Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood

[Manedwolf]

The nastier and uglier the homosexual-agenda sorts get, the more they expose the intolerant sorts of people they are, the bigger the backlash will be.

[Racehorse]

If they wanna scream let 'em scream, as long as they aren't getting violent it's their right.

Agreed.

It seems that the church is getting butthurt that their support of prop 8 is getting them flak from the people who oppose it. Imagine that!...Oh the irony.

Actually, I think you have it wrong. I don't think the church is surprised at all about getting flak, and I don't think most members of the LDS church care at all about it. The church asking for civility in disagreement is not ironic, as the church was very civil and polite in its call for support of prop 8.

But again, I don't think many in the church are surprised by the actions of the protesters, or even much bothered by them either. As a mormon myself, I know I don't care, and I haven't talked to anyone who does.

[Kwelz]

So is this Homosexual Agenda as evil as the Black Agenda from a few Decades back?  :rolleyes:

Every group has it's freaks.  During the Civil rights movement you had people like the Black Panthers, but you also had people like Martin Luther King.  I see the current situation as very similar to the Civil rights movement.  A group of people wanting the same rights as everyone else and other groups tying to deny those rights.  The reasons given range from Religious (which should have no standing in government policy) to some strange idea that it would have a negative impact on social order. 

Eventually the Gay rights movement will win out.  Many people will scream and yell that it is the end of things as we know it and eventually people will look back on this time as we do the 60s.  As a time when bigotry against a class of person started to die out and we moved past ignorant and baseless opinions of people. 

There will be groups on both sides that step out of line.  Heck there already have been, but to say that the entire gay rights movement is going to erupt into violence has no standing.  Although I will say that at this point I could not blame them if many of them lost their cool. 

And finally lets not forget that their fight is a lot closer to our fight than many people on either side would like to admit. 

[roo_ster]

'The homosexuals'?

So this is somehow the fault of 'the homosexuals'?

In the same way passage of Prop 8 was the fault of 'the blacks.'

[roo_ster]

Eventually the Gay rights movement will win out. 

Not necessarily. (Assuming, for the sake of current debate, your definitions of "rights.")

Nearly every culture* has such a large antipathy for homosexual behavior, it may be a non-cultural, non-environmental trait.  Meaning, antipathy to such activity may be genetic** in origin and could only for short times, using force, be "accepted" as on par with heterosexual relationships.

IOW, such antipathy may be as "bigoted" as is sympathy for children is "bigoted."


* The contemporary homosexual adoption of Hellenic culture as homosexual-friendly is only half right.  Greeks despised woman-kind and had an equal disdain for men who played the part of the woman in their homosexual relationships.

** The evidence for this is about as solid (shaky, IOW) as the claims of genetic causation of homosexual activity.  Except it has a larger sample set over a much longer time.

[Manedwolf]

Eventually the Gay rights movement will win out. 

Like it did in ancient Greece?

And how did that turn out? Oh, right. Slippery slope. Ever see those attic vases with a bearded man courting a young boy?

And finally lets not forget that their fight is a lot closer to our fight than many people on either side would like to admit. 

Nope. Sorry, I like women and only women. And I think marriage as a societal institution is worth preserving. Their radical agenda has nothing to do with anything I want. In fact, it's diametrically opposed to what I want.

Lots of people from teens up through twenties and up the entire age scale feel as I do as well, so your side is not going to "win" anything, especially if you keep obnoxiously pushing hard enough to cause backlashes, especially if your "pride" parades are nothing but "squick the mundanes" freakshows of bondage, sadism and masochism on public streets.

Deal. 

(BTW, some people need to look into the extremely gay-friendly Provincetown, where their so-called friendly gays angrily shout "breeder" at straight families with children. As if that were a slur.)

[Kwelz]

As I said there are extremist on both sides of any issue.  But if you are denying that the Gay rights movement and the Pro 2A movement don't have similar end goals then I guess you don't think people who support the 2nd Amendment support Freedom for everyone, Just themselves. 
I am as put off by "Gay Pride" parades as anyone.  TO me they seem to be about just trying to shock people and nothing else. 

And for the record you keep saying Your and yours.  I am not gay, or even bi.  I just feel that all people have the right to love and be with whomever they want, I think the distinction of sexual orientation is archaic and outdated.  Freedom is freedom, be it the freedom to own whatever firearm we want or to share in all the same benefits with our souse.  Since I don't believe in a god of any type I don't feel that church should play any part in a government sanctioned marriage.  They are two separate albeit similar things. 

And finally, the slippery slope argument does not hold.  People who prey on children are not the same as people who wish to be with someone of the same sex.  And of the Homosexual people I know not a single one would condone anyone trying to have a relationship with a child.  I often see the slippery slope argument used but it holds no water here.  There is no coloration between two consenting adults having a relationship and society accepting pedophiles and predators. 

Set aside religious reasons and there is not a single practical reason why Same Sex relationships are even an issue. 

[Iain]

Like it did in ancient Greece?

And how did that turn out? Oh, right. Slippery slope. Ever see those attic vases with a bearded man courting a young boy?

What is it about this issue that turns everyone into a moron?

Dear god, this thread is insane.

[Kwelz]

What is it about this issue that turns everyone into a moron?

Dear god, this thread is insane.

Agreed.  I am out on this one.  LOL. 

