|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
bruin
|
|
response 62 of 404:
| 
Oct 17 22:34 UTC 1998 |
RE #61 I was able to access both www.godhatesfags.com and
www.liveerotica.com just to see what these sites were like. Needless to
say, neither Web site will end up in my bookmarks.
|
danr
|
|
response 63 of 404:
|
Oct 18 01:44 UTC 1998 |
geez. the godhatesfags site is truly scary.
|
scg
|
|
response 64 of 404:
|
Oct 18 03:26 UTC 1998 |
You're talking about the porn site, or is what is supposedly the intended
content sometimes there?
|
senna
|
|
response 65 of 404:
|
Oct 18 05:14 UTC 1998 |
brighn, about as many pro-lifers hate (in proportion) as do proportions of
other groups. That shocks no one.
|
brighn
|
|
response 66 of 404:
|
Oct 18 15:49 UTC 1998 |
senna, yo're attempting to convince me that there's a fundamental difference
between pro-lifers and gay-haters. you won't. they're both attempting to force
their opinion on other people, they're both allowing fringe associates to use
force to do so, they're both functioning on an inability to see anyone else's
perspective. if anything, the pro-lifers are much much worse than the
gay-haters, because gay-haters are acting out of fear and hate, and the
pro-lifers are allegedly acting out of love, and yet the end result is the
same.
|
senna
|
|
response 67 of 404:
|
Oct 18 21:57 UTC 1998 |
Ah. so, you're telling me, that all pro lifers are insensitive shortsighted
bastards who refuse to look at the other side of the coin?
Lovely :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 68 of 404:
|
Oct 18 22:52 UTC 1998 |
I'd like to nominate #66 for the October 1998 Grex Sweepsies
(an award I just invented, awarded to the conference participant
who makes the most stunningly sweeping generalization..)
|
kenton
|
|
response 69 of 404:
|
Oct 18 23:42 UTC 1998 |
I see that the perpetrators are guilty without a trial, but I want more facts.
What was the intent of the perpetrators? Did they actually intend to kill
their victim? Were they inebriated (no excuse)? How intense was the homo's
"pass"? Did he receive signs of rejection, which he did not heed? What did the
Homo actually die from? Exposure? Beating? Combination? The "killers may have
been as shocked as anyone else to discover that the homo died.
I had a guy make a pass at me and frankly it amused me. I still chuckle about
that. But the idea of "cornholing" a man (or a woman) is repulsive to me. So
is picking your nose and eating it.
I am (I guess) a pro lifer. I march for and support a group, who provide free
support to mother's to be, whether married or not. I do what I do to preserve
human life.
But I hate neither the murderer of small unborn children nor homosexuals, nor
liars, nor thieves, nor corrupt politicians, nor fornicators, nor adulterers,
etc, etc. They are all the same to me.
Homosexuality puzzles me. I can see what a women sees in another woman.
Shucks, I like women. But guys and guys. Yuck. Never the less, I have seen
many men who act feminine. This seems to come natural to them.
In view of the apparent lack of acceptance of homosexual actions, any homo
who randomly approaches anyone for a "date" is unwise. They should stick to
homo bars or watch for other signs from a prospective partner.
|
other
|
|
response 70 of 404:
|
Oct 19 00:13 UTC 1998 |
wow! i didn't know that the opposite of "empathy" was "kenton."
|
scg
|
|
response 71 of 404:
|
Oct 19 00:14 UTC 1998 |
"The homo?" Please...
I'm not sure where the making a pass at the perpetrators is really relevant,
unless you would also consider it accetable for them to kill somebody of the
opposite sex, who they weren't attracted to, for making a pass at them. I'm
also not sure it's particularly relevant whether the direct cause of death
was the beating or the exposure. When somebody is beaten so badly that they
can't move, and then tied to a fence outside and left there for several hours,
the people who beat him and tied him to a fence can hardly claim to be not
responsable, because it was the being outside that killed him. That would
be like pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger, and then claiming
to not be responsable for the death because it was the bullet that did the
killing.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 72 of 404:
|
Oct 19 02:53 UTC 1998 |
Ohhh, I am a pro-lifer! Beware! Beware! But the fact remains that I am a
prolifer for my own choice and not for others. I don't go around yelling at
people to not get an abortion. I had two friends that did, and they did it
for their own reasons. Which were tough decisions to make. But for *me*,
I will have the child, no if, ands or buts.
