Freedom of Speech ... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/05/2004 10:31:19 PM · #151

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Take out the word gay and substitute the minority of your choice : Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish. Your basic arguments serve only to de-humanize a minority and so justify discrimination and hatred for them. Hitler did it to the Jews, Americans did it to the Blacks, English to the Irish, Serbs to the Bosnians, Hutu to the Tutsi and so on. Sad, sad, sad.

Horrible comparisson. Being gay has nothing to do with race. I can't believe you would acctually compare people's belief that being gay is a deviant anti-social lifestyle to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. Thats pretty disgusting. It's a sad state of affairs when Godwin's Law begins to seep into the DPC forums.

Godwin's Law / Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies wrote:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/05/2004 10:34:15 PM · #152

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Not too many years ago, you'd hear the same argument about hiring a white man married to a black woman -- that was illegal too.

So long as the person possesses DNA a la Homo sapiens and is conscious and sane, I (and the Constitution) think you should treat them equally, as human beings. Those were "inalienable" rights the Creator conferred upon us ... who are you to defy God's will?

Paul, if you go by God's will, being gay is a sin, a sin that does not deserve special rights extended to those practicing it.

I believe you mean that if we go by your God's will, being gay is a sin, a sin that does not deserve special rights extended to those practicing it.

There is a difference.

-Terry

11/05/2004 10:41:19 PM · #153

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Not too many years ago, you'd hear the same argument about hiring a white man married to a black woman -- that was illegal too.

So long as the person possesses DNA a la Homo sapiens and is conscious and sane, I (and the Constitution) think you should treat them equally, as human beings. Those were "inalienable" rights the Creator conferred upon us ... who are you to defy God's will?

Paul, if you go by God's will, being gay is a sin, a sin that does not deserve special rights extended to those practicing it.

I believe you mean that if we go by your God's will, being gay is a sin, a sin that does not deserve special rights extended to those practicing it.

There is a difference.

-Terry

while that is true I am not the one that brought God into it, as I don;t believe in forcing religeous beliefs on anyone... My mistake I guess was assuming Paul was talking about my God.

11/05/2004 10:51:23 PM · #154

Originally posted by Anachronite:

We'll have to agree to disagree then because every story I have heard about her says otherwise. Shes only been with either one or the other not both. She even said it was her choice. No point in debating this here, we'll never agree on this.

What???

To be bisexual you have to bed two people of the opposte sex at the same time? Where do you get this stuff?

When did I deny she had a choice? She chose first to sleep with a man, then to sleep with a woman, then to sleep with a man (assuming their relationships were more than platonic). What I obviously failed to do for you is draw a distinction between choosing your sexuality and choosing a specific sex partner.

Originally posted by Anachronite:

So your saying being gay is normal? Hmmm, nature disagrees with you as your body was designed to reproduce with a woman. My feeling is that if it isn't a choice it is either one of the options I mentioned, or something else thats abnormal. Either way, you feel fine with it because your in denial. As long as you stay comfortable with who you are, that will never change. But again, thats your choice.

Where did I say that being gay was normal? Statistically, gays are in a small minority, that's not being challenged. If you define 'normal' as 'average', you're right. Given that, being left handed is not 'normal'. Does that make left-handedness 'abnormal' and a defect that needs to be fixed? How about being Icelandic?

norÂ·mal (P) Pronunciation Key (nÃ´rml)

Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable deficiencies.

So let's look at the dictionary definition of biologically normal. I was born, I grew up, and I'm gay. Aparrently naturally, unless I am a supernatural being. Or did some other force outside of nature turn me gay? Is my (and millions of gays) very existence the result of some fundamentally unnatural process? What is that non-natural process? The main extra-natural idea bandied about here is God himself. Did God make me gay? Or are all humans somehow not part of nature?

Perhaps you're using biologically natural in the sense that you feel I am deficient.

And hmmm, nature disagrees with you! I grew up on a farm, in a rural area. I have seen same sex sheep pairs, pig pairs, duck pairs, and have even owned lesbian rats, personally witnessing their sexual activity. I've seen male dogs copulating with other male dogs. I've never seen gay cats, though.

