Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35769 times)

dcrog · « **Reply #100 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:49:41 PM »

Quote from: xolik on January 29, 2007, 07:46:32 PM

Obviously only straight, wealthy, white landowners should have the ability to ~~vote~~ adopt.

You forgot male.

Oh wait, you said adopt.

Evonus · « **Reply #101 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:21:37 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 04:50:01 PM

Simple question: What is standing in the way of homosexuals becoming socially accepted sufficiently (to your satisfaction) to be allowed to adopt?

Well, I'd obviously like them to be able to legally marry first. After that it's pretty much a value judgment. I mean I'd personally like it to get to the point where society is past dedicating talk shows to tarnishing their names and people aren't blaming them for hurricanes anymore, but if I were to have a vote on this issue, I would say that anytime after gay marriage is legalized, whenever there is a senator brave enough to propose the bill I would vote yes on it.

Quote from: Vespertine on January 29, 2007, 07:15:21 PM

Someone else brought this up earlier, and I'm going to bring it up again. By your logic, dwarves should not be allowed to adopt. Mixed race couples should not be allowed to adopt. Black people should not be allowed to adopt white babies, and vice versa. Fat people should not be allowed to adopt. Poor people should not be allowed to adopt. All of these categories of people are viewed by many as inferior or too different to be acceptable. Why should any of them be allowed to adopt? Their children will undoubtedly by harassed far more than others, and isn't that the crux of your argument?

Well, there are varying degrees of "inferiority" as perceived by the public at large. Interracial couples are no longer an oddity like they were in the fifties, it has become commonplace finally, which is definitely a good thing. As far as the others are concerned, I personally do not think that it would merit a serious degree of harassment. The only reason there is even resentment against homosexuals is because of the right wing propaganda religious bullshit that no one besides Massachusetts senators are brave enough to challenge. That's why homosexuals are mocked, and I don't agree with it, I don't think it's fair, but I still don't want it passed to people who normally would not be involved with it. As soon as this neoconservative surge dies down and homosexuality becomes more accepted I will have no problem with homosexuals adopting, provided they have marriage rights before, as I stated above. But if my point was not clearly made above, it would not merit anywhere near the level of harassment, so that's why I don't see a problem with it. It wouldn't cause them to be rejected by their peers, and thus I really don't think any of the other scenarios you mentioned are even issues.

Quote from: xolik on January 29, 2007, 07:46:32 PM

Obviously only straight, wealthy, white landowners should have the ability to ~~vote~~ adopt.

Fuck you in plain English. I grew up poor, I know what it's like to live poor, and I watched my parents struggling my entire life. We couldn't even afford fucking health care or dental care when I was a kid, hell we still can't. The only reason I can even afford college is financial aid and students loans, so I don't need you making comments about my level of respect for the class of people I came from. Don't give me this type of yuppie bullshit, I know very much what it's like to grow up in a community where I was looked down upon because I came from a poor background, and I don't need these kind of fucking comments, making me out to be a feudalist. This isn't funny.

Vespertine · « **Reply #102 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:03:16 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 09:21:37 PM

Well, there are varying degrees of "inferiority" as perceived by the public at large. Interracial couples are no longer an oddity like they were in the fifties, it has become commonplace finally, which is definitely a good thing. As far as the others are concerned, I personally do not think that it would merit a serious degree of harassment. The only reason there is even resentment against homosexuals is because of the right wing propaganda religious bullshit that no one besides Massachusetts senators are brave enough to challenge. That's why homosexuals are mocked, and I don't agree with it, I don't think it's fair, but I still don't want it passed to people who normally would not be involved with it. As soon as this neoconservative surge dies down and homosexuality becomes more accepted I will have no problem with homosexuals adopting, provided they have marriage rights before, as I stated above. But if my point was not clearly made above, it would not merit anywhere near the level of harassment, so that's why I don't see a problem with it. It wouldn't cause them to be rejected by their peers, and thus I really don't think any of the other scenarios you mentioned are even issues.

There are still places in this country where blacks are treated as subhuman, and interracial dating will get a back person beaten to a pulp. In these types of places, a child of a bi-racial couple would be shunned beyond belief. On another note, if you've never seen what happens to fat kids in school than you've never really been to school. There is probably no single demographic that gets tortured more than fat kids. Since eating habits are learned, why should fat people be allowed to adopt? On yet another note, you yourself said that as a poor child at a wealthy school you were tortured by your classmates. I would think that experience would make you believe that poor people who happen to live in a wealthy school district shouldn't be allowed to adopt. All, of course, because we should save the children from scorn and derision.

