Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1748

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

…do you even train? I mean other than pounding the key board…

Yes. Do you? Do you count talking about chin ups as actual work done? If you say you did more this week than you said you did last week, do you consider that progress?[/quote]

The age old problem with Internet forums. Who really trains and who just talks about it.

I not only train, but I talk about it too. You on the other hand just seem to hang out on the political forum spouting your liberal crap.

So…I’m thinking you don’t really workout. But you could workout and just like to talk crap on the Internet. You belong to a very proud bunch; Hate filled liberals who have found a place to vent.

There you go acting like a hate filled liberal. And, confirming my allegation.

Now why don’t you…

define one of the politically corrects favorite words: “homophobic.” And try to do it in an intelligent fashion if that’s at all possible.

No help now.

And this is the only site I post on. I am addicted to T-Nation. Sort of like you being addicted to name calling and trash talking.

Yea…something like that.

[quote]When do you find time to train? Does each stroke of your right hand count as one rep?
[/quote]

I train six days per week about 45 min per session. That leaves plenty of time to eat, sleep and do plenty of other fun things like correcting trash talking liberals like yourself.

You hate that huh?

And I’m going to…keep on doing it!

(Write back soon this should be good for at least 3 or 4 posts back and forth)

1749

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Two consenting adults should certainly have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home.

It’s the marriage thing that you are not going to pull off my friend.
[/quote]

I’ll make a slight substitution here, to illustrate a point:

[quote]A black man and a white woman should certainly have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home.

It’s the marriage thing that they are not going to pull off my friend.
[/quote]

While the above statement sounds silly by today’s standards, there were many people in the late 40s - 60s that would have stood by it. They didn’t consider themselves bigots, and they genuinely believed what they were saying.

But they were wrong…and the same will prove to be true here. The world has already made significant strides in this direction. Even here in the U.S., there is no chance of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage even making it to the floor for extended debate.

Eventually, gays will be granted equal rights. It’s just a matter of time.

1750

[quote]forlife wrote:
A black man and a white woman should certainly have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home.

It’s the marriage thing that they are not going to pull off my friend.[/quote]

With all due respect, we have had this debate.

Being a homosexual has not been proven to be genetic. And in fact there is some research which I have produced (over and over) which shows that it is in fact more “nuture” than “nature.”

-Child molestation by someone of the same sex.

-An over protective mother and disengaged father (for boys).

And other reasons…

But I will agree that the jury is still out relative to a definitive answer.

You can draw all of the comaparisons that you want to people of color, however they just do not apply when it comes to homosexuality.

They already have “equal rights.”

What you are asking for are “special rights.” And I don’t think that homosexuals will ever have such rights. At least not in the foreseeable future.

There is a very large body of people (65% to 70% of the American public) who want to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

While the fedeal amendment won’t be passing (and I’m not sure it ought to). The states will exercise their muscle as almost 40 of them already have in banning gay marriage.

1751

By your logic, blacks had “equal rights” 4 decades ago. They were free to marry one another…they just couldn’t marry whites.

Bigots never see themselves as such. It is only in retrospect, when society has matured to the point of equitable treatment of the discriminated group, that people recognize bigotry for what it is.

I think you’ll agree with me that gays have made significant strides in the rights granted to them over the past decade. You can look at Canada, Spain, and several other countries that now fully sanction gay marriage (but used to be like the U.S.). Even here in the U.S., progress has been made. It is slow, but it will continue.

1752

[quote]forlife wrote:
By your logic, blacks had “equal rights” 4 decades ago. They were free to marry one another…they just couldn’t marry whites.[/quote]

Once again, there is NO comparison between people of color and homosexuals. None!

This may come as a shock to you, but I not only agree with you, but I am glad they made those gains.

I don’t think that any law abiding group should have to suffer name calling and other indignities.

I never liked bullies.

But changing our societal norms for less than 1% of the population is foolhardy. And is not going to happen.

