, 04:03 PM
The only court case I'm particularly familiar with is Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). But sodomy (even heterosexual oral sex) was banned in some states until 2003. Reason being that sodomy laws were conveniently used selectively to persecute gays (what was happening in the privacy of their bedroom in their home mind you), if not to gain an actual conviction, then to legally harass. Texas was interesting because gays and heterosexuals were treated differently, which the court ruled violated the 14th. Sexual privacy had already been established as a right in the 1960s and 1970s

But you really have to put this in context. Until 1972, cops could legally bust down your bedroom door on suspicion of having sex with someone you weren't married to (two consenting adults of different genders). I don't think gays were being particularly singled out; really it was about a loosely defined sense of sexual morality clashing with the 1960s counter culture. Thing is, once straight people won the sexual privacy right the 14th implied it also held for gays.

I knew about the Texas case but it should be up to the person making the claims (Novaheart) to back up claims they make with links to prove what they post is true. Nova hasn't done this with the claims he made despite people asking him to do so and, in fact, has run away from this thread after being challenged on what he posted.