Quote

Fuck you in plain English. I grew up poor, I know what it's like to live poor, and I watched my parents struggling my entire life. We couldn't even afford fucking health care or dental care when I was a kid, hell we still can't. The only reason I can even afford college is financial aid and students loans, so I don't need you making comments about my level of respect for the class of people I came from. Don't give me this type of yuppie bullshit, I know very much what it's like to grow up in a community where I was looked down upon because I came from a poor background, and I don't need these kind of fucking comments, making me out to be a feudalist. This isn't funny.

I just finished reading an entirely different thread where you claim that you are not emotional; that you are, in fact "robotic". To you, I now lay out this challenge....stop reacting like an angry kid and prove that you are ruled by logic rather than your anger, fear, frustration and self-perceived inadequacies.

BizB · « **Reply #103 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:21:09 PM »

For the record, there isn't any law banning gay adoption in general. It is, by and large, up to individual jurisdictions and even evaluation at the individual level (which is how it should be regardless of who you love and who you share fluids with).

It is intolerance from the very vocal fundamentalist right that is driving any kind of debate on the topic.

Quote

Fuck you in plain English. I grew up ~~poor~~ with gay adoptive parents, I know what it's like to live ~~poor~~ in a gay household, and I watched my parents struggling my entire life. We couldn't even afford fucking health care or dental care when I was a kid because they weren't allowed to marry and employers won't recognize life partners - for the most part, hell we still can't. Don't give me this type of yuppie bullshit, I know very much what it's like to grow up in a community where I was looked down upon because I came from a ~~poor background~~ loving homosexual family, and I don't need these kind of fucking comments, making me out to be a feudalist. This is~~n't funny~~ proving our point EXACTLY!.

Wasn't it you who claimed to be a big fan of the Argentinian and Brazilian Feudalistic systems?
http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,3893.msg61925.html#msg61925

milifist · « **Reply #104 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:31:56 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 09:21:37 PM

The only reason there is even resentment against homosexuals is because of the right wing propaganda religious bullshit that no one besides Massachusetts senators are brave enough to challenge. That's why homosexuals are mocked, and I don't agree with it, I don't think it's fair, but I still don't want it passed to people who normally would not be involved with it. As soon as this neoconservative surge dies down and homosexuality becomes more accepted...

You’re kidding right? Do you really think it is that simple. That anti-homosexual feelings are basically a fad?

BizB · « **Reply #105 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:34:48 PM »

He doesn't kid. He's a robot.

Evonus · « **Reply #106 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:38:46 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on January 29, 2007, 10:03:16 PM

There are still places in this country where blacks are treated as subhuman, and interracial dating will get a back person beaten to a pulp. In these types of places, a child of a bi-racial couple would be shunned beyond belief. On another note, if you've never seen what happens to fat kids in school than you've never really been to school. There is probably no single demographic that gets tortured more than fat kids. Since eating habits are learned, why should fat people be allowed to adopt? On yet another note, you yourself said that as a poor child at a wealthy school you were tortured by your classmates. I would think that experience would make you believe that poor people who happen to live in a wealthy school district shouldn't be allowed to adopt. All, of course, because we should save the children from scorn and derision.

Well in all honesty, the only reason I don't support homosexual adoption yet, is because I think it will improve. You are right, every area has its intolerance. Homosexual intolerance is far and away basically across the board except for a few select locations, which is part of my reason for believe what I do. Another is that I believe if things are handled slowly and systematically things can improve for homosexuals to the point where their offspring or adopted kids will not be harassed. I honestly don't see much changing for the other cases. I honestly feel that things will be better in the long run if things are taken a step at a time. You don't, that's where opinion and personal experience comes in.

Quote

I just finished reading an entirely different thread where you claim that you are not emotional; that you are, in fact "robotic". To you, I now lay out this challenge....stop reacting like an angry kid and prove that you are ruled by logic rather than your anger, fear, frustration and self-perceived inadequacies.

I said I was largely ruled by logic, not that I wanted to be. I'd rather be more emotional, just FYI, not to mention, I consider the comment made by xolik to be very insulting. I can take shit from many sources and in various forms, but there are some comments I can not, and will not tolerant.

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 10:21:09 PM

It is intolerance from the very vocal fundamentalist right that is driving any kind of debate on the topic.
Wasn't it you who claimed to be a big fan of the Argentinian and Brazilian Feudalistic systems?
http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,3893.msg61925.html#msg61925

If I remember correctly I said I admired segments of Argentinian and Brazilian fascism, which is not the same as feudalism. Fascism started out as a socialist movement in most countries believe it or not, and Latin American fascism incorporates much more of the socialist elements than the European counterparts. I considered it to be a rather nice balance of left and right, with a sufficient amount of government programs. I don't support any sort of feudalism in any way shape or form, because if such a system were in place I would probably be an illiterate farmer in New Hampshire.

