equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you know what?

this stuff makes me so sick to my stomach that i'm not going to continue.

do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

as someone who has worked with very young children (2-3 years old), who has taught swimming lessons and coached for years, who loves children, who may well want to have children, please forgive me for wanting to take a baseball bat to the head of *anyone* who would ever harm a child, gay or straight, and for anyone to imply -- not that you have, not at all -- that there's anything other than an incidental link between homosexuality and child abuse.

not much will set me off more than this particular topic, so i better finish this post before the PTSD totally kicks in and i write something i wish i hadn't.

Load of shite. I implied nothing of the sort. Claiming that gay kids are vastly disproportionately targeted by child abusers is the kind of special pleading that gives the gay rights movement a bad name.

[deep]

Originally Posted by BoMac

It is not equal as long as I am able to get married and Irvine is able to get a 'union' or a 'marriage ceremony' with no legal benefits.

Separate, but equal.

Equality will be achieved once Irvine has the exact same rights as I do.

A union has all the same benefits and rights of what you call a marriage.

What passed in Washinton State was called everything but the word marriage.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Load of shite. I implied nothing of the sort. Claiming that gay kids are vastly disproportionately targeted by child abusers is the kind of special pleading that gives the gay rights movement a bad name.

go read more carefully.

and, yes, gay kids are more targeted. quiet kids, loner kids, kids who are outsiders and not accepted by peers -- these are often characteristics of gay kids, and they are often the characteristics of children selected and groomed by pedophiles.

i am doing my absolute best to remain calm right now.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by deep

gay catholics, gay muslims, gay mormons, gay southern baptists are all religious people

they got no shot, zero - of being married within their chosen religion

why not get unioned and have 'equal protection' under the laws of the land


again you can not 'legislate' what religion puts into peoples minds and hearts

Make marriage legal and allow the churches to decide what they want to do. There are catholic groups that recognize homosexual relationships, so "zero" is something I don't believe in.

Originally Posted by deep

being a religious person that believes in sin, you are part of the problem.

I'll just ignore this...

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by deep

A union has all the same benefits and rights of what you call a marriage.

What passed in Washinton State was called everything but the word marriage.

As long as the word 'but' remains right after 'everything' then it is not equal.

Furthermore, if that's the case, why not just call it marriage? Or, alternatively, remove the word marriage and refer to all such relationships as 'unions'. I'd support that, as long as we all have the same access to the word 'union'.

And one more thing: what passed in Washington State is legal in that state. But once a gay couple moves to, say, Utah, then they are no longer recognized as 'unioned' and no longer have access to all their benefits. Instead, if I get married with a woman in any state, and move, then my marriage is recognized everywhere.

Separate - but equal.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

go read more carefully.

and, yes, gay kids are more targeted. quiet kids, loner kids, kids who are outsiders and not accepted by peers -- these are often characteristics of gay kids, and they are often the characteristics of children selected and groomed by pedophiles.

i am doing my absolute best to remain calm right now.

Even if that is true, it is saying that quiet loner kids are disproportionately targeted, not BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. Correlation does not imply causation, your reasoning is unscientific.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Even if that is true, it is saying that quiet loner kids are disproportionately targeted, not BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. Correlation does not imply causation, your reasoning is unscientific.

and you're talking about topics you know nothing about.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and you're talking about topics you know nothing about.

You seem to be falling into the exact same type of reasoning error that you accuse homophobes of.

Stating that quiet loner kids are disproportionately targeted does not imply quiet loner kids that are also gay are disproportionately targetted because they are gay.

Similarly, the fact that some gay adults abuse kids does not imply, as homophobes would allege, that pedophilia is exclusively or predominantly a homosexual phenomenon.

[Irvine511]

for the sake of the thread, i'm done with this particular strand.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Gay people are here, and are looking for (and deserve) certain rights.

Which ones don't they deserve?

Originally Posted by nathan1977

We have to figure out what that means in the larger social context.

You have you figure it it while they wait around for you?

[martha]

Oh, and is anyone keeping a score of the questions AEON had dodged?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

You have you figure it it while they wait around for you?

The democratic process is obnoxious, isn't it?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The democratic process is obnoxious, isn't it?

That's what we should have told Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks...

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The democratic process is obnoxious, isn't it?

Not for you.

Although, I'm still not convinced that anybody needs to wait around for you to get with the program. No one waited around for white guys in the 60s. Weren't almost all of the major civil rights victories court decisions at first? You know, judicial activists deciding that the Constitution really did apply to blacks, whether white guys had thought through the "larger social context" or not?

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

Which ones don't they deserve?

And, as usual, you only answered the question you liked.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by martha

No one waited around for white guys in the 60s.

Usual misandrist bullshit. One thing to bear in mind if you're trolling and casting claims of bigotry at others, you might want to be careful your posts don't open up the same avenue of attack against yourself.

Show me the evidence white chicks were less racist than white guys in the 60s.

[BVS]

Fguy you missed the point... yet again.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

Fguy you missed the point... yet again.

What point have I missed? Martha is slurring and slandering her bete noire "white guys" again, and I am the only one that objects. I am fully entitled to object to that double standard, and call her out on it. I forgot that the left have a monopoly on taking offense.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

What point have I missed? Martha is slurring and slandering her bete noire "white guys" again, and I am the only one that objects. I am fully entitled to object to that double standard, and call her out on it. I forgot that the left have a monopoly on taking offense.

Well she said "guys" not men, and she was talking about the climate of the 60's and Congressional measures vs court measures...

So if one were to use a little context and not be so quick to search for discrimination against males, in your typical paranoid fashion then you may have realized that...

[financeguy]

If someone said 'if black guys stopped committing crimes, the crime rate would go down', what would be your reaction?