Which is as I’ve pointed out before, exactly the way Joe bigot, looks at gays and HIV.
One less queer to contend with.
What a stinking pile of crap. Sodomy and adultery remain illegal in many states. I’m breaking the law by getting a hummer from a girl, or having anal sex with her, and as has been demonstrated these laws do get enforced?
So let me ask your for a third time: Did this happen to you? Have you been subject to arrest in your own home for having sex with your boyfriend?
And if you haven’t (which seems to be a sure thing from your reluctance to answer,) then how worried are you about it?
It seems to me from a statistical standpoint that you were more likely to be hit by lightning.
Straight men get these blue laws enforced against them, too as Wring points out.
So what exactly is your special perspective here?
You’re the one telling other people to get a clue, and claiming a privileged perspective, but I don’t think you can demonstrate it.
Personally, I happen to think you’re of sterner psychological makeup then to be terrorized by this multi-million to one possibility of being victimized by these silly laws.
I am thinking that you do not have the perspective you claim that justifies your taking joy in another’s misfortune. I am thinking that your action shows no compassion consideration or good taste.
You are nothing more than the sum of the things you do as far as anybody besides yourself is concerned so I fail to see the difference.
What they do and how they act is completey within their control. They have no control over your acts or your comments merely by making the comments they make.
Of course! If you weren’t so bent on being inhuman and ranting you would’ve noticed that’s my point. Don’t you have responsibility all of your own for your comments?
Got that right. You are demonstrating that you are a mean, spiteful, petty individual very much like you believe the person’s death you are celebrating was.
Granted. And, pray tell, how does this give you license to be completely inhuman?
Actually, you’re not. A human being has control over himself. IIRC, you made that assertion just above.
My social conditioning doesn’t take precedence. My desire to be a decent person does. That desire is something I willfully inculcate in myself.
You come off like others in this thread who think we either have to be Mother Theresa or come off like Malcolm X or Louis Farakkhan if we do not.
Why don’t you gain your jollies again at Walmart where you can feel superior at the expense of others, take offense at the shoppers so you can report it here, and be annoyed that some handicapped people who shop there have nice cars.
Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but apparently you have no problem seeing into the depths of my being, taking my full measure as a human being and pronouncing judgement.
Be sure and use your superpowers only for good, ok?
So you’ve never thought to yourself “Damn, that’s one morbid sonuvabitch. His joy at Matthew Shephard’s death is just wrong and really off-kilter. That’s just wrong and he should can it.”
Instead, you’ve thought “Well, he’s a hateful bastard but that’s his right.” and shrugged and went back to your Rice Crispies or whatever it was you were doing?
I find that odd. But, whatever. Go ahead and feel how you want to feel. I still think it’s wrong to be happy about someone being dead. There’s a level of solemness I have that he’s gone because I think he was so wrong and could have used his position in government to do some good, but squandered it on being a dick. I’m sad that he was elected and held office for so long because he was that very kind of dick. I’m even annoyed thinking that there are people seriously mourning him becasue they thought he was just the bee’s knees. But happy? Nope, don’t have it in me.
Your Mileage Obviously Varies. Isn’t it delightful that we can all express ourselves so freely?
Again, you cast me in a light of being some rage fueled person who doesn’t read anything said by others. I think that the converse is the case. You and others seem to read my words and gobear’s and are hellbent to correct us on what we should feel and how we should express it.
Your words ascribe that not only are my words not valid, but neither is my humanity.
All because you and a few others say so.
I have control over myself. I can also admit where I am wrong when I see it as I did earlier in this thread.
I am not ranting, and a decent person would stop attempting to convert another to their point of view once it is put to them that they are not agreed with. This makes you little different than the door to door proselytizer who keeps going at the same person because they think that sometime they will get through and convert another.
This is not a respect for difference.
Thurmond was not a person who simply didn’t respect difference, but used his position to legislate against difference, and used his station to speak out against difference.
Comparing any gay person to him because we are glad he is dead is vile and slanderous.
Of course Phelps’ words piss me off. No, I’ve never thought he should be silenced. I’ve not thought Limbaugh, Buchanan, or Dobson should be silence either, no matter how loathesome I feel they are.
If I expect to at least maintain a right to free speech, I cannot stand against the rights of others to speak. What I must do is to stand against their words.
Free speech is one of the most important rights we have, IMHO.
Mockingbird, can you at least appreciate why some people find it wrong to be happy thst another person is dead? I’m trying to understand the “dead = happy” equation, and the closest I can get is “dead = sigh of relief”. I think that’s probably about as close as I think I’m going to get. I’m just asking because I want to know if you even see where your oposition is coming from. It’s not that you should be sad, but “happy” and “celebrating” are just such strong words.
And Monty is doing a fine job performing a self righteous mental masturbation session, trying to passs it off as civil discourse about the deportment of others.
You posit your concept of being human, your concept of everythinmg you’ve stated is superior to mine.
Who here is not listening?
I’ve read what you’ve said and responded.
I see you bringing forth only criticism and condemnation.
Return to your Thoreau. Walden didn’t even truly exist for him. He wasn’t in isolation with his parents home only a stone’s throw away.
Similarly, to tell me I have no right to my perception and expression in light of your words on here have a ring of the same ludicrous paradox. I doubt you even see it.
I criticize the very act of dancing in the streets to rejoice in someone’s death as though you are one of the crowd in A Christmas Carol celebrating Ebeneezer Scrooge’s demise.
I condemn inhumanity.
I haven’t told you you don’t have the right to your perception.
I have shown you, and you ignore it, that your perception is invalid.
Scylla even did a wonderful job of paraphrasing one of Jesus’ commands to humanity. And I bet you don’t even understand that either.
I can appreciate others do not feel the same. I do not say, recommend, or demand that they feel the same or join in.
What I do see is condemnation of feeling this way, how terrible a person is to feel this way, and an attempt to correct me and others who’ve expressed the same feeling.
I do not see others treating difference with respect, which is great if they want to honor the memory of Strom Thurmond by upholding his standard of keeping the minority view down.
Strom’s death is not something that makes me happy, it makes me fucking happy and elated.
So, unless it’s happened to you personally you’re not allowed to have strong feelings about it? I doubt that’s really your position. You seem to be suggesting that even tho statutes exist RE: sexual practices the fact they’re rarely prosecuted mean you shouldn’t be concerned about it.
I disagree.
Point one: I’ve heard pro-gay politicians lambasted for being supportive of “criminals, since anal sex is against the law” sort of stuff. (mostly in letters to the editor, so no opportunity to link).
Point two: the case got to the Supremes’ 'cause it was used. and in a classic case wherin there wasn’t any other illegal thing going on (IOW, nothing like while executing a legitimate search warrent for drug dealing, they came across the guys having sex).
POint three: If the law is indeed on the books, it can provide a chilling concern for folks even while knowing that it’s rarely used. So, in fact if the law is on the books, gobear and co are indeed, and in fact “Subject to arrest” for having sex w/their boyfriends. (‘subject to’ being the operative phrase).
re: the OP in general: I understand those who feel some sense of relief for the death of Strom. I think both sides here are exagerrating the other’s POV, I don’t really see much “Dancing on the grave”, as much as “glad he’s gone”, while noting the timing. And I don’t see the other side as “Pro Strom” as much as “Why celebrate some old geezer’s death?”
Are you dense man? Yes, it clearly does. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with it. But when your original criteria was “respect all humans” one would expect a cetain sort of consistency to that principle. Now we find that, well, we should respect all humans except when DCU lets us know that it’s okay not to.