[quote]Makavali wrote:
O RLY? You should brush up on what discrimination is. There used to be a time when black people couldn’t marry white people. But I guess that’s not discrimination either.[/quote]
32 pages in, and you aren’t getting any better.
Let’s back into it another way, assuming you don’t get distracted:
Recently, the federal government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ultimately gave those entities’ shareholders a big bucket of cash.
I have no shares in either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac - and I got none of the bucket of cash. I do have shares in other companies, though, but none of the other companies got a cash infusion.
Was I discriminated against, based on your definition? If not, why not?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
No…YOU should brush up on the legal definition of discrimination. BB and Thunder have already schooled you and the others just scroll back and pick up what you obviousuly missed.[/quote]
Not allowing someone to do something because of their sexuality is discrimination. No?
I don’t believe for a second that being gay is a lifestyle choice. With all the negative stigma, it would have been weeded out years ago if this was the case.
Oh, I wish I was as smart and tolerant as you!
Yeah, GOOD LOOKING chicks. Those guys don’t seem like the stereotype of a good looking male to me. Why would any gay male want to see that sort of thing?
See above.
See further above.
Well at least we can agree on this. I’m not a fan of watching people hump on the main street either.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Well at least we can agree on this. I’m not a fan of watching people hump on the main street either.[/quote]
So, you are a bigot against exhibitionists?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
32 pages in, and you aren’t getting any better.
Let’s back into it another way, assuming you don’t get distracted:
Recently, the federal government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ultimately gave those entities’ shareholders a big bucket of cash.
I have no shares in either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac - and I got none of the bucket of cash. I do have shares in other companies, though, but none of the other companies got a cash infusion.
Was I discriminated against, based on your definition? If not, why not?[/quote]
Let’s not go there, because my opinion on the government bailing out failing companies is another thread entirely.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, you are a bigot against exhibitionists?[/quote]
I said I’m not a fan, not I’ll hunt them down with a court order or shotgun.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Let’s not go there, because my opinion on the government bailing out failing companies is another thread entirely.[/quote]
Oh, your answer matters - if, as a shareholder, I got treated differently, I got discriminated against. Right? Or wrong?
I’m not interested in whether you think bailing companies out is good or bad policy - I am asking if the federal government’s doing so amounted to your level of discrimination against me because a government policy treated me differently than it did someone else.
Should be easy - take a Ritalin, bear down, and concentrate.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I said I’m not a fan, not I’ll hunt them down with a court order or shotgun.[/quote]
But do you support laws that outlaw public nudity or lewd acts on public property?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But do you support laws that outlaw public nudity or lewd acts on public property?[/quote]
Is it harming anyone? If it is, then by all means, ban it. That’s why I going to assume we prosecute for indecent exposure.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Is it harming anyone? If it is, then by all means, ban it. That’s why I going to assume we prosecute for indecent exposure.[/quote]
Cop out, enough with the abstractions - what is your belief? Do you support such laws?
Amateur hour is over, Makavali - you’ve had 32 pages to come up with someone articulate and novel. It’s now or never.
What abstraction? There needs to be a clear reason for making the act illegal. Give me one.
Me and everyone else who said that marriage was not a fundamental right were wrong. The Supreme Court HAS recognized the right to marry as fundamental in both Zablocki and less overtly in Griswold. So, if the constitutionaly of gay marriage is ever determined by the Supreme Court, they’ll have to decide that the marriage is between a man and a woman to find bans constitutional. (or find that bans on gay marriage are the only way to meet a compelling government interest)
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What abstraction? There needs to be a clear reason for making the act illegal. Give me one.[/quote]
I see. More of your distractions.
I am not proposing we enact such laws - the laws are already in effect, and have been since the birth of the country. That is why your proposal is an abstraction - we don’t need to “make the act illegal” - it already is.
So, do you support repeal of those laws?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, do you support repeal of those laws?[/quote]
No. It’s been established that exposing children to that sort of thing can be damaging.
Someone brought up a good point earlier — why are the traditions of other people sacred but the traditions of americans not? Marriage is traditionally between a man and woman here, no? If it is anyone but americans, then their traditions are to be honored and respected. That is wrong.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No. It’s been established that exposing children to that sort of thing can be damaging.[/quote]
Oh, baloney - that is just an antiquated, outdated notion of sexuality. Hey, there is nothing unnatural about sex, or nudity for that matter, so why reinforce all these outdated taboos with children?
Sound familiar?
You are denying their right to “equality” - you are treating different classes of people differently only to reinforce an outdated prudish taboo. This is your own standard.
Thanks for the laugh, Makavali.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, do you support repeal of those laws?
No. It’s been established that exposing children to that sort of thing can be damaging.
But exposing them to two hairy men humping each other is perfectly natural?[/quote]
They would not be exposed to that. I cannot really believe that people can honestly compare a private consensual relationship in the privacy of a home with walking around naked in public for everyone 4 yr old to see. We do have too much of prurient attitidue towards sex in this country but some boundaries are appropriate. Young children really should not be exposed to the sexuality of others whether homosexual or heterosexual. and they’re not. Public sodomy has been found illegal. For that matter, public indecency (heterosexual sex in a public place) may be prohibited too. And is in many places.