|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 150 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 100 of 150:
| 
Jul 28 08:10 UTC 2003 |
they're prolly pretty bored by now.
|
keesan
|
|
response 101 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:13 UTC 2003 |
Did God make homosexuals?
|
novomit
|
|
response 102 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:21 UTC 2003 |
Did homosexuals make god?
|
cross
|
|
response 103 of 150:
|
Jul 28 13:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 104 of 150:
|
Jul 28 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Bru offends, and he doesn't apologise for that. Yet, he's offended by
that whole list of things, and expects people to change
Respect works both ways Bruce.
|
slynne
|
|
response 105 of 150:
|
Jul 28 15:01 UTC 2003 |
re Resp:97 - Gosh where to start...
1) So you think that it is only ok for rich people to have opinions if
they are conservative opinions? You dont think it is possible for rich
people to care about poor people or for our society as a whole?
2) Imagine how many gay and lesbians feel when people rub their
heterosexuality in *their* faces. You probably do that all the time.
Anyhow, fwiw, I have never seen any gay people exposing their genitals
in public but I probably dont frequent the same back alleys and gay
bathhouses as you do.
3) You dont read porn? Please. I could have sword I have heard you make
references to Playboy. Maybe I am mistaken.
4) I know. Child sexual abuse is a big problem. Most liberals will
agree with that. A lot of republicans fuck their kids, btw. This isnt a
problem related to political beliefs.
5) Alcohol is dangerous. There are also dangers associated with pot. It
is however *less* dangerous than alcohol. For one thing, no one has
ever overdosed on pot or at least I have not been able to find a
documented case of that happening. Anyhow, it should be legal as should
most recreational drugs. I always find it interesting that republicans
like to go on about how government needs to stay out of our lives. "We
need a free market. We need lower taxes. Etc." Yet, they feel it is
somehow important to keep a person from sitting on their living room
couch and smoking a doobie.
6) Well, fwiw, I have had a few very conservative professors in my time
too. Also, none of them have ever not allowed me to express my views in
class (assuming that my views were relevant to the subject being
taught, of course).
7) I am sorry that you feel insulted but in a karmic sense, I think you
have it coming. You come online and insult others all the time. Fair's
fair. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. I think
your problem is that you typically dish out arguments that are not
thought out well, have huge holes in them and then you get mad when
people shoot them down.
|
tod
|
|
response 106 of 150:
|
Jul 28 16:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 107 of 150:
|
Jul 28 16:47 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. I know straight guys who have good taste!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 108 of 150:
|
Jul 28 16:57 UTC 2003 |
/bows and scratches his hairy beerbelly!
|
edina
|
|
response 109 of 150:
|
Jul 28 16:58 UTC 2003 |
Actually, Tod, I'd disagree on QEFTSG. Sure, Carson is a prototypical swishy
queen - but he'd admit to that. The other guys are pretty much just guys.
Kinda like if you get a group of girls in the room. They're just the gay,
infinitely more talented Spice Girls.
|
tod
|
|
response 110 of 150:
|
Jul 28 17:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 111 of 150:
|
Jul 28 17:39 UTC 2003 |
tod is right. even though it is a *positive* stereotype, it is still a
stereotype. As someone recently pointed out to me, one wouldnt put a
show on TV called "Black Dudes teach White Guys Basketball" or "Jews
Teach Accounting" or "Asian Guide to Getting Good Grades".
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 112 of 150:
|
Jul 28 17:51 UTC 2003 |
I did read an article about how Americans had something to learn from
Asians when it came to preparing for exams and getting good grades.
|
tod
|
|
response 113 of 150:
|
Jul 28 17:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 114 of 150:
|
Jul 28 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Hey, I didn't write the article.
|
janc
|
|
response 115 of 150:
|
Jul 28 19:18 UTC 2003 |
You know, the last time I recall someone going ballistic about people
"exposing their genitals", it was Mark Ethan Smith.
|
michaela
|
|
response 116 of 150:
|
Jul 28 20:51 UTC 2003 |
You're tired of gays flaunting themselves in your face during marches?
Fine.
I'm sick and tired of having Christmas shoved down my throat until I GAG from
about late September through late December. The music, the decorations, the
pompous jerkoffs who look at me funny when I say I don't celebrate it, the
wishy washy feel-good specials on television, etc, etc, etc.
It goes both ways. I stay out of their face. You stay out of mine.
|
cross
|
|
response 117 of 150:
|
Jul 28 21:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 118 of 150:
|
Jul 29 02:15 UTC 2003 |
on marijuana, just my two cents-- I haven't seen anything that proves
it to be medicinally redeemable (you feel less pain because you're
stoned; that's about it), but it is one of the more benign drugs out
there. Tobacco is nasty-- and it's legal.
On the marches-- damn dude, you're actually attending them or
something? Leave it alone! I mean, fuck, I don't think most people
see this stuff unless they go out looking for it or the occasional
time it pops up in the media. Now I will admit they do cavort about
in lascivous ways at a lot of these events, but no one forced ya to go.
I do have my opinions about sexuality-- that often there is a lot of
mingling emotional and abuse issues that are in the way. Yeah, I'm
one of those twerps that believes in reparative therapy and all that.
But I definitely don't go around condemning the community about
their 'sinful ways.' They made their choice, and I made mine. I hope
there will be mutual respect, then. In other words, you're preaching
to the choir, here-- but you're not the music director.
