Thread: Pride NYC
View Single Post
Old 06-29-2005, 12:40 AM   #9
Mike
Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 489
Mike is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike
this is two posts. I ran out of space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboinga
What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm glad that you can make a comment saying that without Gay Pride parades people would say "I met one of those sick fucking AIDs bearers..." and then call me the idiot. Please, you just made a comparison between being Gay and having Cancer. Maybe you didn't notice this but Cancer is a DISEASE. Now, would you like to make the argument that being a homosexual is a disease? You were so blatantly off balance with that argument that I let it die because it was so weak. You're comparing being a homosexual to having a life threatening illness. Sorry, but last I checked, when you find people of the same sex attractive, it doesn't kill you. Maybe I don't understand homosexuality. Or maybe you're making an argument that if you like somebody of the same sex, then you get a terminal illness, like AIDs. Sorry, but I'm not going to pass that judgement. Repeating your point that it is "necessary to have parades to show that Gay people exist" does not make it right. Everybody knows that Gay people exist, except for apparently, your mother. THough, I suppose that your mother is an accurate model for the millions of people that live in North America. That's a rather boistrous assumption, don't you think? "My mother didn't believe that she would know a gay person, therefore the 296 Million people in America and 32 million people in Canada (actually, 31,999,999 ... because you, I suppose, know that gay people exist) must think the exact same way as this one woman." See, the world has changed... and it has not changed because Gay people have had parades. IF that were the case then nobody would accept any minority unless they have a parade. I am polish, I have never been to a Polish parade. Poles are an ethnic minority in this country, I am generally accepted as a Polish person. The same goes for pretty much every group in the country.

Most Americans could really give two shits about what two people do in their house, especially in the last 15 years. THe courts have ruled that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house; law makers have made laws that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house... Pretty much nobody gives a fucking shit about what people do in their house. A person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex IS homosexuality... by definition, by interpretation. VERY few people care about one person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. QUID PRO QUO VERY FEW people care about homosexuals. However, those who do care don't care about homosexuals, they care about pricks who over step the bounds of what they can do in public, or what is generally acceptable in public. These people who overstep the bounds are not "what is Homosexuality." Homosexuality is the definition provided ... NOT individual people wearing thongs and riding rollerskates. When parades for Homosexuals are known more by the people in clown suits dancing with half naked men ... The Parades CHANGE from being something celebrating homosexuality to being something that celebrates a ridiculous carelessness for social decency.

(I'm going to speak on behalf of the United States, because I'm from the US, not Canada, and I'm not going to defend Canada.)

Quote:
Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.
Wait a second .. Gays can't adopt children!? Holy shit, that's news... especially considering that I have three cousins who were adopted by two homosexual women more than 20 years ago. And they also have friends who have adopted children ... whom I happen to know on very personal relationships. They do exist. I guess I'm going to have to call DSS and the police on them for actively breaking the law ... Or maybe you're just misinformed. Probably the latter.

Quote:
The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.
Your knowledge of constitutional law, basic politics, and Christianity is lacking. Find the clause in the US Constitution that says that the Church is supposed to be separated from the state. You're not going to find it. Why? Because it isn't there. Regarding religion, the courts consider the establishment clause and the free exercize clause.. neither of which explicitly call for a separation of CHurch and state, because those who wrote the Constitution KNEW that politicians were people and that they had religious convictions that inform their philosophy ... just like how you have convictions that inform your philosophy (and how I have convictions that inform my philosophy. Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ... all convictions that inform your philosophy).

The sentence that begins "The majority opinion is that..." is the clearest example that you have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world and what other people think. I guess the only way to begin a response to that sort of point is, "No." Christians and Catholics do not think that they invented marriage. WHat is the most obvious example of this? The book that generally governs the moral choices of CHristians and Catholics is the Bible. The Bible has a collection of pages called "THe Old Testament." The Old Testament is a collection of predominantly Jewish texts about Jewish people, many of whom got married. Now, there would be quite the incongruency for Christians to claim that they invented marriage when marriage is mentioned ad nauseam in a collection of chapters about people who are not Christians. Rather than making up what you think Christians, Catholics, and those against Gay Marriage believe ... and then justifying your opinion on that make-believe universe, why don't you justify your beliefs on what people actually believe. WHat most will tell you isn't that marriage is something made up by Christians or Catholics, or even Jews, but rather, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman... per definition. This has been the case in American culture for about 400 years, it was informed by Western philosophy, which also shares some roots in Western religion (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; predominantly). So the "majority" who are opposed to Gay marriage do not think that way because it discriminates against homosexuals, because it doesn't. It'd be like a rock with absolutely no aerodynamics wanting to fly by its own power. Nature is not discriminating against that rock; nature has defined flying and defined what that rock is. PEOPLE have defined marriage and what marriage is.. and homosexuals want to do something that is NOT marriage. If Marriage is the union between and man and a woman, and homosexuals do not want to have a union with a man or a woman, then they do not want marriage... they want something else. And it is entirely up to their chosing how they want to handle that, what they want to call it, and what the definition of it is. Hence, marriage is not a right. You mentioned Atheists being able to get married, and this proves my point. Well, it proves two points. One of them is that you're basing your justifications off of misinterpretations of what other people believe ... and then accosting them for your own misunderstanding. Secondly, it proves that Christians and Catholics don't believe that marriage was invented by their religion and for the sole use of their religion ... or else, they would not allow Atheists to get married.

If you want to talk about rights--then I am probably in complete agreement with you. I thought, 10 years ago, when I began to venture into politics, culture, and society, that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, and within the last 10 years, this has happened... to the point that nearly all medical facilities recognize a legitimate homosexual partner, nearly all insurrance companies recognize homosexual partners, and most states will grant the same the same opportunities to homosexuals partners, pending application. I bolded "legitimate" because just like heterosexuals, a medical facility can use their discression when allowing people to visit patients... and this is because there are so many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, with flanderous, dangerous sex lives. They turn people away as actively with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals, and even married spouses.

(cont)

Last edited by Mike : 06-29-2005 at 12:45 AM.
Mike is offline   Reply With Quote