But then again, I do not go around bashing other people about their beliefs
so please don't bash and generalize about others. Its the kind thing to do.
|
senna
|
|
response 73 of 404:
|
Oct 19 04:41 UTC 1998 |
Kenton, I hate to say this, but you're not helping any.
However, he does bring up a decent point, albeit badly. Certain
Christian denominations may denounce homosexuality as a sin, but they're
usually the same ones who mention that all people sin. And that sin,
for all intents and purposes, is generally the same. Christians who
hate homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals are in fact
breaking the second commandment, which is a bit more important than
sexual orientation. Thus, they're not really following their theologies
very well. However, these bigots are not a majority of the religious
right. And it annoys me when people generalize like that. It's no
different from saying "all blacks are dumb" or "all jews are greedy."
However, it's socially acceptable among a decent part of the population.
I think there's very little question that the murder was intentional. I
haven't heard any compelling evidence yet, but it seems logical that it
would be hate-motivated. Few murders of that nature don't have that
sort of motive. It's a terrible crime. And I wish some of the people
whom I'm defending (obviously, there *are* some insensitive bigots)
would quit drowning out the majority.
|
senna
|
|
response 74 of 404:
|
Oct 19 05:11 UTC 1998 |
Okay, lets try a little dramatic illustration:
One day, for no apparent reason, chaos occurs. The news stories are
filled with tales of death, violence and hatred. All over America good
people watch Tom Brokaw tell them how things have gone wrong. It is a
dark day.
The top story of the night comes from Los Angeles. Gang wars in South
Central have escalated into a full scale mob scene, reminiscent of what
followed the Rodney King verdict. There is violence, death, blood, and
rampant looting. All of the participants shown on the screen are black.
Sitting quietly at home in a suburb of Philadelphia, Robert Avery thinks
to himself, "Damn those blacks. They're nothing but trouble."
Next is a hard-hitting tale of an abortion clinic bombing in Seattle.
Two doctors, a security guard, and three expectant mothers, none of whom
had made up their minds, are killed. The perpetrator has already been
arrested, a former Baptist Minister who was let go by his congregation a
number of years ago. Angela Holman, a graduate student in Madison
Wisconsin, tells her friend, "Man, that bloody religious right is at it
again. Those sexist pigs."
After that is a follow up report on the Pride march on the Washington
Mall. More than 750,000 people are counted, and the rally is viewed a
large success. It is peaceful, and the speakers are well presented.
Ray Taylor, a retired man living in Miami, shakes his head. "Those gays
are always pushing in on our rights. What's going to stop them?"
Later, in the business report, a Jewish investor takes over a top
petroleum company. Alan Markinson, resting at home in Queens, thinks,
"Those damn Jews own everything. A guy can't be successful around here
anymore."
What the difference here? There is *absolutely none.*
|
scg
|
|
response 75 of 404:
|
Oct 19 06:31 UTC 1998 |
There is certainly some difference between religious or political affiliation,
which is a matter of choice, and racial affiliation, which is a matter of
biology. Race is defined either by what somebody looks like or where their
ancestors were from, while religious and political affiliations are defined
by what a person belives. Saying all people who believe X believe X would
be quite reasonable, if redundant, while saying all people with dark skin
believe X would be rediculous (for X being any highly controversial opinion).