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Sounds like your completely disregarding these gay peoples opinions on why they believe they are gay. Not concidering their opinion is being as close minded as some have accused me of being. It's obvious we'll never agree on this issue, and thats fine. It just goes back to what I said in a previous discussion. Most of the time when you have people with passionate beliefs it is a complete waste of time to try and debate the issue because of the inevitability of solipsism .

Nice feint. What I actually said was, for someone apparently interested in scientific method, your sample of two is woefully inadequate if you are going to use it to draw broad conclusions. I have in no way discounted their opinion.

You on the other hand, continue to debate while claiming debate is impossible, have told me I am in denial and closed minded, and implied that I'm a solipsist in an attempt to discount everything I have said.

Gold star.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/05/2004 10:52:29 PM · #155

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by RonB:
First - not RAPING children, but sexual activities involving children - like fondling, etc. Then, because eating lobster is not usually considered a sexual activity. Let's face it, homosexuality IS a sexual behaviour.

Last time I checked, ANY sexual activity between an adult and a minor is rape. That's why one legal border between being a minor and adulthood is called the 'age of consent'. Sexual activity without consent is rape. Is sexually fondling a child not rape in your moral structure?

Sorry, I was called out for a few hours. Let me now address your statements/questions.

First, while I can appreciate your position, neither I, nor any law defines it thusly. Sexual activity with a minor runs the gamut from exposing genitalia in the presence of a child, to molestation, to forcing a child to view intercourse, etc. all the way up to rape itself.

To me, the so-called age-of-consent is pure foolishness. And, for what it's worth, the age of consent is under attack even as we debate. The North American Man Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA ) is actively atttempting to erode the age of consent laws in order to further their cause. If you don't believe me, visit their web-site. But in essence, I don't think that society is in a position to determine when any child of mine is mature enough to grant consent - I feel that I am in a far better position than "society" to judge whether they are mature enough.

My "moral structure" as you put it does not define sexually fondling a child as being the same as rape, though I hold both to be heinous.

Originally posted by Mousie:

Second, homosexuality is an attraction to members of the same sex. Actually having sex is sexual behavior. By your logic, my love, social intimacy, shared expenses, and cohabitation with my partner are heterosexual, assuming that sexual activity alone is what makes me homosexual.

Well, the dictionary describes the word 'homosexuality' as both the sexual orientation AND the sexual activity between two persons of the same sex. I'm sure some are trying to get the dictionary changed, but that probably won't be for a while.

Actually having sex is certainly sexual behaviour.

Nothing of your relationship with your partner ( assuming that they are of the same gender as you ) is heterosexual - not by my logic, but, again according to the dictionary - which defines heterosexual as being sexually oriented to persons of opposite sex or simply relating to different sexes.

Sexual activity alone is not what makes you a homosexual. Your sexual orientation alone is sufficient to make you a homosexual. Dictionary, again, not my logic.

Note that in my first post I carefully pointed out for purposes of that post that I was speaking of homosexual activities not merely attractions.

Originally posted by Mousie:

So, since I feel you first dodged then made a false claim to avoid responding to my clear inquiry, let me rephrase it for you:

Why do you as a person choose to bring up the worst possible examples of sinful (by your definition) sexuality (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) when discussing your rationale for banning same-sex marriage, when there are plenty of less inflammatory examples of sins (even sexual, like adultery, coveting, or having lusted in your heart) that do not provoke as viscerally negative a response in the people you're addressing? You yourself stated that in God's eyes all sins are equal, which puts the burden of your choice to use these examples squarely on your shoulders. I believe you do it to bolster your position by deliberately associating MY behavior with the worst things you can think of, to cast as poor a light on it as possible. If that's not the case, explain yourself.

You have a point there. I COULD have brought up other sexual sins like adultery and fornication, and, in fact, did in a later post. But adultery and fornication, though sexual in nature, are not deviant behaviours. I chose the examples I did because they are. But the point I was trying to make is that I firmly believe that sexual behaviour is always a choice ( aside from being the victim of a sex crime, of course ). Sexual orientation may not be a choice, but behaviour is.

