Gays vs. Blacks: Hope and Unity in California

by **Matthew** on Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:28 pm

It might not be a matter of caring rather a matter of liking or not liking.

I don't care if Axel wants to marry Cole Train, but if someone asks me if I like it or not I'll tell you I don't.

Make sense? People should be allowed to think the way they want to. If they like something, they can like it. If they don't like it, same thing, they should be allowed to. Just because it's in disagreement with you or anyone else doesn't make it any less valid.

by **benji** on Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:39 pm

Nobody said you couldn't like or dislike something. Or that it wasn't possible for that belief to be valid.

I see now there was gross misunderstanding of your original post. You meant "like" in merely terms of liking something as commonly defined. (i.e. I like pizza. I dislike homework.) Not anything having to do with voting, which was what Axel said. So it was my fault for assuming it was a response to Axel and not just a random question having nothing to do with the thread.

by **puttincomputers** on Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:24 pm

I dont care what "God" or the bible say: Jesus never said a damn word about homosexuality and if you are following "christian" beliefs: you shouldnt give a shit what they do as long as they are still good people.

excuse me? have you ever read the bible?
Romans 1:20-32 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

also read this http://www.reformedonline.com/view/refo ... omosex.htm

Matthew
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Gays vs. Blacks: Hope and Unity in California
So I can marry my cousin? Awesome.

nothing wrong with that. there is actually a state here in the united states that allows it still. A few amish still will marry their 1st cousins.

it is also my experiance that homosexuals are very intolerant of others. such as one example. I was working at taco bell and a homosexual manager, who went both ways btw, sprayed sour cream down a girls pants WHILE WORKING ON BACK LINE! to this day i cannot enjoy tbs food for this and other reasons

by **el badman** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:35 am

I was working at taco bell and a homosexual manager, who went both ways btw, sprayed sour cream down a girls pants WHILE WORKING ON BACK LINE! to this day i cannot enjoy tbs food for this and other reasons

Well, that is certainly a prime example of homosexual intolerance. :roll:

by **Oznogrd** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:15 am

Putt it depends on your view of homosexuality. Yes I believe some people are born gay. I also believe some people "choose" in a way as they get older as an act of rebellion. I've seen the reform stuff and maybe that works for some of the latter kind but trust me: most gay guys i've known the family has known since the kid was a bout 4 or 5 years old. They will not reform. Also take a look at any reform program from drug abuse ones to other "demons". The relapse rate is about 90%. Thats not exactly reforming. But anyway: a homosexual manager is different from a bisexual manager: the idiot was obviously flirting. Putt: of course i've read the bible: i wouldnt quote it if I hadnt. Where does that quote say its the words of Jesus? Show me a direct quote where Jesus Christ himself said "Gays will burn in hell." you won't he never said it. Jesus preached love for everyone and everything: no matter how they were created or what they did. He's not the angry version of God. He's like god's cuddly side that we can make plush toys out of. Also: there's more proof of problems with inbreeding (marrying your first cousin) than knowledgeable safe gay sex....

by **benji** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:49 am

puttincomputers wrote:there is actually a state here in the united states that allows it still.

Times about nineteen.

I can't believe Arrested Development lied to me.

it is also my experiance that homosexuals are very intolerant of others. such as one example. I was working at taco bell and a homosexual manager, who went both ways btw, sprayed sour cream down a girls pants WHILE WORKING ON BACK LINE! to this day i cannot enjoy tbs food for this and other reasons

Wait. What?

by **Axel** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:51 am

Matthew wrote:People shouldn't be allowed to decide on whether they like something or not?

No, they shouldn't. America is a republic, not a democracy, it's a republic.

I wrote a note about it on Facebook just the other day actually.

