Amen, that’s my whole point! I do see it all as the same thing. People are people. Why are we all placed in some kind of “category”?
Hhhmmmmm, I don’t know of too many ways the government view people differently, but I know it’s much harder to fire someone if they are homosexual, if that’s what you mean…
Yeah, and I may learn something too… I do not have that luxury, but I will try to find the curriculum, and some of the texts used.
Esprix:
Again, it is her pathetic opinion, nothing more. If people are willing to listen there is nothing we should be doing about it, certainly not trying to ban her. This is the kind of nonsense that can turn around and bite all of us in the ass. She is not inciting riots or preaching violence, she has a right to speak. Speak out against it, voice your opinion, but even better ignore her. Don’t give her the publicity.
Yup, still am. I’m a rational person living in irrational times. Seriously, yes. Had to leave the homeland to escape persecution, believe it or not.
Funny, that’s exactly how my wife puts it. But I’m not sure why you make the comment - is there some other difference you want to tell me about between homosexuals and heterosexuals, other than same sex or opposite sex partners? I truly do not know of any.
Yes, the Gay Games did not get to use the name “Olympics”, but the “gay community” was after that name (and made a BIG stink about it, to the point where the Olympic committee left S.F. off the list of cities to be considered). The Special Olympics is for athletes who are disabled, and can not compete in the regular Olympics. Men’s and Womens basketball should be combined if the pay is at the same level. What stops gay athletes from competing in the Olympics? Nothing!! What stops gay atheletes from performing as well as non-gays? Nothing! And nothing should, that’s my point. Fight to be included, don’t fight for special status on the basis of being gay. Do you see? Being gay is no basis for anything.
A friend of mine just e-mailed this to me today and I couldn’t stop laughing! I’ll post it here since it has to do with Dr. Laura.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it
suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while
she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.
15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination(Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
I’d like to add one more to this list…somewhere in Deuteronomy (sorry, don’t remember the exact chapter and verse) it says men with crushed testicles can’t get into heaven. Explain THAT one!
I sincerely doubt that any words of mine will clarify matters, but that hasn’t stopped me yet…
I loathe “Dr.” Laura and hold her in deepest contempt. It isn’t based on her beliefs–which I do not share–but rather her hypocrisy. Awful as it is, honest people hold purely horrifying beliefs. “Dr.” Laura does not fall into the category of honorable enemy.
She is, to be blunt, a cheap, hypocritical opportunist who has chosen to prostitute, warp and glitz her hate in a conveniently saleable package that degrades her purported values as much as it does her supporters.
True fact: she’s a divorced media-hound, estranged from her own family, who stripped down and posed spread naked and then lied–systematically–about her own actions, motivations, weaknessess and humanity.
For bucks, fame and adulation she has perverted Judaic tradition, common decency, honesty and integrity for hate that sells. She’s the ultimate, obscene spin-meister who degrades the medium she exploits. The callers/listeners may be idle, curious, or needy, but they have a right to expect a certain degree of professionalism from that Voice.
“Dr.” Laura had every chance in the world to teach, but she chose to warp Judaism for her own cynical ends. No faith is immune from opportunism and exploitation.
Simply put, to call “Dr.” Laura a hypocrite is to flatter her. The greatest defeat is to be given the chance for the greatest good and to choose evil instead.
I honestly believe that she will ultimately be judged by her own words and actions. But in the meantime, as an individual, I stand heels dug in, jaw-out, pissed off and just as verbal pissed off in opposition to the hypocrite.
Someone who renounces past practices, then establishes and adheres to new standards does not fit the definition of ‘hypocrite.’ AFAIK, Dr. Laura has never been caught ‘en flagrante’ in a lesbian encounter, either.
Though you may loathe her personally, and find her opinions odious, you have to stretch to make the term ‘hypocrite’ apply.
You really need to go and read my “Ask The Gay Guy!” threads, as you seem to know little about how the gay community is treated in this country.
Ah, there’s a step in the right direction.
Allow me to point out that I’m not out to ban her per se, but rather to see that regulatory restrictions are placed even-handedly in the arena of the FCC. She has said things that in other contexts have gotten other broadcasters taken off the airwaves. My understanding that preaching hate is fairly unacceptable by FCC standards.
Have you ever felt out of place in your new home? Have you ever had the desire to be with other people who either share your homeland or have been through similar persecution? Have you ever felt the need to proclaim your triumph and be proud of your accomplishments and happiness?
Originally beaker wrote:
You responded:
This was what I was responding to. Call me silly, but I kinda thought human sexuality was about love, compassion, companionship, trust, humor, devotion, family, and, oh, did I mention love? If all you see is who is fucking whom, well, like I said, I pity your poor wife.
Boy, do you have your facts wrong. Got this little tidbit from jeffstryker.com:
Is that the “BIG stink” you’re talking about? Yeah, seems real “olympic spirit” to deny us and allow everyone else. :rolleyes: (There’s more information in the Gay Games timeline.)
Hmmm, well, by that reasoning, I suppose individual countries shouldn’t bother to compete amongst themselves - after all, they can all just go to the Olympics, right? I mean, who wants to get together with your fellow countrymen and get into a good, healthy competition to improve themselves and have a good time in the process? For the record, there are lots of gay athletes that perform in the Olympics, despite its predominantly homophobic atmosphere (in sports in general). Wouldn’t want anyone to feel out of place, now would we? Or, heaven forbid, discriminated against, eh? :rolleyes: And last time I checked, they didn’t allow same-sex ice skating competition, as referenced in the quote above. I’m not quite sure what planet you live on, but here on Earth, there’s a lot of homophobia in the world, and it’s not easy to be gay. Hanging out with my gay friends not only gives me a safe place to be myself without fear of reprisal, discrimination or violence is kinda nice. (Besides, it gives me a better chance for a date on Saturday night. ;)) Do I only associate with gay people? Of course not. But I consider them my community, just like the Asians in Chinatown, the blacks in the Methodist church around the corner and the women at the community center across town.