BizB · « **Reply #107 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:43:04 PM »

You are aware, of course, that Xolik is gay, right?

BizB · « **Reply #108 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:44:32 PM »

Quote

I honestly feel that things will be better in the long run if things are taken a step at a time.

there's that word, again... "feel"

Evonus · « **Reply #109 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:56:42 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 10:43:04 PM

You are aware, of course, that Xolik is gay, right?

Yes, I have been aware for a long time. At the same time, I'm not bashing gays in here. By most perspectives what I'm saying would be considered far to the left, in favour of homosexual equality. You guys are rather far to the left.

P.S. if the word feel bothers you replace it with think, they mean the same thing when I use them.

BizB · « **Reply #110 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:01:50 PM »

Words mean things.

And, stop calling me "left". I scream at the radio when I'm listening to Rush because he's too liberal (and stupid). I don't think you can classify us as a group like that. We have a diverse population with varying positions across the political spectrum. Your believes tend to be extreme. I'd bet that even Ann Coulter would call you wacked.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #111 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:04:33 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 10:56:42 PM

Yes, I have been aware for a long time. At the same time, I'm not bashing gays in here. By most perspectives what I'm saying would be considered far to the left, in favour of homosexual equality. You guys are rather far to the left.

P.S. if the word feel bothers you replace it with think, they mean the same thing when I use them.

"Left" and "Right" are not valid political descriptors. They're meaningless labels designed to convince the sheep that there are only two choices when political alignments are concerned.

Evonus · « **Reply #112 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:18:23 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 11:01:50 PM

Words mean things.

And, stop calling me "left". I scream at the radio when I'm listening to Rush because he's too liberal (and stupid). I don't think you can classify us as a group like that. We have a diverse population with varying positions across the political spectrum. Your believes tend to be extreme. I'd bet that even Ann Coulter would call you wacked.

Oh I have to hear this one. Please explain to me how my view are extreme. I'll make some popcorn while I wait for you to respond.

Vespertine · « **Reply #113 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:56:22 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 11:18:23 PM

Oh I have to hear this one. Please explain to me how my view are extreme. I'll make some popcorn while I wait for you to respond.

ooohhh ooohhh

I got this one.

Quote

It's better than a fucking animal like him deserves. I'm glad it went wrong and he had to experience pain when he died. How about all the pain he caused the family members of the guy he murdered. I especially found his nephews comment at the end amusing, about how his uncle was in pain when he died. Well maybe if he didn't kill someone else he wouldn't have been going through it. Just a thought.

You are glad another human being experienced unimaginable pain. You laughed at the anguish of that man's family. That is one of your views that I would consider extreme.

12AX7 · « **Reply #114 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:17:21 AM »

Quote from: dcrog on January 29, 2007, 07:49:41 PM

You forgot male.

He said "landowners".

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #115 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:00:42 AM »

Spatial metaphors won't help you today if you want to try and find my political orientation. I'm not left or right, I'm off the map.

hackess · « **Reply #116 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:10:07 AM »

I'm staying out of this. I thought the last argument was stupid enough to be amusing; this one is just irritating.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #117 on:** January 30, 2007, 03:09:40 AM »

I personally like to watch from above, pausing only occasionally spit on those below.

12AX7 · « **Reply #118 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:45:07 AM »

Erm... I thought Evonus was gay. Or not entirely straight. Didn't I read that somewhere a while back? catwritr commented on it, saying something sarcastic about thanks for sharing your orientation...
Were you kidding?
I'll try to find that...

maybe...

not.

**edit - oh and HAHA!! "Left" . . . "Right" . . . thats cute.

milifist · « **Reply #119 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:02:09 AM »

Oh he doesn’t have a problem with people being gay. After all, by most standards he is a bleeding heart liberal leftist. Just not in comparison to us far-leftists.

He isn’t against gays, he just thinks they shouldn’t be treated equally because kids in school are mean...

BizB · « **Reply #120 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:36:12 AM »

Here's just the ones that I could find in looking through the first 10 pages of "The War" thread.

re: terrorists
They aren't the same, they shouldn't be treated the same. Not to mention, the U.S. or any other country can not follow the Geneva Convention in this kind of situation. The other side doesn't follow it, so in essence they are cheating. We have to cheat to, in order to win.