I don’t think you can compare what other countries do to the USA. Other countries allow full nudity on television during prime time.

Do you think the US will do that in the near future?

As for the progress that you speak of, I think that it has topped out and now going the other way.

According to the latest statistics LESS people not more are in favor of gay marriage now than in 1991.

The more the public sees, reads and hears of gay marriage the LESS they like the idea.

The latest polls and state refernedums confirm this.

1753

Whether or not homosexuality is genetic is irrelevant. The comparison I drew (and continue to draw) between homosexuality and race is that both represent minority constituencies that have been systematically discriminated against by society. Both groups have been the target of bigots who believed they were in the right. Both groups have seen progress as society has advanced and bigotry has become increasingly marginalized.

Gay marriages are now recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa. There is every sign that more countries will decide to grant equal rights to gays in the future. That is a sign of progress.

The original proposition to amend the constitution to allow gay marriage actually garnered enough votes to make it to the floor of congress for voting. Now, a mere two years later, the same proposition failed to even pass the first hurdle and will not be voted on. That is a sign of progress.

Gay marriages have been sanctioned in Massachusetts for two years now, and not a single heterosexual marriage has suffered as a result. To the contrary, Massachuseets leads the country in having the lowest divorce rate. That is a sign of progress.

It is only a matter of time.

1754

ZEB for President!!!

1755

[quote]forlife wrote:
Whether or not homosexuality is genetic is irrelevant. The comparison I drew (and continue to draw) between homosexuality and race is that both represent minority constituencies that have been systematically discriminated against by society. Both groups have been the target of bigots who believed they were in the right. Both groups have seen progress as society has advanced and bigotry has become increasingly marginalized.[/quote]

I’m sorry you simply cannot compare a true racial minority group with a tiny percentage of the population which chooses to have sex with someone of the same sex.

It is after all and act not a color, or gender issue.

There simply is no fair comparison between the two.

Yea…you said that before. And then I said that that has nothing to do with the USA and I gave reasons quoting statistics that are relative to THIS country, such as state referendums, polls etc.

I don’t think any heterosexual marriage would falter because two homosexuals were “married.” That was never my point.

It’s about what sort of society that you want to live in. And how much we should change for about 1% of the population.

Finally, it’s about boundries. If two homosexuals can marry what then is wrong with polygamy, or incestual relationships. Or, any sort of combination. Once the law has been changed who is to say that YOUR relationship is more important than someone else’s?..I mean if they really love each other…

[quote]To the contrary, Massachuseets leads the country in having the lowest divorce rate. That is a sign of progress.

It is only a matter of time.[/quote]

It might just be a matter of time…A matter of time before every state in the Union prohibits gay marriage.

The voters of massachusetts are livid over liberal justices introducing gay marriage. And they seek to overturn this through petition and then referendum.

I predict that gay marriage in Mass. will be overturned in November of 2008!

I know I gave you this link before. Perhaps you are simply trying to put a smiley face on a very bad situation, from your persepctive at least:

"Backers of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.

Secretary of State William F. Galvin this week certified the signatures of 123,356 registered voters, nearly twice as many as the number required to get on the ballot.

The petition drew the signatures of Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann; former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, now the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn. If the petition receives the support of at least 25 percent of the Legislature in two successive sessions, it would appear on the ballot in November 2008.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/22/petition_vs_gay_marriage_advances/

Oh, and if we are going to debate this topic again as we did months ago I suggest that we try to cover some ground that was not covered in our prior discussion.

Now that is challenging indeed as we covered quite a lot of ground. But so far neither of us has brought anything new to this debate.

I mean I will rehash the same old same old, don’t get me wrong.

1756

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
There was a part in Gettysburg where the old Irish guy says, “Any man who judges by the race is a pee-wit. You take men as they come- one at a time”.
[/quote]
Race is morally neutral. Homosexual (and certain heterosexual) sex acts are not.