The recently adopted Proposition 8, as voted on by referendum in the State of California is a measure which declares a sweeping ban on gay marriages anywhere in the state. This so-called will of the people of the people comes on the heels of a decision by the California Supreme Court which upheld the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The process of allowing the electorate on vote on ballot initiatives is considered by many people to be a fundamental and important part of our government. These votes are the most direct form of input Americans have in the important decision of the country, and they appeal to a large group of self-proclaimed disenfranchised citizens. How often is it said that we do not have sufficient say in the direction of our country? How often is it said that our politicans need to listen to the people and shirk the influence of all-powerful Washington Lobbyists? One need simply to look at the approval ratings of the Congress, our legislative body, to see the discontentment of Americans with their government. In a recent poll conducted by FOX, Congress has an approval rating of 18%, and a disapproval rating of 75%. These ratings are no fluke, as they have a history of being low, and our current leaders are no exception. Interestingly enough, the constituents of most congressional districts are quite happy with their particular representative. It is only the legislative body as a whole which they disapprove of. This brings us to an interesting paradox. If a given electorate is content with the performance of its representative, why is it that an even larger group of well-informed decision makers are unworthy of approval? Moreover, if the majority of districts are pleased with their representative, why do so many Americans feel disenfranchised? In a republic such as ours, our respective respresentatives are our votes, and contentment with a representative should in theory be congruent with contentment in the amount of input one has in the direction of the country. That, however, has not deterred oppressive referendums like Proposition 8 from appearing on ballots across the country.

The elected leaders of California had a responsibility to prevent Proposition 8 from appearing on ballots this election. Legislators in Massachusetts kept a similar initiative off of the ballot, much to the dismay of Mitt Romney, who claimed that the people weren’t given a chance to voice their opinions. I commend these legislators for placing their political fortunes on the line, and fulfilling their duties. This should have happened in California, but unfortunately it did not. As James Madison stated in the Federalist No. 10, a republican government allows for elected leaders to “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations”. Madison goes on to say that this chosen body of citizens will make decisions which are more in accord with the public good, and are more harmonious than those pronounced by the public themselves (i.e. ballot initiatives). The spirit of this “disenfranchisement” as many people see it, is to protect the minority from an “interested and overbearing majority” and to protect the nation from divisive faction. In this regard, the California legislators fell short in their duty to protect the civil liberties of a minority population.

It should be asked why such a gross failing in responsibility occured in California, as well as many other states in this election. One potential reason is the undeniable influence that constituent contentment has on the agenda of politicans. Many people were displeased by the Courts’ ruling on gay marriage (which acted appropriately according to Madison) and wished to bring the issue to a vote. What politican would stand in the way of allowing people to exercise their “democratic” freedoms? According to Madison, in a pure democracy “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual” and that these systems of government “have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”. There can be no doubt of the validity of this principle, as it has been echoed throughout the history of our country. Our country was once severely fractured by a divisive majority in the South, which did not make decisions consonant with the greater good. Initiatives like Proposition 8 perform in the same manner, and leave our nation a weaker place as a result.
To best ensure the longevity of our nation, I propose an end to ballot initiatives and referendums. The inevitability of democracies to fall victim to the oppressive perils of faction is dividing our country, not uniting it. Our country is not a democracy, and should not purport itself as one. While it may be the will of the majority to deny rights to particular minority groups, it was not the intention of the Founding Fathers to have decisions such as these decided by a popular vote.

by **benji** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:22 am

Is it really a paradox? We've seen this in polling forever. "My congressman is great, he does lots of services for me, and brings many things to my district. It's those other 532 jerks who are corrupt and terrible."

And stop thinking the Constitution means anything. The Supreme Court got rid of that long ago, and now we just live by mob rule, cannabilization, taking from people we don't like, and with a state with absolute power. (Plus it's like totally from 221 years ago.)

The stupidest part is this isn't about the right to get married. It's about the right to be licensed by the state. Getting the state out of marriage altogether would solve the whole problem. But like I said above. Mob rule. State with no limits to its power. Etc.

by **puttincomputers** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:12 pm

