|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2004 01:51:58 AM · #301 |
You're probably the same type of person who would tolerate pedophiles just beacuse they have a genetic disorder, aren't you?
pedophile choose to moleste children from strong desires genetically to do so, some argued. Gays choose the lifestyle from strong desires to do so, genetically speaking. Does that make it OK?
Where do you draw the line? Would you condone pedophilia? Hollywood already made a film that won some London award about some "poor pedophile" and is sympathetic towards them. Is that the American value we hold dear? :)
Don't even bother replying, because all you can do is call us names. The left is going down the tube in this country and you know it.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, I couldn't get back to answer some of paganini's rant earlier, and I see some others have answered him already. I was going to also make the point that mental illness is not a legal bar to marriage. Furthermore, paganini has several times asserted that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow infringe on his "rights" although he has never explained this statement. What rights or liberties of yours, paganini, would be infringed?
Additionally, Martin Luther King used religion as a tool AGAINST oppression, whilst you and the moralists on the far right use it as a tool OF oppression. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:53:55 AM · #302 |
Frisca,
Let me ask you this:
if it's NOT ok for late term abortion of a fetus, why is it OK for early term abortion? Isn't it a crime either case?
This is what I don't get about abortionists. Life, begins at conception. By 3 months, the baby has a heartbeat and has definite toes and fingers. When are you going to draw the line when it's OK to kill and when it's NOT ok to kill? Care to share you arguments?
Also, if you care to look at what they do with late term abortions -- that's exactly what the "doctors" do. They pull the baby partially out and then bashed the skull, killing it. Because if they were to pull the baby COMPLETELY out and THEN bash it,under the previous law, it'd be murder, but apparently liberals have made it such that if you were to pull a 9 month full term baby out partially, then bash it, then it's OK? That was what the ban was about.
Here's how it's done:
//www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
Originally posted by frisca:
I am so shocked and angry at the things you have said in your posts over the last few pages of this thread that I can barely put my mind to typing out my thoughts. I will say this though:
Supporting a woman's right to choose IS NOT EQUAL TO supporting late term abortion. Don't use scare tactics to forward your backward and oppressive agenda.
Before you speak about "late term abortions", can you cite how many of these occur, which states and WHY they occur?
Seals are clubbed (brutally and wrongly I might add), not babies.
Originally posted by paganini:
Don't worry, abortion will soon be a thing of the past. Abortion is murder. You know how they do these late term abortions that Kerry voted AGAINST the ban of partial birth abortion? They take the baby who is 9 month mature and then BAHSED ITS SKULL with a blunt object. That's how they abort babies in late term. |
|
Message edited by author 2004-11-12 02:05:51.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 01:59:36 AM · #303 |
I think killing babies based on a woman's so called "right" to choose is a moral offense to anyone, religious or not, Christians or not. Christians, Jews, Buddhsits, Catholics would all condemn abortion (except perhaps for those Unitarians who thinks that it's OK to re-define morality when they want it a certain way).
There is no protection under the Constitution guaranteeing the woman's right to choose. It was a COURT decision, not legislative one. That decision will soon be overturned. Part of the reason why this country is more violent than others is because we do not respect life here. When you don't respect a helpless life like an aborted baby, don't expect people to respect other people's lives in general.
Liberals alawys want to re-define morality. The fact is, Dr Martin Luther King fought on civil rights based on moral grounds and based on religious values.
Actually, it was the Democrats in the South who was opposed to integration -- it was the REpublicans that sided with Lyndon Johnson to force integration into the school system. Is that what liberals are? :) Hey, you're part of that party, i'm the party that got Lincoln elected.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Additionally, Martin Luther King used religion as a tool AGAINST oppression, whilst you and the moralists on the far right use it as a tool OF oppression. |
Indeed/Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:01:41 AM · #304 |
That's because the youth are stupid. They will soon realize the errors of their ways when they grow older - once they started working they'd be wondering wtf FICA is and realized how much BS this government is taxing us on social security.
This is why by the time they turn 30, they'll be Republicans (a majority of people between ages 30-55 voted for Bush).
Originally posted by kevinf:
I can't argue whether or not an aborted fetus would have grown up to vote Kerry. That path of discussion ridiculous. My point was that the youth vote went for Kerry which doesn't bode well for Republicans.
And my point about Social Security is that when it was instituted it was not meant or rather, designed to handle the mass number it is expected to now. Relying on it for retirement is a mistake. And again - conjecturing whether or not it would be more reliable now had people not chosen to abort their fetus is another ridiculous path of discussion. If you want to believe Social Security could have been enough for your retirement had other things in history occured, fine. But I'm going to contribute to my 403b (as a first step) and deal with reality as it is now.