Although I don't agree with aggression and torture against enemy soldiers or civilians I am perfectly okay with them doing it to terrorists.

My point is that not every person needs to be treated humanely.

And, I love this one. After you argued that human rights don't apply to terrorists, you said...
You know, I do agree that everyone deserves a fair trial. The problem is, if someone is obviously guilty it shouldn't take 5 years to convict them, and the justice system is corrupt, so that's what ends up happening. Look how long it took to convict Milosevic and Hussein, when it was pretty obvious they commited human rights violations.

If an international definition of terrorism was laid down it would be just as effective as the already present geneva conventions. They're going to have to do it sooner or later anyway, whether to protect or destroy the terrorists rights.
(you know... those terrorists that killed innocents and whom deserve to be tortured. we have to protect their rights)

re: torture
I think that getting the information out of them and saving thousands of lives is a very benevolent act.
I think that as long as you are saving potential victims it is a good deed.
The 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It's very subjective.
The person's body is forfeight after they've killed innocents.
Those who torture should be tortured. (Just curious here... where does this cute little circle end?)
The ends do indeed justify the means. If one person has to be sacrificed to save two it is worhwhile.
If you know that at least one of five people was guilty of the crime, just by the evidence you have, and their accomplice is still free and going to blow up a manivan with a 7 person family inside. It would be in your best interest to grab all five and beat them until they give the name and target of the accomplice. Then you investigate all five, catch the accomplice, and then try all five and convict the guilty one.

Other statements that make your views extreme
...rights are given by the controlling system. Rights change by the year, they are not some supernatural rules that those in charge can choose to follow or not, because which rights people should be given are subjective.
I'm actually a big fan of argentinian and brazilian fascism.
I think democracy can be made better by merging parts of it with anarchism and other parts with toltalitarianism.
I'm actually a big fan of machiavelli. (one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results)
He gave tax breaks during a war which is running up the national debt. (tax cuts increased revenues EVERY time they've been done)

I believe in preserving the life of the community. I am a moral absolutist. I think that if people have suspicious activities and information needs to be extracted from them to prevent future murders (either terrorist attacks in Iraq of Afghanistan or hits by the mafia in Boston or NYC) I believe it should be done, regardless of the methods employed on that person to get that information. As long as no ones life is in danger I think due process should be folllowed, but if there are lives in danger I don't think it's fair to let the targeted victims be killed while we give criminals a trial. Once criminals are convicted I really don't think they're entitled to anything, including their rights. I mean, I don't think someone should lose their hands for stealing candy bars, but I don't think murders/rapists/terrorists/seditionists should get the humane treatment that they currently recieve. And thusly I not only support, but am proud of what the U.S. is doing to captured terrorists in the Middle East.

I see the constitution as more of a guideline. Not to mention it's a living document which means it can change.
Criminals are human, but they are a lower status than the noncriminals.
I support due process most of the time.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #121 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:26:10 PM »

Whoaa...dude that's insane.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #122 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:41:19 PM »

Why hasn't he moved to North Korea yet? He obviously espouses the values of that totalitarian regime.

BizB · « **Reply #123 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:00:43 PM »

My favourite application of his line of reasoning is:

Rights are granted by the controlling system
Saddam was the controlling system in Iraq
Saddam violated human rights (when all he had to do was revoke those rights since they're subject to his whim any way)
Saddam should have been tortured for torturing innocents
Saddam didn't deserve a trial because he was so obviously guilty
Saddam was some subclass of human because he was a criminal

Evonus · « **Reply #124 on:** January 30, 2007, 06:16:48 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 30, 2007, 02:00:43 PM

My favourite application of his line of reasoning is:

Rights are granted by the controlling system

Yes sir.

Quote

Saddam was the controlling system in Iraq

But not in the world. World organizations grant "human rights" or try to. Which is why they are established in the Geneva conventions.

Quote

Saddam violated human rights (when all he had to do was revoke those rights since they're subject to his whim any way)

He did revoke them in his own country, but the "world" saw that as something he could be removed/tried for.

Quote

Saddam should have been tortured for torturing innocents

Yup.

Quote

Saddam didn't deserve a trial because he was so obviously guilty

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but a leader of a nation's actions are much harder to hide than a standard individuals actions. In a case like this where its so blatantly obvious I don't see the point of beating the dead horse and trying him. I'm not for this sort of treatment for average citizens(those without political power), but for country leaders their actions are a little bit obvious, so I think the formalities can be skipped.

Quote

Saddam was some subclass of human because he was a criminal

Yes sir.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35769 times)

12AX7

12AX7