DrGonzo wrote:Putt it depends on your view of homosexuality. Yes I believe some people are born gay. I also believe some people "choose" in a way as they get older as an act of rebellion. I've seen the reform stuff and maybe that works for some of the latter kind but trust me: most gay guys i've known the family has known since the kid was a bout 4 or 5 years old. They will not reform. Also take a look at any reform program from drug abuse ones to other "demons". The relapse rate is about 90%. Thats not exactly reforming. But anyway: a homosexual manager is different from a bisexual manager: the idiot was obviously flirting. Putt: of course i've read the bible: i wouldnt quote it if I hadnt. Where does that quote say its the words of Jesus? Show me a direct quote where Jesus Christ himself said "Gays will burn in hell." you won't he never said it. Jesus preached love for everyone and everything: no matter how they were created or what they did. He's not the angry version of God. He's like god's cuddly side that we can make plush toys out of. Also: there's more proof of problems with inbreeding (marrying your first cousin) than knowledgeable safe gay sex....

this what the kid needs at that age! A whippin!!!! WITH A BELT!!!! believe me there has been a few stupidities amongst my guy cousins and they were delt with! and to think it all stemmed from one guys dad who landed in jail for raping his kids.

btw i agree there are problems with imbreeding, nite i do not condone it for that very reason. though i once had a crush on my double first cousin.

btw as to the claim that jesus did not mention anything about homosexuality read this, btw it has nothing to do with guns, http://www.summit1.edu/gun15/gun03.htm

by **Lamrock** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:29 pm

^ Diddy's successor

by **cyanide** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:47 pm

puttincomputers wrote:this what the kid needs at that age! A whippin!!!! WITH A BELT!!!! believe me there has been a few stupidities amongst my guy cousins and they were delt with! and to think it all stemmed from one guys dad who landed in jail for raping his kids.

Um, yes. Try reading up on a couple of books of childhood sexual abuse, and you'll see that your cousins are gay because their father raped them. You're quite the ignorant idiot if you think a belt whipping will straighten them out. Put your bible down for a second, sheesh.

by **Oznogrd** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:06 pm

Wow Putt, just wow :shake:

Once again Jesus never said anything: focusing on inferences leaves too much up for interpretation. Why is it so wrong to focus on the positives of being a good person and doing what is "good" rather than who you like to fuck? Who gives a shit? Jesus said be good to one another and treat those you dislike as if you liked them. That should include gays plain and simple.

by **Matthew** on Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:14 pm

Axel wrote:
Matthew wrote:People shouldn't be allowed to decide on whether they like something or not?

No, they shouldn't. America is a republic, not a democracy, it's a republic.

Then you shouldn't be able to think what I said was wrong. End of discussion.

YouTube · by **shadowgrin** on Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:33 am

Axel wrote:In a recent poll conducted by FOX, Congress has an approval rating of 18%, and a disapproval rating of 75%

You already lost any seriousness to your argument right there.

DrGonzo wrote:Jesus preached love for everyone and everything: no matter how they were created or what they did. He's not the angry version of God. He's like god's cuddly side that we can make plush toys out of

DrGonzo wrote:Jesus said be good to one another and treat those you dislike as if you liked them

by **benji** on Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:50 am

shadowgrin wrote:You already lost any seriousness to your argument right there.

Why?

Especially since their findings are not an outlier but the norm.

by **Axel** on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:16 am

That wasn't even a big part of my argument, and that poll is one of many that indicate the same thing.

YouTube · by **shadowgrin** on Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:04 pm

I guess it's my tendency to instantly reject anything serious by FOX.

by **BigKaboom2** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:31 am

by **el badman** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:00 am

Because it's biased and flawed in every way.

by **BigKaboom2** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:01 am

Give me an example of an unbiased and flawless (or minimally flawed) news network then...

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:21 am

shadowgrin wrote:I guess it's my tendency to instantly reject anything serious by FOX.

Well, they have given Seth MacFarlane three shows.

by **el badman** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:41 am

Give me an example of an unbiased and flawless (or minimally flawed) news network then...

Did I say no other news network is flawed besides FOX News? No, I meant that it's the worst, it doesn't even try to be subtle about it, it's one-sided and sensationalist.
But if I had to throw an example of far more objective news that only give the facts without trying to convince you to buy a rifle to protect your family or build an underground bunker, I would probably mention BBC World or PBS News I guess.

by **BigKaboom2** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:16 pm

el badman wrote:Did I say no other news network is flawed besides FOX News?

