Homophobia: Fun Fact

[The Rabbi]

Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?

You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.

Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party. What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination. Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.

It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.

If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.

It is legal to fire someone simply for being gay in over half the states.

It's a problem. It ought to be legal in all states.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

So, you admit that you're intolerant. And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.

At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.

I find intolerance on both the left and the right and neither side will admit it. So I don't see your point other than to take a jab at group of people that you are not tolerant of.

 

[WorldWatcher]

why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?

Many of us don't.

That is more a symptom of social authoritarians then it is Republicans. While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians. And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.


>>>>

 

[G.T.]

Then our tax code needs drastically changed.

I don't disagree with you there, I'd scrap the whole monstrosity and go with a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game. When the 47% were to actually pay income tax, then they might be interesting in how the government spends our money.

I can give you a million ways people are not 'treated equally under the law', and I am for changing every single one of them so that everybody is treated equally. That means equal taxation, equal service, equal entitlements, and on and on I could go. So if we want to open that bag of tricks, that's fine with me.

The requirement isn't that everyone be treated equally, the requirement is equal treatment unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest as to why such unequal treatment is justified. The first amendment then provides that if the the government is treating people unequally that they can then bring grievance against the government to force them to justify such treatment between like situated groups.

To date there has been no compelling interest for treating like situated couples differently in terms of Civil Marriage. Those like situated couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is recognized by all 50 states and the federal government and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is not recognized by 40 states and the federal government.


>>>>

Do you think people living off of social security should have their income Taxed?

 

[Truthmatters]

why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?

Ask Clinton. His signature is on DOMA and DADT.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Legislative history



Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996

this is why




he tried to do what the people seemed to want.


We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.


The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was

 

[Truthmatters]

I was against keeping gays from marrying since i was old enough to understand what gay was.

 

[mudwhistle]

eeeewwww.



A fag thread.

Yup. We have all of the hot-button issues beginning to surface.

We hate gays because we don't agree with their definition of what a marriage is.

We hate women because we won't give them free birth control.

We must hate children now cuz we support the second amendment.

See how it works?


Really, Obama is just a guy who farts in an elevator and gets off on the second floor leaving everyone else to deal with the smell. He doesn't give damn what his comments lead to or where the public takes it. He just sets it in motion and the media continues the storyline. 2 days from now he'll be sunning himself on a beach on Oahu. He could care less what happens.

And it pains me to bring Obama up all of the time but I see nothing he's done here that solves anything. He's merely driving a wedge between us and in the process trying to marginalize his political opponents thru the power of a corrupt state run media.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.

Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.

For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.

That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.

There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".


>>>>

could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?

One of he biggies, in my personal opinion, is class warfare. It's the "poor" against the "rich" as a means of garnering votes, knowing of course that there are many more "poor" voters then there are "rich" voters.


>>>>

 

[Sunni Man]

That is more a symptom of social authoritarians then it is Republicans. While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians. And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.

These so called republicans are referred to as RINO'S

 

[Si modo]

why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?

Ask Clinton. His signature is on DOMA and DADT.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Legislative history



Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996

this is why




he tried to do what the people seemed to want.


We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.


The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was

So, you think Bill Clinton is a Republican?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you think people living off of social security should have their income Taxed?

IMHO, if I were designing the program, I'd reduce Social Security benefits to account for the "tax" portion and then make the remainder "tax free" - I see no logic in the government cutting you a check and then you having to turn around and having to pay it back as taxes.

Now, that applies only to social security and I see it as a cost saving measure because you thereby reduce the overhead and administration both for the Social Security Administration (who has to take the taxes out) and the IRS who has to process the return at the end of the year. Eliminate the back and forth and there will be some cost savings.

That of course would not apply to other sources of income that retires would have.


*************************

Personally I'd change the very definition of "income" so that it wasn't just wages/salaries but would include all sources (such as investments) and then apply equal taxation to all sources. There wouldn't be separate "income" rates and "capital gains rates", it's all income and should be counted as such.


>>>>

 

[Capstone]

[...] While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians. And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.

I look forward to mocking the antisocial authoritarianism of the new GOP.

 

[Colin]

No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.

Never heard of a stool pigeon?

 

[hazlnut]

why is this in politics?

Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.

If they would either come out of the closet or learn some real Christian tolerance, then we'd be okay.

 

[Newby]

Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.

They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.

But there is one right, and one wrong.

Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day. I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?

This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'. Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough. Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'. I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore. Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough. So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already. Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal. So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion. Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.

If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.

1st sentence: Hyperbole.

I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.

Point two:

He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence.

Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting.