The OP did not relate gays to littering; curls in the squat rack; high cost of housing; financial difficulties of medicare …

I thought the story line was he was framed, or there was a mistake of some kind.

I thought the story line was he hit somebody who was molesting his wife; accidentally killed him; and was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

They gave up on me and threw me out.

1757

i know how to end this homosexual marriage thing. why doesnt the government just detach marriage from a legal standpoint. make it something else like a “consenting union” and set it up tottally apart from marriage, since marriage has always been religious and sacred, leave marriage in religion, and a civil union to the government.

1758

Personally, I don’t care what they call it. If the fundamentalist right feels more “safe” by calling it a civil union that’s fine with me. As long as it receives -all- the same benefits (at the federal and state level), that is what matters to me.

1759

[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
i know how to end this homosexual marriage thing. why doesnt the government just detach marriage from a legal standpoint. make it something else like a “consenting union” and set it up tottally apart from marriage, since marriage has always been religious and sacred, leave marriage in religion, and a civil union to the government.[/quote]

This idea has come up before and I would agree with it as well. However, I suspect that most gays would not be happy with a legal arrangement that provided all the same rights as marriage, because I really don’t believe that is their agenda.

The gay agenda is to force mainstream society to accept them and a different legal union than for hetero’s would not support that goal. So while I believe that a legal union different from marriage, but with all the same rights, meets their stated goals for same sex marriage, I don’t believe they would accept it.

1760

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So while I believe that a legal union different from marriage, but with all the same rights, meets their stated goals for same sex marriage, I don’t believe they would accept it.
[/quote]

I know a lot of gay people personally, and I have yet to meet someone who really cares whether or not fundamentalists consider homosexuality a sin. What we do care about is receiving equal rights under the law.

1761

Zeb, I’m curious why you don’t think society would benefit from gay marriage.

It is a given that gays will continue to be in relationships. For someone that is so concerned about the potential spreading of disease, why don’t you support legislation that would encourage stable commitments in the gay world? I honestly don’t see how society could be anything but benefited by sanctioning gay marriage/civil unions.

In that spirit, here is a little poem I came across today:

[quote]The Gay Marriage Poem

There’s something sacred about the union
Of a married man and wife,
Which is doubtless why such bondings
Rarely lead to household strife;
Were we ever to acknowledge
Other pairings with no cavil,
Then our present social order
Would most certainly unravel.

Everything would then unravel,
There would be wild dissolution;
There is only one solution,
To amend the constitution!

Nothing’s wrong with gay relations
If they’re hidden in a closet,
Then its kind of like a secret
And we needn’t go dislodge it;
But when they get conventional
And want a lawful wedding,
And speak of loving openly,
Where is this country heading?

A loving, open, gay relation
Requires prosecution;
There is only one solution,
To amend the constitution!

I’m not saying that the government
Play at discrimination,
Except in cases where the issue
Involves fornication,
Or a woman’s ovulation,
Or preferred cohabitation,
Or on other matters sexual
On which I’ve a fixation.

In matters clearly sexual
We need a Fed intrusion;
There is only one solution,
To amend the constitution!

Copyright 2006 Michael Silverstein[/quote]

1762

[quote]forlife wrote:
Personally, I don’t care what they call it. If the fundamentalist right feels more “safe” by calling it a civil union that’s fine with me. As long as it receives -all- the same benefits (at the federal and state level), that is what matters to me.[/quote]

I would be against such a proposal, not based on religous principals however. If we are going to recognize anything outside of one man and one woman, then we will eventually have to recogize EVERYTHING outside of one man and one woman…

How does a homosexual relationship rate over any other sort of sexual relationship?

Answer: IT DOESN’T

Think about it.

1763

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Personally, I don’t care what they call it. If the fundamentalist right feels more “safe” by calling it a civil union that’s fine with me. As long as it receives -all- the same benefits (at the federal and state level), that is what matters to me.