....No, obviously not...what does this have to do with anything?

el_badman wrote:But if I had to throw an example of far more objective news

Far more objective, you say...but still ultimately subjective/biased, right?

el_badman wrote:trying to convince you to buy a rifle to protect your family or build an underground bunker

I've never heard anything even remotely similar to this on Fox News. Have you ever watched the channel?

And for the record, PBS News doesn't even exist...

by **benji** on Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:31 pm

Which network adopted the tagline "The Power of Change"? (Required snark.)

Do you have any support for the claim that Fox News Channel's reporting is more flawed, more biased, the worst and 100% one-sided than any other of the major news networks? (Sensationalist doesn't count as a charge against cable news, because that is the very essence of cable news.) Because you hear this claim a lot, and it's never really backed up very sufficiently as an indictment of Fox News Channel over the rest of the media. (It's usually an indictment of news media in its modern form, with a failed attempt to make Fox News Channel seem an outlier.)

We should be clear. We aren't talking about O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc. These are commentary problems. We don't include them for the same reason we don't include Hardball, Lou Dobbs, Countdown, Rachel Maddow and the now defunct Crossfire. Yes, they do "reports" but they are setups to a larger argument which is often poorly balanced by a stupid guest or host. Greta is a Democrat Scientologist interested in "human" and legal stories (comparable to Nancy Grace (format, not in being the spawn of satan and the real worst person in the world) and Anderson Cooper more than O'Reilly and Olbermann), Dobbs, Olbermann and O'Reilly believe whatever gets them the most attention and lets them rant in anger, Hannity is an objectively mentally retarded "my party right or wrong, my party" person, Glenn Beck leans libertarian.

We're talking about the news programs, on Fox they'd be the Fox Report and and two-thirds of Special Report. CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, Jim Lehrer, CBC Newsworld. Where there is an anchor, delivering the news with reporters. Not multiple talking heads jabbering about it.

The BBC and PBS are dependent (not really, but we continue to delude ourselves into thinking they are) on the state and therefore technically incapable of being objective. Right?

Although I don't know how we could define which news source is "most objective" as that would require us to actually know the truth. And our source for the truth is the media...

by **el badman** on Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:27 am

....No, obviously not...what does this have to do with anything?

Wow, now I understand why you get into these stupid ass semantics fights with Matthew... You're the one who brought that up in the first place!

Have you ever watched the channel?

Unfortunately yes, and now I know better than getting my news from them.

And for the record, PBS News doesn't even exist...

Or whatever the hell you wanna call it, what's at 5 or 6pm depending on your time zone on your local PBS station, there...

Do you have any support for the claim that Fox News Channel's reporting is more flawed, more biased, the worst and 100% one-sided than any other of the major news networks?

We should be clear. We aren't talking about O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record, etc.

I was expecting that from you obviously. I'm not referring to these types of shows either, I'm talking about actual news.
You just have to watch several news programs to notice the clear difference. FOX News is utterly biased because of the way they report anything that can ultimately be linked to the policital climate here in the US. The lines that the anchors use, the on-screen design ("ALERT!", "TERROR!!"), the majority of people that they interview, in or outside of their studios...You two guys are always pretty swift at bringing up the "liberal agenda", whatever the fuck that is, well if there's such a thing as "the conservative agenda", you better be sure that Fox News gladly endorses it.

Not every news network is controlled by Murdoch and News Corp., that's already a pretty big bias right there. For each election, Fox News clearly and outrageously favors the conservative canditates, you don't even have to read between the lines to see that.

I remember back in 2003, when my country rightfully decided that it was the worst idea ever to invade Iraq, it was an absolute lynching fiesta on Fox News, the anchors were not even trying to hide their opinions, it was one of the most pathetic and childish things I had ever seen on TV. CNN were not the last ones to jump on that wagon too, but Fox News was just the worst at that time.

Although I don't know how we could define which news source is "most objective" as that would require us to actually know the truth. And our source for the truth is the media...

True, but just watch the shows, and think about the ways the news are being brought to you. Does it feel like they're trying to convince you of something, with underlying propaganda that even a toddler could notice, or does it feel like you're being offered facts and just facts. Fox News will always fall in the former category for me.

Who is online