hypocrisy of the gay movement

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]i truly believe that the gay movement is insidious, that it has an agenda, crouched in civil liberties and equality, which goes way beyond civil liberties and equality

What would this agenda be in your strange little mind then Robbie?

To turn us all gay?[/b]

no noobster, heaven forbid! its has a self serving politicising agenda. for example, if you shall follow the case in the u.k. of the repeal of the now infamous section twenty eight, a legal rule which prevented the inclusion of homosexual material in schools, now the politicising of the movement itself means, that rather than seeking equality, it now has the full legal right to 'actively promote', homosexuality, in literature and in other form, as an alternative lifestyle. now you cannot tell me for one moment that this is an objective stance, based on equality. This in itself requires propaganda does it not? not only that, it is a moral acceptance of something which many find objectionable, therefore this again comes to the whole crux of the matter, if homosexuals wish to establish their own morality, and actively promote it, then others too should be allowed the same freedom, without fear of claims of bigotry or homophobia. This is simply not the case in the present climate, i am sorry, but it is true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no noobster, heaven forbid! its has a self serving politicising agenda. for example, if you shall follow the case in the u.k. of the repeal of the now infamous section twenty eight, a legal rule which prevented the inclusion of homosexual material in schools, now the politicising of the movement itself means, that rather than seeking equality, it no ...[text shortened]... r homophobia. This is simply not the case in the present climate, i am sorry, but it is true.

You have the right to be heterosexual, right?
Yet you deny other people to be homosexuals, right?

You take your right to be a homophobic, right?
But you are scared to death that this right can be withdrawn, right?

You think that your moral is the one and ultimate one, right?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Who says anything about marry animals?" You did: "like twhite told you, you do not marry the one you love. you cannot marry minors. nor trees, nor cars, nor animals, nor chocolate. marriage is defined. tell me that definition, how it appears in your country's laws." I haven't brought it up. Let's continue...

What are you trying to discuss here?
I sa ...[text shortened]... he straight people. When we do that, we can discuss further if this is okay or not.

I say that straights and gays don't have the same rights, I use the marriage as an example.
You say that they have the same rights. Right?
when it comes to marriage, yes they have the same rights.

Like marriage has nothing to do with love?
marriage doesn't have anything to do with love in the eyes of the government(the ones that give you the tax reductions and benefits) and no, it is not off topic. your whole argument of gay discrimination is is based on that they cannot marry the one they love. me proving the government doesn't care and cannot care about love is very relevant to proving the gays are not discriminated.

You don't support gay marriages. Okay, that's your opinion, but off topic.
with this begins the numerous occasions on which i say "read my post again you missed the point". i do support gay marriage. i don't suport the idea they are discriminated now.

Okay, you love beer and hate spongebob. Okay, that's your opinion, but off topic.
not off topic. read my post again you missed the point. i thought the metaphor of beer and spongebob is very obvious

Let's just agree on that the gay people have not the same rights as the straight people.
we cannot agree on this and i thought i made myself clear. not when it comes to marriage. sure gays are discriminated. and it is sad. it is. when stadium theater stewards ask a pair of lesbians to leave because they were kissing in public and merely inches away a hetero couple were also kissing and nobody told them anything. when gay teachers are fired. but that is not what we are talking about. we are talking about marriage. and when it comes to marriage, gays are not discriminated.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You have the right to be heterosexual, right?
Yet you deny other people to be homosexuals, right?

You take your right to be a homophobic, right?
But you are scared to death that this right can be withdrawn, right?

You think that your moral is the one and ultimate one, right?

have i an equal right to express my morality without being termed a homophone, if you please? it seems not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have i an equal right to express my morality without being termed a homophone, if you please? it seems not.

yes, you have the right to express your morality. but if your morality is homphobic we have the right to call you thus.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have i an equal right to express my morality without being termed a homophone, if you please? it seems not.

YouTube

Here you go , my brother.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no noobster, heaven forbid! its has a self serving politicising agenda. for example, if you shall follow the case in the u.k. of the repeal of the now infamous section twenty eight, a legal rule which prevented the inclusion of homosexual material in schools, now the politicising of the movement itself means, that rather than seeking equality, it no ...[text shortened]... r homophobia. This is simply not the case in the present climate, i am sorry, but it is true.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is in 'Carrrobie land', with the so called 'promotion' of homosexuality.

Are you saying that hetrosexuality cannot be promoted?

How can you promote homosexuality?

Are you worried that children who learn about homosexuality might decide they want to be gay?

Or would you rather have it that the issue of homosexuallity was just swept under the carpet, so to speak, and that children are told nothing about it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have i an equal right to express my morality without being termed a homophone, if you please? it seems not.

Yeah, I know what you mean - in my communist cell, whenever I call for the outlawing of the JW cult - they are very supportive. When I scream it on the street downtown I get funny looks. Maybe no one gives a flip what I think?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I know the reasons for exclusion of same sex couples too.
His claim was that homosexuals are afforded less rights - that is simply not true.
He would be better off dealing with the various reasons for the restrictions and showing that the ones regarding same-sex couples are not reasonable.
So, what are the reasons for exclusion for those closely re ...[text shortened]... wo marriage laws. If you get married under the traditional marriage laws then polygamy is legal.