But if you want to bring the other examples into the picture, then consider that even though the majority of people are heterosexual in their orientation, adultery and fornication are never excused on the basis of their orientation - rather, those activities by heterosexuals are always considered to be undertaken by choice, not by mandate.

I am not homophobic. I do not hate gays and/or lesbians. I am told by my Lord to hate the sin but love the sinner - so I try to do that. On the other hand, I am told to speak the truth, in love. I probably fail that last part too often, but I try.

For what it's worth, as I told MadMordegon, I am no better than the worst. All I have going for me is that my God says that He forgives me. And I believe Him.

11/05/2004 10:52:51 PM · #156

Originally posted by Anachronite:

what if that employees lifestyle offended customers and they started taking their business elsewhere?

What about being in the presence of a gay person on the job is offensive?

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

11/05/2004 11:08:37 PM · #157

why was my post deleted? I posted in response to anachrondite, and it was deleted. There was no reason for it to be removed.

11/05/2004 11:09:01 PM · #158

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Take out the word gay and substitute the minority of your choice : Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish. Your basic arguments serve only to de-humanize a minority and so justify discrimination and hatred for them. Hitler did it to the Jews, Americans did it to the Blacks, English to the Irish, Serbs to the Bosnians, Hutu to the Tutsi and so on. Sad, sad, sad.

Horrible comparisson. Being gay has nothing to do with race. I can't believe you would acctually compare people's belief that being gay is a deviant anti-social lifestyle to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. Thats pretty disgusting. It's a sad state of affairs when Godwin's Law begins to seep into the DPC forums.

Godwin's Law / Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies wrote:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Why not compare, hatred and bias is hatred and bias. Gay people's DNA strands are no different than any other people's, the same as a Jew's DNA or any of the other DNA pieces of the groups that I mentioned. The only difference is in your perception and hatefulness based on ways that they are not like you that you find distasteful. Hitler and the Nazis found Gays and Jews distasteful and their genocidal efforts were just more successful percentage-wise with respect to the gay population, mostly because there were more Jews than Gays. Don't forget that Hitler slaughtered thousands of gays too, in his quest for a pure Arayan race.

The Tutsi's and Hutu's slaughter of each other had nothing to do with race either. What about the English and the Irish?

Genocide has it's seeds in just the kind of hatred, dehumanization and bias that you seek to perpetuate. It's not as far as you think from where you are now to hacking someone up with a machete because they are the wrong tribe,race,sexual orientation, or otherwise different from you.

11/05/2004 11:13:25 PM · #159

Originally posted by Mousie:

Where did I say that being gay was normal?

well you made it sound like a perfectly natural thing. now your comparing it to animal behavior. Which is acctually a good comparison, and probably one of the reasons a vast majority of people concider it deviant and offensive. That's the problem most people have with that type of behavior.

I am also suprised that DP Challenge allows you to post such an offensive photo in your signature. Not only are you showing men engaged in homosexual activity, but you are also showing another man smoking marajuana. I thought photos of drug use and such were a violation of the TOS?

Is there is a double standard here?

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 23:17:12.

11/05/2004 11:13:57 PM · #160

Spazmo, do you really believe Anachronite hates Mousie?

If so, I would venture that both Anachronite and Mousie disagree with you.

If not, then stop raising the temperature in here. Allow your points to lead logically into each other and debate accordingly, making your points without accusatory remarks.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

11/05/2004 11:15:11 PM · #161

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Take out the word gay and substitute the minority of your choice : Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish. Your basic arguments serve only to de-humanize a minority and so justify discrimination and hatred for them. Hitler did it to the Jews, Americans did it to the Blacks, English to the Irish, Serbs to the Bosnians, Hutu to the Tutsi and so on. Sad, sad, sad.

Horrible comparisson. Being gay has nothing to do with race. I can't believe you would acctually compare people's belief that being gay is a deviant anti-social lifestyle to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. Thats pretty disgusting. It's a sad state of affairs when Godwin's Law begins to seep into the DPC forums.