Clearly, not all people who believe abortion is wrong believe it is their
place to try to talk strangers out of having abortions, and not everybody who
tries to talk strangers out of abortions also believes that they would be
justified in blowing up abortion clinics. Likewise, I'm sure many people who
think homosexuality is wrong still don't support discrimination, and even many
of those who wouldn't want to associate with a gay person wouldn't go out and
kill gay people. Does that mean that it would be impossible to say, "all
people in group Y want to kill gay people," or "all people in group Y want
to blow up abortion clinics?" Of course not. It's all a matter of how we
define group Y. If Group Y is the Association for the Blowing up of Abortion
Clinics and Murder of Gay People, then we can very well assume that its
members are probably violent people
Senna is seeing people here criticize the Religious Right for views he doesn't
hold and actions he hasn't participated in. He is then grouping himself into
the Religious Right, and becoming offended. However, I think the terms
Religious Right and Religious Wackos, and whatever other equivillent terms
are going around, actually dn't generally apply to people like senna, who is
way too open minded to be grouped in there. Again, the accuracy or inaccuracy
of the blanket statements depends on how we determine who is in that group.
|
brighn
|
|
response 76 of 404:
|
Oct 19 14:25 UTC 1998 |
Chirst, people, take a heated post of mine during a debate with a specific
person, and jump all over my ass, when my viewpoint has been made clear
repeatedly in less absolute tones elsewhere...
Fine, since y'all need it spelled out in calm, explicit words, here's the
force-fed PC pablum:
(1) The most public component of the "pro-life camp," specifically Operation
Rescue, is generally closed-minded. It often hides behind the religious
rhetoric of loving the fetus in order to encourage an atmosphere that spawns
hatred of abortion doctors and clients, so much so that some of its fringe
members have used extreme violence, including murder and extortion, the latter
of which has been allegedly linked to specific Operation Resuce suggestions.
(2) I do not consider somebody who views abortion as a non-choice for
themselves, but who is not actively seeking to ban it or to force others not
to get one, as a "pro-lifer." I suppose the argument could be made that they
are "pro-life," if they think abortion is abominable but think that they don't
have the right to tell others how to behave, but what is the abortion debate
about, anyway? It has two components:
(a) Whether a woman has the right to choose
(b) Whether abortion should be a viable choice
For me, a "pro-lifer" says "no" to *both* (a) and (b), not just (b). If you
say "yes" to *either* (a) or (b), you're placing more importance on the issue
of choice than the issue of life, in my opinion. Hence, when I'm talking about
"pro-lifers," I'm not talking about people like Jiffer.
(3) I have been consistent;y using the term "gay-hater" (rather than
"gay-basher") throughout. There are plenty of people who despise homosexuality
but who would not bash, or otherwise constrain, homosexuals. In fact, a post
a few back said basically that... and was ridiculed as insensitive in the same
breath that I was ridiculed for making the same generalizations about
"pro-lifers" as senna's made about "gay-haters."
Let me make this completely clear:
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY AS A
LIFESTYLE CHOICE ARE NON-VIOLENT.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ABORTION AS A CHOICE
FOR OTHERS ARE NON-VIOLENT.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY AS A
LIFESTYLE CHOICE DO NOT GENERALLY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PROHIBIT THAT
BEHAVIOR IN OTHERS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ABORTION AS A CHOICE
FOR OTHERS DO NOT GENERALLY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PROHIBIT THAT BEHAVIOR IN
OTHERS.
**NOW THEN, PABLUM LOVERS:**
The fringe groups which oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and the
fringe groups which disagree with abortion as a choice for others are very
similar to each other in that they teach a doctrine of hate, violence,
intolerance, and closed-mindedness, while hiding behind a doctrine of religion
and love. The fringe groups have even more fringe groups who think it is their
place to physically restrain, and even kill, people who disagree with them.
Sheesh. Honestly. I'm offended that ANY of you would think FOR A FUCKING
MOMENT that I would even come CLOSE to believing that everybody who dislikes
abortion is an intolerant violent savage. **I** don't like abortion, and if
**I** got pregnant, **I** wouldn't get an abortion, but guess what, kiddies,
I ain't got that kind of plumbing, so I don't have to make that decision.
**NOBODY I KNOW** thinks abortion is a good thing, or should be used as a form
of birth control.
I thought it was clear that I was speaking of a specific group of people,
"pro-lifers," who espouse a certain belief system, in the same way that senna
has been speaking of "gay-haters"... both groups being the fringe that are
*actively* attempting to prevent other people from acting.