Heterosexual couples are afforded the right to marry with the aforementioned exceptions. So far as I know, homosexual couples are not asking for anything more than that same right which they are not currently being afforded. I'm not sure how you can stick to your claim that they are not afforded less rights with the above in mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually it is a case i am very familiar with, for prior to the capture of Mr Radar i had taken up the case and was following it with great interest and could not believe that within a month or so a suspect had been apprehended and caught. Now perhaps you shall explain your statement, how a serial killer, whose motivations, he himself claimed to be ...[text shortened]... ntarily and prone to aberration. you have made the statement, now you shall explain yourself.

Just as any other Christian who believes that because they are "of flesh" they are "imperfect" and therefore unable to stop from committing sin. That they manage to believe their rationalizations is ridiculous of course, but then it's ridiculous how you manage to believe your rationalizations about your clear bigotry and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just as any other Christian who believes that because they are "of flesh" they are "imperfect" and therefore unable to stop from committing sin. That they manage to believe their rationalizations is ridiculous of course, but then it's ridiculous how you manage to believe your rationalizations about your clear bigotry and hypocrisy.

Just as any other Christian who believes that because they are "of flesh" they are "imperfect" and therefore unable to stop from committing sin.
--------ToOne--------------------------------------

Whilst I would support you in attacking hyprocrisy and the prejudice in the church around homosexuality , the above statement is meaningless because you have never defined what you believe sin to be or discussed your conception of it in any meaningful human way

For example , if "sin" includes being tired and snappy with your children on certain occasions and saying some things you regret then I doubt any Christian parent would feel able to rule out such an occasion and thus would never be foolish enough to declare themselves "perfected" , because they would realise that they are "of the flesh" .

Now , maybe for you this would be a "ridiculous rationalization" - I don't know - It seems to me just common sense. Even Jesus said "things that cause men to sin are bound to come" - however , unless you tell us how you concieve of sin then no-one can really know what you are going on about.

So you can either go on throwing out these nebulus , woolly , Christian-stalking attacks , or take some time to think about what you are saying and define your position in more specifics and with more realism.

Maybe it's you that is rationalising your attacks on Christianity by coming up with this poorly thought out argument? Why do you feel the need to stalk Christianity? You rationalise your attacks in so many ways.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Heterosexual couples are afforded the right to marry with the aforementioned exceptions. So far as I know, homosexual couples are not asking for anything more than that same right which they are not currently being afforded. I'm not sure how you can stick to your claim that they are not afforded less rights with the above in mind.

The rights are biased in favor of one group, but they are not different for the different groups. As I have already pointed out, rights are never stated in such a way that they are based on the preference of the individual.
Suppose one group of people likes to eat fish and another group likes to eat pork. Further suppose that there is a law that states that you cannot eat pork (maybe it is a Muslim country). Would you then claim that the two groups of people have unequal rights? I don't think so.
To take a more complicated example, suppose that all children are required to learn to write with their right hand. Do they have different rights depending on whether they are left handed or right handed? Again, no they don't, but that doesn't make it fair.
I fully support gay marriage, but I am not convinced that they currently have less rights - it is just that the rights that are currently in place are biased in favor of heterosexuals. I am also convinced that the rights are similarly biased in favor of monogamous people and people that don't want to marry their siblings.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The rights are biased in favor of one group, but they are not different for the different groups. As I have already pointed out, rights are never stated in such a way that they are based on the preference of the individual.
Suppose one group of people likes to eat fish and another group likes to eat pork. Further suppose that there is a law that states rly biased in favor of monogamous people and people that don't want to marry their siblings.

I'm sure that we mean the same thing, but uses different definitions about words.

In America during the slavery one could read in the declaration (or somewhere) that 'every man is born free' (or something). What about the slaves then? Well, they were not defined as 'man' so the declaration was correct anyway. Now all races is declared equal in America so today everyone is born free.

If we define marriage as something between a man and a woman, then gay people cannot enter a marriage. But if we define marriage as two people wanting to live together with equal rights as any other married couple, then gay people are excluded.

So our discussion is not about equal rights or not equal rights, it's about definition of words. Nothing more.

If we cannot agree of which definition to use, then we cannot agree of the result.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'm sure that we mean the same thing, but uses different definitions about words.

In America during the slavery one could read in the declaration (or somewhere) that 'every man is born free' (or something). What about the slaves then? Well, they were not defined as 'man' so the declaration was correct anyway. Now all races is declared equal in America ...[text shortened]... ore.

If we cannot agree of which definition to use, then we cannot agree of the result.

yes but the blacks were denied the rights that the white population has. that is discrimination.



"If we define marriage as something between a man and a woman, then gay people cannot enter a marriage. But if we define marriage as two people wanting to live together with equal rights as any other married couple, then gay people are excluded."
i think the latest definition you meant to say "gay people are not excluded".
"If we define marriage as something between a man and a woman, then gay people cannot enter a marriage." you are of course wrong. gay people can enter marriage, just not which each other. because marriage is defined in a certain way. it is like someone defining the rules of driving and someone else coming and demanding they drive by their own rules

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes but the blacks were denied the rights that the white population has. that is discrimination.

No, they weren't. Only men have rights, black wasn't defined as men, rather as slaves, so they wasn't included in the laws as men, but as slaves.
Marriage doesn't include gays in the laws, so they are too excluded. Here it's only a matter of definitions: Who to include, who to exclude.

If the gays have the same rights as straights - why don't they think they have the same rights?

There are a spectrum of countries in our world: From the far one side: "Homosexuality is forbidden with capital punishment." To the other side: "Homosexual persons cannot be treated in any way different as any heterosexual person." More and more modern countries has gone to the latter side. Some coutries has a way to go, even if they feel themselves as being humanitarian towards the homosexual people.
In the future the world will be a better place to live in, than now.