Godwin's Law / Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies wrote:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Why not compare, hatred and bias is hatred and bias. Gay people's DNA strands are no different than any other people's, the same as a Jew's DNA or any of the other DNA pieces of the groups that I mentioned. The only difference is in your perception and hatefulness based on ways that they are not like you that you find distasteful. Hitler and the Nazis found Gays and Jews distasteful and their genocidal efforts were just more successful percentage-wise with respect to the gay population, mostly because there were more Jews than Gays. Don't forget that Hitler slaughtered thousands of gays too, in his quest for a pure Arayan race.

The Tutsi's and Hutu's slaughter of each other had nothing to do with race either. What about the English and the Irish?

Genocide has it's seeds in just the kind of hatred, dehumanization and bias that you seek to perpetuate. It's not as far as you think from where you are now to hacking someone up with a machete because they are the wrong tribe,race,sexual orientation, or otherwise different from you.

first off I don't hate anyone. I just disagree with the choices they make. But for you to compare disagreement with a particular belief system to genocide, your despicable.

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 23:16:31.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

11/05/2004 11:26:55 PM · #162

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Where did I say that being gay was normal?

well you made it sound like a perfectly natural thing. now your comparing it to animal behavior. Which is acctually a good comparison, and probably one of the reasons a vast majority of people concider it deviant and offensive. That's the problem most people have with that type of behavior.

I am also suprised that DP Challenge allows you to post such an offensive photo in your signature. Not only are you showing men engaged in homosexual activity, but you are also showing another man smoking marajuana. I thought photos of drug use and such were a violation of the TOS?

Is there is a double standard here?

photos of drug use aren't against the TOS, it was a decision that was made not too long ago. You can do a search for the thread... and acts of adult consentual love are *CERTAINLY* not against the TOS, in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of gender.
Obviously this post was only meant to strike a nerve, or try. Just because it's offensive to *you*, doesn't make it a violation of the TOS.

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 23:39:47.

davidbedard

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

11/05/2004 11:29:46 PM · #163

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
what if that employees lifestyle offended customers and they started taking their business elsewhere?

What about being in the presence of a gay person on the job is offensive?

If you look at gays as a separate group economically, don't they tend to be more successful financially than the population at large? I don't think they have any particular problem getting along in business. I've worked with many gay people, some of them, I liked their company, some of them I didn't, just like everybody else I work with. I really miss our gay neighbors who recently moved because it really worked out well for my wife and I to trade off pet sitting favors with them!

I think there are a lot of reasons that people are unhappy in modern society, and to a scary extent, suppressing a great deal of rage and anger. And while the Bushites go about solidifying the concentration of wealth, and trying to forge a society where only labor is taxed, they need to divert the middle class with a group that they can demonize with impunity. And it works! We were born to march to their temple, singing! We will sing songs of hate and fear! We will be watched over by Corporations of Loving Grace!

11/05/2004 11:32:01 PM · #164

Originally posted by RonB:

My "moral structure" as you put it does not define sexually fondling a child as being the same as rape, though I hold both to be heinous.

rape (P) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
1 The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

Originally posted by RonB:

Before I begin, let me make it clear that my definition of homosexuality is actual participation in homosexual activities, not just having homosexual thoughts or feelings. So, with that in mind...

Originally posted by RonB:

So basically, correct me if I'm wrong, what you just said is based on the dictionary definition (not your logic). What was the purpose of responding using a dictionary definition (not your logic) when my request for clarification was specifically addressed to your logic?

What are you saying other than 'a homosexual is when a homosexual does'?

By your logic, is my cohabitation, shared expenses, and social intimacy with my partner 'homosexual'?

'Cause really... we don't have sex that much.

By your logic... if I go out and sleep with a woman, am I now heterosexual? What if I continue to cohabit, share expenses, and express social intimacy with my partner, but carry on an effectively adulterous affair with a woman? Please clarify.

11/05/2004 11:34:30 PM · #165

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Spazmo, do you really believe Anachronite hates Mousie?