My statement made about Christianity was that using it and the Church as a tool of opression is as much a perversion as a terorist using religion to justify their crimes. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:20:27 AM · #305 |
Stats on abortion:
//www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm
Granted, partial birth abortion occurs in only 1% of all abortions performed, bur murder is murder. :) For John Kerry to oppose the ban is just beyond me. It passed overwhelmingly in both house and senate, Democrats and Republican alike and he voted against it even though ther are already provisions to ALLOW for late term abortions IF the woman's life was in danger.
The thing is, the Democratic party nominated someone so far to the left that he is unable to win against an incumbent like Gw BUSH who had a sloppy economy, a sloppy war, consumer confidence below 90 (literally no president has ever won with a consumer confidence below 90 in October before the election). By all accounts, if they have nominated someone moderate, Bush would be outof the office by now. So you have only yourself to blame, liberals, for supporting all these radical causes such as abortion, gun bans, and gay marriages that came back to bite you in the ass this election.
Not only did Bush win, Republicans gain seats in both House and Senate, thanks to you liberals!
So, from the bottom of my heart, a big THANK YOU for all you wacky liberals that got Bush re-elected :) Without you, he'd be a one termer like his daddy.
BTW, i vote Republican, even though my views are more libertarian in nature -- i am against the Patriot Act but I do think that abortion is immoral, gay marriage is immoral (i don't care about gay unions, people can f--ck whoever they want but not to go as far as changing the definition of marriage because it affects all parts of the society). I vote Republican beacuse they're the only party that will stop and slow the hemmorage of gun rights. When are the Democrats ever going to learn??? The last two democratic presidents are both from the South, and one is a one termer, the other one lied about his beliefs (pretended to be a moderate but in fact a liberal -- Clinton is responsible for Democrats losing the control of house and senate in 1994) and got IMPEACHED. If that's the model to follow for Democrats in the last 30 years, then I thinkby 2008 Democrats will be a permanent MINORITY party in this country.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:13:01 PM · #306 |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:17:03 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by paganini:
You're probably the same type of person who would tolerate pedophiles just beacuse they have a genetic disorder, aren't you?
pedophile choose to moleste children from strong desires genetically to do so, some argued. Gays choose the lifestyle from strong desires to do so, genetically speaking. Does that make it OK?
Where do you draw the line? Would you condone pedophilia? Hollywood already made a film that won some London award about some "poor pedophile" and is sympathetic towards them. Is that the American value we hold dear? :)
Don't even bother replying, because all you can do is call us names. The left is going down the tube in this country and you know it. |
First of all, you didn't answer the question I asked, to wit: What rights or liberties of yours would be infringed if same-sex marriage were legal?
Second, when we talk about same-sex marriage we're talking about relationships between two consenting adults, not pedophilia where one party is a victim. Pedophilia and bestiality, the two red herrings you've injected into this debate over and over again, have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental nature of relationships between consenting adults, be they homosexual or heterosexual.
Third, although I can't comment on the artistic merits of the Hollywood movie you're referring to as I haven't seen it, have you ever heard of the novel "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabakov? In the present day widely considered to be a great piece of literature, but you no doubt would agree with the censors in the United States and Russia in the 1950s with regard to the controversial or shocking nature of his subject matter and would probably advocate banning the book for that reason. Am I right? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 02:30:30 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
First of all, you didn't answer the question I asked, to wit: What rights or liberties of yours would be infringed if same-sex marriage were legal? |
I'm not paganini, but I'd like to repond anyway.
To the question as posed, my answer is, "Rights? None. Liberties? It would be an overstepping of propriety or social convention ( see the dictionary )."
But let me ask you the question,
What rights or liberties of gays would be infringed if same-sex marriage were NOT legal? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 03:47:04 PM · #309 |
The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:18:49 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. |
And which of those rights could not be granted by a decree of civil union? In other words why would only "marriage" suffice? |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:28:44 PM · #311 |
If two consenting adults decide to kill each other, would you allow that too?
If two consenting adults decide to commit suicide, would you tolerate that too?
By your own argument, you'd not support abortion either, right? Does the fetus agree to be aborted when the woman chooses to do so? If you say yes, then you're in effect saying that an adult have power over a child -- so you're in effect supporting pedophile's "right" to have sex with his own child, right? Otherwise, you're simply illogical.
The fact is -- pedophiles feel the need to have sex with children like homosexuals feel the need to have sex with person of their own sex. Both may be due to genetic reasons -- that doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. They can choose NOT to commit the acts.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by paganini:
You're probably the same type of person who would tolerate pedophiles just beacuse they have a genetic disorder, aren't you?
pedophile choose to moleste children from strong desires genetically to do so, some argued. Gays choose the lifestyle from strong desires to do so, genetically speaking. Does that make it OK?