I would be against such a proposal, not based on religous principals however. If we are going to recognize anything outside of one man and one woman, then we will eventually have to recogize EVERYTHING outside of one man and one woman…

How does a homosexual relationship rate over any other sort of sexual relationship?

Answer: IT DOESN’T

Think about it.[/quote]

Here we go with ZEB marrying his dog again…

1764

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Personally, I don’t care what they call it. If the fundamentalist right feels more “safe” by calling it a civil union that’s fine with me. As long as it receives -all- the same benefits (at the federal and state level), that is what matters to me.

I would be against such a proposal, not based on religous principals however. If we are going to recognize anything outside of one man and one woman, then we will eventually have to recogize EVERYTHING outside of one man and one woman…

How does a homosexual relationship rate over any other sort of sexual relationship?

Answer: IT DOESN’T

Think about it.

Here we go with ZEB marrying his dog again…

[/quote]

LOL…um…not me. But if you think someone else won’t try it think again.

Remember the mantra of the politically correct far left: There is no “wrong.” There is only what works for you.

1765

[quote]forlife wrote:
What we do care about is receiving equal rights under the law.[/quote]

And you have them.

What you want is “special rights” under the law.

1766

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, I’m curious why you don’t think society would benefit from gay marriage.

It is a given that gays will continue to be in relationships. For someone that is so concerned about the potential spreading of disease, why don’t you support legislation that would encourage stable commitments in the gay world? I honestly don’t see how society could be anything but benefited by sanctioning gay marriage/civil unions.
[/quote]

I hate to say this again, but we already talked about this. You asked almost the exact same question.

My answer went something like this:

Homosexuals have proven that they cannot have stable relationships on the whole.

I then gave you a survey taken from a gay magazine which demonstrated that even when homosexuals say that they are in a stable relationship that usually means cheating with someone else as a “built in” understanding.

In addition to this I supplied you with study after study after study which pointed out the dangers of anal sex (yes even with a condom). Hence, it might not be something that we as a nation should be promoting.

Now let me see…

Your next post should probably question the first study about how most (not all) homosexuals cannot be monogamous.

I will then post the study to prove you wrong.

You will then post that that study is not nearly sufficient to prove anything.

I will then post other similar studies to back it up.

Somewhere along the line you will compare homosexuals to African Americans and their struggle for equality.

Naturally I will remind you that that is race and not an act.

In the mean time others who are in favor of gay marriage will post that I am homophobic. To which I will ask them the definition of “homophobic.” As I am not afraid of homosexuals. I will also remind them that the word "homophobic’ was coined in order to silence anyone who might want to speak out against homosexual marriage or whatever…

And while that’s going on those who are against gay marriage will post something on the order of homosexuality being against nature, as many (gay people) have anal sex.

To which you will reply something on the order of “many heterosexuals have anal sex too…bla bla.”

I then will get out the medical stats on why anal sex is dangerous even with a condom…thin lining of the bowels and all.

Then at some point you will talk about all the many very very incredibly happy homosexual couples you know that just want a chance…

I of course will supply you with the many statistics which demonstrate that gays have a highe rate of anxiety, depression, suicide and most communicable disease.

You will blame the depression on the fact that society does not help them by accepting who they are.

I will show you that it is not society that has caused their depression, but their lifestyle that causes it.

You will disagree …

Oh I don’t know…

As Yogi Berra once said: This is just like dajavu all over again…

I got it, if you have a question for me simply scroll back through. The later pages have our best stuff.

We were the Hannity and Combs of the gay marriage thread…

1767

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So while I believe that a legal union different from marriage, but with all the same rights, meets their stated goals for same sex marriage, I don’t believe they would accept it.

I know a lot of gay people personally, and I have yet to meet someone who really cares whether or not fundamentalists consider homosexuality a sin. What we do care about is receiving equal rights under the law.[/quote]

You have to be more specific about exactly what rights you are talking about before I can answer.