No, Anachronite's words hardly tell a tale of loving his fellow man. Talk of justifying discrimination and bias IS hateful. How can one justify excluding his fellow man in such a way and NOT be hateful, if not outwardly hostile.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

If so, I would venture that both Anachronite and Mousie disagree with you.

Maybe they do, that's between them. I'm just reacting to what I see as hateful remarks and statements that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion based on someone being different. History is full of examples where such speech and attitudes led to genocide and slaughter, I just pointed a few out to make sure they weren't forgotten.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

If not, then stop raising the temperature in here. Allow your points to lead logically into each other and debate accordingly, making your points without accusatory remarks.

If you can't follow along, I'll type slower.

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 23:35:06.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

11/05/2004 11:35:48 PM · #166

Originally posted by Artyste:

You're such a funny little man.

??How does this further the debate?? Don't you understand that your argument has much more credibility when it's not followed by a condescending remark?

I love debates like these...that is, until they begin to fall apart. A few comments without merit such as that one and this thread gets locked and everything we've debated about to try and understand each other better has gone to waste...

I'm not indicting you, I'm guilty of the same little jabs at times. But I think we're better off to leave them out, right?

Peace...

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

11/05/2004 11:37:39 PM · #167

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by Artyste:
You're such a funny little man.

??How does this further the debate?? Don't you understand that your argument has much more credibility when it's not followed by a condescending remark?

I love debates like these...that is, until they begin to fall apart. A few comments without merit such as that one and this thread gets locked and everything we've debated about to try and understand each other better has gone to waste...

I'm not indicting you, I'm guilty of the same little jabs at times. But I think we're better off to leave them out, right?

Peace...

It's not a jab, it's a personal observation. A jab would be, "You're such an insensitive, intolerant motherf****er."
Also, my post wasn't an arguement either. It was a simple factual response.

11/05/2004 11:37:56 PM · #168

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you can't follow along, I'll type slower.

No, I understand. You chose the first option, so I'm not sure why you addressed the second but at least be nice about it!

Love,
Mike

11/05/2004 11:40:39 PM · #169

Originally posted by Artyste:

It's not a jab, it's a personal observation. A jab would be, "You're such an insensitive, intolerant motherf****er."
Also, my post wasn't an arguement either. It was a simple factual response.

hehe! ...that's a jab? I'd hate to see what a stab looks like (I guess it would involve removing the stars from motherfucker?) ;0)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/05/2004 11:41:48 PM · #170

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
As a business owner itâ��s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a personâ��s gay lover?

Take out the word gay and substitute the minority of your choice : Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish. Your basic arguments serve only to de-humanize a minority and so justify discrimination and hatred for them. Hitler did it to the Jews, Americans did it to the Blacks, English to the Irish, Serbs to the Bosnians, Hutu to the Tutsi and so on. Sad, sad, sad.

Horrible comparisson. Being gay has nothing to do with race. I can't believe you would acctually compare people's belief that being gay is a deviant anti-social lifestyle to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. Thats pretty disgusting. It's a sad state of affairs when Godwin's Law begins to seep into the DPC forums.

Godwin's Law / Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies wrote:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Why not compare, hatred and bias is hatred and bias. Gay people's DNA strands are no different than any other people's, the same as a Jew's DNA or any of the other DNA pieces of the groups that I mentioned. The only difference is in your perception and hatefulness based on ways that they are not like you that you find distasteful. Hitler and the Nazis found Gays and Jews distasteful and their genocidal efforts were just more successful percentage-wise with respect to the gay population, mostly because there were more Jews than Gays. Don't forget that Hitler slaughtered thousands of gays too, in his quest for a pure Arayan race.

The Tutsi's and Hutu's slaughter of each other had nothing to do with race either. What about the English and the Irish?

Genocide has it's seeds in just the kind of hatred, dehumanization and bias that you seek to perpetuate. It's not as far as you think from where you are now to hacking someone up with a machete because they are the wrong tribe,race,sexual orientation, or otherwise different from you.

first off I don't hate anyone. I just disagree with the choices they make. But for you to compare disagreement with a particular belief system to genocide, your despicable.