He absolutely is waging a verbal class war and his little minions fall for it hook, line and sinker. What he does versus what he says are two different things. He's one of the biggest hypocrits on the planet. I don't need the media to tell me anything, they're right up there with him pushing it out there, telling the unwashed masses that what their neighbors have came at their expense and that they're owed something for it somehow. It's disgusting.

As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even.

And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.

There's nothing emotional or personal about it, I have no emotional buy in one way or the other on this topic, but I would guess that you do. I still think they should have the legal civil union, but that's not good enough, I've been told that by gay people repeatedly. So when they're serious and honest about what they want, then I would change my mind about what their true agenda is. I'm just not seeing it.

It's not normal for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, it's statistically an anomoly and goes against what biology and nature intended. Do I think people should be treated differently or with bigotry because of it? No, I don't. But I'm not going to insist that it's normal either. You're the emotional person in this discussion, not me.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are a lot of "natural" behaviors shared by animals. In no species of animal is such behavior normal. Obviously if homosexuality were normal behavior in a particular species, that species would never have survived. What is postulated is that homosexual behavior is natural so therefore it is normal. That's not at all the case. It is abnormal no matter what the species.

Further, in no species of animal other than human do they engage in anal intercourse. In mating season and no available mate, many species will engage in masturbation, but no anal intercourse.

Perhaps the most well known case of homosexuality among animals were the two male penguins who nested together and even gathered stones to sit upon as if they were eggs. As it turned out, as soon as a female became available to one of the penguins he nested and mated with her leaving the other penguin. Soon thereafter, the remaining penguin found a mate also. Homosexual behavior wasn't normal or natural but merely situational.

Situational homosexuality might be both normal and natural. Many animals will engage in homosexual behavior (not including intercourse) when otherwise deprived of a mate. Not unlike prisoners who are confined among those of the same sex without access to the opposite sex. Homosexual behavior among prisoners is natural, but not normal since once the individuals are no longer confined they no longer engage in homosexual behavior. In many species of animal a male that attempts to engage in homosexual behavior with another male might be killed for his harassment. This is both a natural and a normal animal behavior, it is not acceptable among humans. Should it be? If we are going to make the claim that since animals do it and it is natural, is this something that should be natural to humans too. Animals are particularly intolerant. Differences are not accepted. They are banished from the group and must either find a new group or learn to live on their own as the rogue lion or lone wolf. This is both normal and natural behavior in dealing with animals that might be born into the pack or pride but exhibits some difference that makes them unacceptable.

Do you even understand the difference between the terms normal and natural?

 

[Newby]

eeeewwww.



A fag thread.

Yup. We have all of the hot-button issues beginning to surface.

We hate gays because we don't agree with their definition of what a marriage is.

We hate women because we won't give them free birth control.

We must hate children now cuz we support the second amendment.

See how it works?


Really, Obama is just a guy who farts in an elevator and gets off on the second floor leaving everyone else to deal with the smell. He doesn't give damn what his comments lead to or where the public takes it. He just sets it in motion and the media continues the storyline. 2 days from now he'll be sunning himself on a beach on Oahu. He could care less what happens.

And it pains me to bring Obama up all of the time but I see nothing he's done here that solves anything. He's merely driving a wedge between us and in the process trying to marginalize his political opponents thru the power of a corrupt state run media.

excellent post..

 

[G.T.]

Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day. I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?

This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'. Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough. Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'. I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore. Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough. So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already. Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal. So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion. Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.

If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.

1st sentence: Hyperbole.

I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.

Point two:

He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence.

Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting.

He absolutely is waging a verbal class war and his little minions fall for it hook, line and sinker. What he does versus what he says are two different things. He's one of the biggest hypocrits on the planet. I don't need the media to tell me anything, they're right up there with him pushing it out there, telling the unwashed masses that what their neighbors have came at their expense and that they're owed something for it somehow. It's disgusting.

As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even.

And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.

There's nothing emotional or personal about it, I have no emotional buy in one way or the other on this topic, but I would guess that you do. I still think they should have the legal civil union, but that's not good enough, I've been told that by gay people repeatedly. So when they're serious and honest about what they want, then I would change my mind about what their true agenda is. I'm just not seeing it.

It's not normal for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, it's statistically an anomoly and goes against what biology and nature intended. Do I think people should be treated differently or with bigotry because of it? No, I don't. But I'm not going to insist that it's normal either. You're the emotional person in this discussion, not me.

You just said in your last paragraph save the last sentence everything I've been saying already, all along. They shouldnt be treated different or with bigotry. Those were my thoughts that you jumped on. Way to kill some time, but keep it real - thats about all you did.

Not appreciated.

 

[ba1614]

I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.

 

[Truthmatters]

I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.

and why?

because you hate science and dont like facts