[Manedwolf]

What is it about this issue that turns everyone into a moron?

Dear god, this thread is insane.

Oh, SORRY. I'm not SEX POSITIVE ENOUGH for you, I guess.

[Iain]

Yeah that's it.

Or I was pointing out the sheer nonsense of "oh noes teh gayz, they want us all to be peedos". Nonsense, breath taking inanity, which I'm sure someone will be along to defend.

SO, I'm with Kwelz, I'll take my apparently 'sex positive' self out of this thread.

[MechAg94]

Iain, why don't you show us how smart you are then?  Kwelz at least tried to put his view point out there instead of simply insulting everyone. 

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, SORRY. I'm not SEX POSITIVE ENOUGH for you, I guess.

No, for one thing, I don't think your position is sufficiently sex positive.

Let me address what you said first

And how did that turn out? Oh, right. Slippery slope. Ever see those attic vases with a bearded man courting a young boy? [/uote]

The fact is, Greeks had a vastly different perception of 'childhood' than we do. They believed, say, 15-year-olds to be capable of sexual consent (consider Harmodius and Aristogeiton). They also had a different perception of sexual consent - as the myth of Atalanta proves, they thought a rape victim shares the blame for a rape.

Our society does not believe that, and therefore the notion that it will suddenly start accepting child rape because it accepts gay sex is a bit bogus.

There is, as I point out many times in this forum, a line between consensual sex, no matter how perverse, and non-consensual sex. Trying to blur the line in any direction is morally disgusting, whether it is NABMLA doing this, or leftist feminists, or whoever.

Note that there are quite advanced Western societies out there that allow gay marriage and are tolerant of gays, and none of these horrors you speak of have come to be. I remind you New Hampshire recognizes gay civil unions, and so does most of Europe. I somehow don't see Switzerland becoming a moral abyss where pedophiles run rampant, or Iceland, to that end.

[Manedwolf]

No, for one thing, I don't think your position is sufficiently sex positive.

Let me address what you said first

And how did that turn out? Oh, right. Slippery slope. Ever see those attic vases with a bearded man courting a young boy? [/uote]

The fact is, Greeks had a vastly different perception of 'childhood' than we do. They believed, say, 15-year-olds to be capable of sexual consent (consider Harmodius and Aristogeiton). They also had a different perception of sexual consent - as the myth of Atalanta proves, they thought a rape victim shares the blame for a rape.

Our society does not believe that, and therefore the notion that it will suddenly start accepting child rape because it accepts gay sex is a bit bogus.

There is, as I point out many times in this forum, a line between consensual sex, no matter how perverse, and non-consensual sex. Trying to blur the line in any direction is morally disgusting, whether it is NABMLA doing this, or leftist feminists, or whoever.

Note that there are quite advanced Western societies out there that allow gay marriage and are tolerant of gays, and none of these horrors you speak of have come to be. I remind you New Hampshire recognizes gay civil unions, and so does most of Europe. I somehow don't see Switzerland becoming a moral abyss where pedophiles run rampant, or Iceland, to that end.

New Hampshire only allows gay "civil unions" because the freaking liberals who took over the Senate shoved it through WITHOUT A PUBLIC VOTE in their continual attempts to make us into Massachusetts North. That is NOT going to stand once the backlash against the liberals starts.

Do me a favor and stop talking about where I live like you know much about it. Because you don't. You're over there. I live here.

[doczinn]

OK, time for a reality check:

- The only reason gays want what is currently called "marriage" is because of the benefits and privileges that go along with it.

- Since these involve things other people do for you or give to you, it cannot be considered a right by gays any more than by straights.

- "Marriage" as currently defined by the government is special treatment.

- Thus you have the rich irony of gays demanding equal special treatment.

GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.

[Desertdog]

I remind you New Hampshire recognizes gay civil unions,

I do believe that if you check the CA civil laws you will find that gay civil unions are legal, even were before the judges said that gay "marriages" were legal.  I guess a civil union isn't good enough.

[freakazoid]

Like it did in ancient Greece?

And how did that turn out? Oh, right. Slippery slope. Ever see those attic vases with a bearded man courting a young boy?

Well why don't we just take it a step further and ban sex then, after all sex will only lead to gay sex which will only lead to accepting pedophilia.  

Oh and,

[RaspberrySurprise]

I always find it funny that some people somehow think that allowing gays to "marry" will somehow turn everyone gay and make all the straight people get divorced. I'd really like to see someones justification on how allowing same sex couples equal protection under the law for equal hoops jumped through as heterosexual couples. I don't care what you call it, but everyone deserves equal protection under the law. Marriage is not what brings people together to form families and raise children. Biology and love do that. You could destroy marriage and people would still form groups to raise and care for children, if we didn't then the species would die out. If you need legislation to perpetuate the species then its all ready too late.

[MicroBalrog]

Do me a favor and stop talking about where I live like you know much about it. Because you don't. You're over there. I live here.

You stated that societies that recognize gay unions/marriages will degrade into accepting pedophilia.

I point out that there's LOADS of  modern societies where gay unions/marriages are legally accepted. Nowhere in those societies is pedophilia considered socially acceptable.

Do not try to distract from my point by pointing out my geographical location (Interestingly, Israel recognizes gay civil unions performed outside the country. Strangely we do not have pedophiles running through the streets).