Where do you draw the line? Would you condone pedophilia? Hollywood already made a film that won some London award about some "poor pedophile" and is sympathetic towards them. Is that the American value we hold dear? :)
Don't even bother replying, because all you can do is call us names. The left is going down the tube in this country and you know it. |
First of all, you didn't answer the question I asked, to wit: What rights or liberties of yours would be infringed if same-sex marriage were legal?
Second, when we talk about same-sex marriage we're talking about relationships between two consenting adults, not pedophilia where one party is a victim. Pedophilia and bestiality, the two red herrings you've injected into this debate over and over again, have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental nature of relationships between consenting adults, be they homosexual or heterosexual.
Third, although I can't comment on the artistic merits of the Hollywood movie you're referring to as I haven't seen it, have you ever heard of the novel "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabakov? In the present day widely considered to be a great piece of literature, but you no doubt would agree with the censors in the United States and Russia in the 1950s with regard to the controversial or shocking nature of his subject matter and would probably advocate banning the book for that reason. Am I right? |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:31:24 PM · #312 |
That's fine, go for a gay civil union. I think that's fine.
The problem is that in Massachusetts and California, judges and executive branch have usurped the people's vote on the issue. That's why a lot of people are pissed. 60% of all blacks voted for the gay marriage ban across the 11 states, by the way. They feel that their right as a voter is being removed by the judges in massachusetts and worried htat it'll be enforced elsewhere.
The fact is, gays and liberals did it to themselves -- the country was definitely more willing to accept civil unions prior to the gay marriages decreed by judges and mayors. Now, it's more likely that civil union will not even be allowed.
Originally posted by kevinf:
The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:40:44 PM · #313 |
This topic has turned into pure shit. I am ashamed that to the world I am considered an American along side with these people who are continuously spewing ignorant and bigoted statements.
Shame on you people, go look in the mirror. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:40:54 PM · #314 |
This is the problem with liberals -- they tend to think that they're the biggest and smartest persons on earth, that everyon ein the rural areas are dumb. If you're not wearing Gucci or Prada, you're stupid.
Besides your map doesn't even support your claim. Dubya won in Dallas and Houston :), he also won in Denver and lots of other "cities". He just didn't win liberal-infested areas like NYC and Boston.
Some cons for cities:
- Much more crime in cities that voted for Kerry (see gun control -- bigger the gun control, the more crime)
- 99% of the arm forces of US do not come from the cities. You liberals enjoy the freedom they provide for you but call them idiots.
- cities do not feed your stomach. You want a United Cities? Fine, we'll have the rest and then would not feed you anymore. See how long that last.
- Cities don't produce oil, gas, natural resources. Again, if say, Texas declares independence and then charges California 500000% times the rate for energy, California will go bankrupt as most of the electricity California uses are from outside the state. Same goes with oil.
- Cities POLLUTE MORE AIR than country side -- you're the major polluters in the country with all that gridlock and cars just sitting there burning fuel.
This has got to be the dumbest argument i have ever seen, even from a liberal.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:45:07 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by paganini:
This is the problem with liberals -- they tend to think that they're the biggest and smartest persons on earth, that everyon ein the rural areas are dumb. If you're not wearing Gucci or Prada, you're stupid. |
this is the dumbest thing I ever read. I live in a town of 500 people, in a rural farm area. You keep posting these slanderous things with nothing to back yourself up. You are just proving how ignorant you are.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 06:47:37 PM · #316 |
You're the exception, Eric :) I am responding to the poster above who claims that people in cities are more "progressive" and are smarter than everyone else because they voted for Kerry.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by paganini:
This is the problem with liberals -- they tend to think that they're the biggest and smartest persons on earth, that everyon ein the rural areas are dumb. If you're not wearing Gucci or Prada, you're stupid. |
this is the dumbest thing I ever read. I live in a town of 500 people, in a rural farm area. You keep posting these slanderous things with nothing to back yourself up. You are just proving how ignorant you are. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:17:25 PM · #317 |
What a thoroughly hateful organization. It doesn't surprise me, however, since I had the misfortune of living in Seattle for a little over a year in the late 1970's, and evidently the current residents are the same as they were then; namely the rudest, most stuck-up, unfriendliest bunch of insufferable snobs it has ever been my displeasure to come into contact with. Chicago has more class than Seattle ever will. I certainly can not speak for all Chicagoans, but I feel comfortable in saying that the majority of Chicagoans do not share at all the hateful, bigoted, and morally-bankrupt platform of your 'urban archipelago'. You do us a disservice including us in your diatribe. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:21:04 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This topic has turned into pure shit. I am ashamed that to the world I am considered an American along side with these people who are continuously spewing ignorant and bigoted statements.