Your earlier speech belies your denial of hatred. You talk of exclusion, bias and outright discrimination. If that is not the speech of hatred, the KKK and the NAACP are probably planning a tea party for next week. Your "disagreement" is hardly that, it shows a willingness to accept and even encourage the very speech, activities and attitudes that have lead to genocide in the past.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/05/2004 11:46:43 PM · #171

Can we please keep this discussion on the topics and hand and not make it personal about the people debating?

Thanks,
Terry

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

11/05/2004 11:56:19 PM · #172

This will be my last post tonight before going home, it's getting late!

Originally posted by Anachronite:

So wait... first being unlike nature is bad... now being like nature is bad... oh lordy, I am so confused...

Animals have heterosexual sex too, you know. Does that make it deviant?

And no, I'm not comparing 'it' to animal behavior. I'm pointing out that I believe your argument that nature 'proves me wrong' is completely unfounded, then watching you switch subjects.

Can we please have some coherence here?

Maybe I'm wrong, and you are trying to say that seeing same sex animals copulate is patently offensive, so seeing humans in same sex relationships is, likewise, offensive. If that's true, feel free to try and convince those animals to stop offending you, I'm sure you'll have just as much luck as convincing me my existence is offensive.

Also: Thanks for stepping in and letting me know you're the arbiter of what the vast majority thinks.

Originally posted by Anachronite:

I am also suprised that DP Challenge allows you to post such an offensive photo in your signature. Not only are you showing men engaged in homosexual activity, but you are also showing another man smoking marajuana. I thought photos of drug use and such were a violation of the TOS?

Such an offensive photo... TO YOU. I think it's cute. :)

Besides, that's a JPG of a painting of a man using drugs. It's not a photo. There are no actual drugs involved. There is no actual man involved, only a likeness of Van Gogh, in the style of Van Gogh. Regardless, images of drug use and consensual sex, as long as it's not explicit, are A-OK on the DPC.

Nice try, do you research anything before making a statement?

Message edited by author 2004-11-06 00:02:36.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

11/06/2004 12:01:52 AM · #173

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned....... Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law?

Ok, I'm as homophobic as the next guy... It creeps me out watching two guys kiss on CNN every other day. ...

Thank you for saying that in such an honest way.

Because you have just shattered the idiotic proposition that homosexuality is * a choice*.

There is not a truly heterosexual man in this country who doesn't feel uncomfortable when seeing gay men kiss.

Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing men as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!

Ummm, I'm kinda creeped out by the idea of Young Republicans too, but I'm pretty sure that's a choice... I don't know (or really care) if being gay is Nature or Nurture, Choice or Genetic, Whatever... All I know for certain is that it's none of my damn business.

My wife and I are not both the same race... 30 or 40 years ago, us getting married would have been illegal in some states. While I may not understand why someone is gay, I sure as hell know why they want to be able to marry whomever they want. I'm guessing it's the same reason I married my wife... Cause they're in love...

11/06/2004 12:09:03 AM · #174

your missing the point spazmo. Hate has nothing to do with it. The VAST majority doesn't agree with you. They see this lifestyle as deviant behavior. If they have a right to live that way, then a business owner has a right not be forced to hire people their customers might be offended by. True, not all customers would be offended as many people are not bothered by it. But most people are.

An example to show you how those offended by it feel: Many people concider drug use a deviant behavior. Would you want a drug user working for you? No you would not. Now don't go thinking I am saying being gay is akin to using drugs. I'm not. But it is an example of a behavior people find offensive. People are offended by the gay lifestyle. They see it as anti-social and deviant. Forcing it on them is not fair. Your free to be gay. I don't care. Just don't force me to accept your lifestyle choice by having to hire you and provide insurance for your gay lover. It's my business and I can hire who I want to, just as you have the right to go work somewhere else if you don't like where your at. For the record, there are gay people working in our company. However because of the way they chose to live, it's 100% completely obvious that they are gay. Because of this we don't put them in positions where they have contact with the customers, as we have customers that find their lifestyle offensive.