There is a time to be principled and a time to be diplomatic. I
suggest diplomacy.
resp:116 Ironically, the relentless commercialism of the Fall/Winter
season turns off some of the mainstream religious. It seems like a
big long profit campaign. As far as tolerance and respect, we've
adopted so many 'heathen' traditions thanks to the Catholic church (in
the name of assimilation) that people should be more understanding in
light of this knowledge.
To boot, so many are casually religious that the notion is pretty
hypocritical.
|
bru
|
|
response 119 of 150:
|
Jul 29 03:13 UTC 2003 |
I am refereing to the media and its hype of certain sexually expressive
events.
I also should not ignore the entertainment media which has found the new
"reality" tv a means to further stimulate the audience. Commercials and
advertizing are also to blame. I realize sex sells, but does it have to sell
everything?
Okay. So I am a prude. i learned to live with it a long time ago. No,
nudity does not bother me. You could walk naked into my living room and I
would not be particularly bothered nor excited by it. Yes, I have read
playboy. (but just for the articles, really.) It is the focus on sex that
bothers me. I have never enjoyed bachelor parties, nor the watching of porno
flicks with my buddies. I don't watch them with my wife either.
On the otehr hand, I also don't call people names because they disagree with
me.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 120 of 150:
|
Jul 29 04:32 UTC 2003 |
Well, I am a heterosexual female who is not in a relationship at the
moment. And I get sick of straight couples constantly flaunting their
couple-ness... holding hands, making out, or squeezing each others'
butts as they walk in the mall. The whole world gives a message of "If
you're single, there's something wrong with you." But no one complains
about that.
Meanwhile, I know a gay male couple and a lesbian couple who both keep
clean and presentable homes, don't molest kids, treat their pets like
gold, don't go anywhere naked, don't really go to pride marches, don't
do drugs, don't go to bars or bathhouses. They pay taxes, volunteer for
civic projects, and don't flaunt their homosexuality in front of anyone,
whether at home or in public. And these couples both have stable,
committed, monogamous relationships.
I know people who smoke pot regularly for recreation. They do it in
their homes, alone. They don't have kids. They don't sell drugs to kids.
They do not go out in the streets if they've smoked. Nor do they drive.
The people I know who smoke it are otherwise law-abiding people whom I
know would not harm me or any other living creature. They hold down
steady jobs and pay bills.
They don't go to bachelor parties or watch pornos-- not to my knowledge,
anyway.
|
pvn
|
|
response 121 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:04 UTC 2003 |
And they are probably a small minority of a small minority.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 122 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:40 UTC 2003 |
Yo, men, i was at a "killer" rave the other night (see how that word
just, offsets the others of its '''ilk'''?) and all the pot heads were
not there but the people instead were methkiddies, you know, the ones
who stay up all night killing bugs? yeah, them ones. well, anyway,
here i were and they was there too-- right next to me-- and i shouted in
their faces,
-- drugs support terrorism!
-- nah, pulling like a pendulum some girl's underwear.
and then they all started circling 'round me, rubbing their arteries, as
methkiddies learn to do, until their hearts were all in sync. now, as
you would believe, a reverberation started,
-- ow, man,
-- crack, said his bones
and then all the E crew started biting and knawing on me.
|
pvn
|
|
response 123 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:48 UTC 2003 |
As far as "natural law" or something being a violation of it, currently
and cross culturally the best science (aka "natural law") can come up
with is that homosexuals represent a constant 2.5% of the population or
so currently. Be it totalitarian regimes where it is a capital offense
to tolerant regimes that value "diversity" the constant currently and
generally remains about 2.5%. If it were genetic then how does it
breed? If it is nurture (-v- nature) then how come the statistic is
generally constant irrespective of the "tolerance" of the particular
society?
As for marriage, personally I have a problem with it being a state
sanctioned activity in the first place. I would much rather have paid
individual taxes based on my individual income offset by dependant
support (which is socially a good idea) over the past years than the
current situation where not only could I not get married without state
approval (fundamental violation of constitutional rights it seems to me)
but both I and my spouse were taxed *more* because we chose to do so.
(the "child" deduction is a wash because you can claim that being
"single"). I have yet to see any gay activist calling for the "right"
to be "married" by the state address the tax issue - perhaps they
suggest they should have it both ways? There is no legal benefit of
state sanctioned marriage that cannot be legally attained by a gay
couple today anywhere in the US legal juristiction. Social acceptance
is another issue and one cannot legally demand it any more than one can
force orthodox jews to eat pork - or force orthodox jews to accept as
co-religionist pork eaters. (You can't teach a pig to sing, and whats
more, it tends to irritate the pig.) Side note: Even state required
marriage doesn't automatically bestow legal benefits, in the country
where I live lacking specific legal intructions to the contrary when I
die my "estate" doesn't automatically descend (less death taxes
naturally) to my spouse and children but is split evenly amongst them,
my siblings, and my parents.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 150:
|
Jul 29 07:07 UTC 2003 |
I look upon marriage as a contract between two persons that is underwritten
and then enforced by the state. It is therefore not possible to "get married
without state approval" because marriage is that state-sponsored contract.
If you don't want the state sponsored one, which we call marriage, then you
can enter into a private contract. It's like choosing a roofing company for
your house. Different contracts have different costs, benefits, warranties,
etc. If you don't like the terms of the state one, choose another.
I recognize that historically there were two government entities, the state
and the church, which made marriage a three-way contract. This, however,
added a lot of unnecessary strings to what is the fundamental interest of the
state in offering benefits in echange for the contract - some degree of
regulation of reproduction.
|