Shame on you people, go look in the mirror. |
I agree with you. I am also ashamed that you are considered an American. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 07:26:06 PM · #319 |
The personal attacks WILL stop, or this thread will be locked.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:14:49 AM · #320 |
paganini,
I'd like to ask you to please, and if it's just in this forum then fine, but please stop trying to make a connection between same sex marriage and pedophilia. Although our political views are different I think it's very safe to assume our ethics and the ethics of everyone here on this forum connect at least on this one point that pedophilia is a disgusting crime. And as someone who was a victim of it I can't begin to tell you how incredibly insulting it is to hear someone suggest my political support of same sex marriage is in any way an endorsement of pedophilia. I'm sure you don't really believe that it is and so I'm left only thinking you would make the suggestion looking for some kind of shock value. I would be willing to continue a discussion of whether same sex marriage has any legal merritt but I refuse to engage in any conversation if you insist on provoking the way you have been. And that is the last thing I have to say on that topic. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:45:31 PM · #321 |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 12:53:49 PM · #322 |
hehe...that's funny! An interesting read, especially about the hits on the immigration website the day after the election...
While I'm extremely proud to live in Canada, I have to admit it's not the utopian 'keep your doors unlocked in Toronto' society that Mikey Moore makes it out to be! In fact, I think Mikey isn't making too many friends up here after trying to get involved in our elections...
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 05:21:16 PM · #323 |
I am sorry to have made you feel bad about all this, but I am making a point where someone would feel that they have the "right" to do certain things just because they were "born" with it, just doens't make it right, or doesn't automatically give them the same priviledge in marriage. That's the point I am making, I used pedophile was an extreme example -- because pedophiles think they are born this way as well, but we dont' tolerate their acts, do we? Someone brought up consenting adults as a way to justify it, but consenting adults who would want to kill themselves is still illegal in this country (suicide IS illegal).
There are just a huge number of people in this country who feels homosexuality is immoral. I don't think they hate gay people, they do hate the act. They do feel that allowing gays to marry is an abomination on the institution of marriage because it condones an immoral act.
The issue that pissed off a lot of people in the last election is that we have judges and executives in San Francisco and Massachusetts who just decided that marriage is a right for gays, without legislature getting involved -- or people's voice being heard. And now, it seems that with the religious right being energized, even civil unions for gays (which by the way, a lot of people supported prior to the judges taking it upon themselves) is at risk of banned now.
I think if you were to propose a constitutional amendment at the federal level to allow gay marraige, it'd not pass, and possilby a consitutional amendment to BAN gay marriage will not pass either. However, if you propose a constitutional amendment at the federal level to define marriage as a man and a woman, it'd probably pass and would go out to the states for the votes. This owuld effective ban gay marriage as it is not within the language of the constitution (can't say the constitution is unconstitutional if it's in there :))
Originally posted by kevinf:
paganini,
I'd like to ask you to please, and if it's just in this forum then fine, but please stop trying to make a connection between same sex marriage and pedophilia. Although our political views are different I think it's very safe to assume our ethics and the ethics of everyone here on this forum connect at least on this one point that pedophilia is a disgusting crime. And as someone who was a victim of it I can't begin to tell you how incredibly insulting it is to hear someone suggest my political support of same sex marriage is in any way an endorsement of pedophilia. I'm sure you don't really believe that it is and so I'm left only thinking you would make the suggestion looking for some kind of shock value. I would be willing to continue a discussion of whether same sex marriage has any legal merritt but I refuse to engage in any conversation if you insist on provoking the way you have been. And that is the last thing I have to say on that topic. |
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 05:54:21 PM · #324 |
separate but equal has never worked, Tony. Not every "God" or religion says homosexuality is immoral, so why shouldn't people be allowed to marry in the eyes of their own God? And is every married person religious? Does one need to have a religion to be married? Its a straw argument to say that "marriage" is a religious institution when that union is accorded may rights in law that civil unions are denied. I speak of things like pension benefits, survivor benefits, etc. Not to mention how such a relationship would impact tax benefits.
Its discrimination no matter how you try to dress up the issue. Bringing "morality" into it is to bring the church and state back together which is a gig that Government got out of years ago.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 05:57:35 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Its discrimination no matter how you try to dress up the issue. Bringing "morality" into it is to bring the church and state back together which is a gig that Government got out of years ago. |
And thats the bottom line; well said. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:29:27 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:29:27 PM EDT.
|