Well, it does have a little something to do with my love life…
To Anti Pro - I was unaware anyone else had posted the faux Dr. Laura letter anywhere on the Straight Dope board, much less “woodja” in MIPSIMS.
And even if I were aware of this - and how could I be, unless I read EVERY thread on EVERY subject? - there’s still a place for my post here because the letter was addressed to the person the thread is about.
Certainly not.
Incidentally, 90% of the human population is right-handed.
Therefore, left-handed people are biological errors.
I look forward to Dr. Shitslinger’s suggestions on how to cure them.
There is no reason for any “special” status. However, what is considered “special” status for homosexuals is considered basic rights for anyone else. Most states, stable gay couples cannot adopt. They cannot be legally married in any state but Hawaii. They had a big conference to decide that any gay marriage performed in Hawaii would not be recognized in any other state (normally, a marriage performed in one state is accepted in all). There have been proposed laws to make it legal to deny gays equal consideration to housing and make it alright to fire someone who is gay from their job when their orientation becomes known, especially if they’re teachers (after all, they might indoctrinate our children. “Think of the children.”). And these attempts are not from the dark ages of the 60’s and 70’s nor even the Reagan 80’s. And what’s this shit with the Army’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell?” (There has been a case of the services trying to track down someone gay in their ranks by searching their profile on the internet.)
So please don’t act like we all have the same rights so gays should stop asking for extra helpings! :rolleyes:
I can’t see any reason why Gays shouldn’t have exactly the same rights that everyone else does including the right to be married, the right to be heavily scrutinized for your lifestyle by an adoption agency and the right to fired if your boss doesn’t like you.
As for the latter issue, asking ot be a specially protected class is asking for right above those held by others.
Hmmm, really? By the time I started posting on message boards I found that the left-handed card had already become tired. So instead I like to use the “geniuses are deviants” card. I’ve grown rather fond of it in fact.
Actually, there are only bans against gay adoptions in two states, Utah and Mississippi. Though, I’m sure that it isn’t exactly easy to adopt in other states. Also, I read in a secondhand source that George W. Bush stated that he would propose legislation that would make the ban nationwide. He also implied that the ban would be retroactive (children already placed would be removed from the homes). Anyone know where and when he said this? It kinda sounds like something he’d say, but then again it sounds suspiciously like intentional bad spin by an anti-Bush group.
That came this close to being true (I lived in Hawaii at the time this was all unfolding). A lower court ruled that banning gay marriages was state sponsered gender discrimination which was illegal under then Hawaiian laws. It also decided that the state didn’t present a reasonable compelling interest for such a ban.
Then the Hawaiian citizens passed a state constitutional admendment that defined marriage as being between a man and woman. The State Supreme court then ruled that their hands were tied by the admendment, but they let the lower court ruling stand. This indicates they may have ruled in favor of a same-sex marriage.
There is no place in the United States that a same-sex couple can get a civil marriage (they’re allowed to get a religious marriage everywhere). However, Vermont now has a law allowing gays to enter into a Civil Union, which is very similar to a civil marriage. However, it is only good in Vermont and garners none of the Federal benefits of a marriage.
Tradesilicon stated that he didn’t see how the government treated gays differently. Marriage is a good example. Civil* marriages, supposedly, are meant to help the stabilty of the family and ease the job of raising a child. However, gay couples with children cannot get married. That’s looks like different treatment to me.
*Note: I’m talking civil marriage rather than religious marriage. So “God-Sanctioned Holy Matrimony” doesn’t apply.
As I’ve said in previous posts, I’m calling her a hypocrite because she apologized for her anti-gay comments, then turns around and plans a show on how to change them to straight (something she’s also said is possible on her show, and is an idea she promotes on her website, all of which flies directly in the face of all reputable psychological research). So, yes, IMHO, she’s a hypocrite.
How does one get “error” just because it is in the minority? Does that make, say, Filipinos “errors?” After all, there aren’t as many of them as there are Caucasians or Asians. I would accept “unusual” maybe, but not “error.”
Ah, now that would be a show.
Moe wrote:
No doubt you do, but as beaker pointed out, it doesn’t reflect well.
cleosia, as beaker pointed out, your facts are more than a bit off, but your heart’s in the right place. There are a bunch of threads (most of which are well off the first page of the forum lists) on gay rights, gay marriages, the Vermont decision, etc. If you do a search for “same sex marriage” here on the SDMB I’ll bet you’d get a lot of hits.
Mr.Zambezi wrote:
Yup, I agree, although I think anyone who got fired by their boss just because he didn’t like them would make a case out of it, be they gay, a woman, or a middle-aged white guy.
beakerxf wrote:
Really? I thought it was more than that, and I thought the numbers changed month to month as new legislation was passed and defeated in different states, but maybe I’m thinking of individual cities (I usually check this stuff daily through PlanetOut). Do you have a source cite for adoption laws as they currently stand?
I hadn’t heard this, but yeah, it sounds a little suspicious.
I have read that only two states specifically states “gays can’t adopt”. I think the Mississippi one was even more controversial because it wanted it to apply to adoptions made in other states. If you adopt elsewhere, move to Mississippi, whammo!, your kids are taken away. I don’t know if that feature made it into the final legislation.
However, I think if you examined the number of states that require a legal marriage or other such qualifications to adopt, the number of places where gays can’t adopt will be much higher.
Also, in all the European nations where gays can have partnership rights, they still can’t adopt. In fact, the laws prohibit invitro-infertilization for gays as well.