I hope for GOD'S SAKE that it's clear NOW.
And now that Dr Gunn is done spinning in his grave, I'll shut up.
|
jazz
|
|
response 77 of 404:
|
Oct 19 15:53 UTC 1998 |
<chuckle>
Ah, GREX ...
|
diznave
|
|
response 78 of 404:
|
Oct 19 16:24 UTC 1998 |
What really amazes me about our society is its apprehension towards sex,
sexuality, and the human body. Why is public nudity illegal? Why is perfectly
fine for really young children to grow up in houses where dogs lay around
licking their own penis and testicles, yet don't even **think** about letting
them catch a glimpse of a woman's nipple. I don't get it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 79 of 404:
|
Oct 19 16:25 UTC 1998 |
ain't it fun, John? =}
;}
|
remmers
|
|
response 80 of 404:
|
Oct 19 17:09 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:76 - Well said, and I agree.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 404:
|
Oct 19 19:19 UTC 1998 |
After I calmed down from my hissy fit =} I realized one of the problems with
the way that the abortion issue has turned out in this country: too many
people are living in a black-and-white world. When saying what I said about
Jiffer not being a "pro-lifer," I could hear the criticism, "So, what, does
that make her a pro-choicer?"
IT's become too much of an us-and-them issue, in an us-and-them culture.
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." Durham. Frankly,
I think most people are in the gray middle somewhere on most issues, including
abortion and gay rights.
|
maeve
|
|
response 82 of 404:
|
Oct 19 19:53 UTC 1998 |
diznave..dogs have fur..it's warmer for them to go wandering about with
all parts exposed.. :)
|
senna
|
|
response 83 of 404:
|
Oct 20 02:35 UTC 1998 |
the fundamental problem in the abortion issue is that participants in both
sides refuse to accept that the other side has a logical and well thought out
viewpoint. They think they're repressive pigs on one side and holocaustal
murderers on the other. Which is why I have never and will never declare my
standpoint on the issue. It's disgusting.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 84 of 404:
|
Oct 20 02:54 UTC 1998 |
(isn't that a standpoint, or at least an opinion?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 85 of 404:
|
Oct 20 03:32 UTC 1998 |
I'm a fairly ardent pro-choicer. I think that the pro-life stance has some
reasonable, well-thought-out arguments. I don't even disagree with all of
them. Nobody I know thinks abortion is a wonderful thing.
The point is, when two opposing groups have reasonable and well-thought-out
viewpoints, we must rely on the courts to decide which route to take. The
courts decided which route, in Roe v Wade.
I have made and continue to make a distinction between people who oppose
abortion and "pro-lifers." The pro-lifers are the ones using coersion, force,
and extortion to block people from going into clinics, etc. *They* are
repressive pigs.
People who oppose abortion? Well, that depends on how strongly one takes the
word "oppose." Nearly everyone I know, and has ever met, agrees that abortion
is a tragedy. I certainly do.
But mature individuals don't turn to guerilla tactics when the reasonable
opinion of the courts don't go their way. They try to change the opinion of
the courts, which is what the reasonable people who oppose abortion as a
viable choice for anyone do.
|
kenton
|
|
response 86 of 404:
|
Oct 20 03:43 UTC 1998 |
Some people bring problems on themselves. It is hard to feel sympathy for
them. If I personally was acquainted with the guy, I would feel bad for him
and his family. Am I apathetic? Shamefully, yes.
Even so, I think the criminals should, can and will be punished. They don't
appear to have the money of Simpson.
I recently heard on a KDKA radio talk show, about 50+ fetuses being found
in a field, at or near a California City. They were apparently dumped there by
a negligent contractor to an abortion clinic. A Church petitioned the county
for the bodies, in order to give them a Christian burial. The ACLU objected
because some of the babies may not have come from Christian families. If this
is true, then the ACLU seemingly thinks that fetal babies have a right to
religious choice, but not to life.
What actually IS the agenda of the ACLU?
|