Heh heh Kevington, just like World Net Daily 
I doubt many actually believed that.
But they can refuse cancer sufferers or sufferers of any other serious or life threatening disease. Why should aids be the only exception?
Why just two? Polygamy is accepted in some communties in the USA, and in some countries?
So what? It's irrelevant!
Will you actually provide a logical reason why two gay consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry each other or is this silly non sequitur all you got?
There is nothing wrong with people being gay, it doesn't cause me any physical or mental harm, so why should I care?
Regarding proposition 8, relatively the USA is still a very religious, old fashioned country in some ways, perhaps they should be careful that the dinoasaur doesn't become extinct.
But we must also be careful we don't go too far, what annoys me is that in this country many companies are forced to employ gay people and people of ethnic minorities just to tick the 'equal opportunities' boxes, regardless of wether said person has the skills to do the job, they have a better chance simply because of who they are, its segregation, but the other way round so that those who are white and straight suffer.
We had a case with a leading policeman who was from an ethnic minority who threw his toys out of the pram and claimed we were all racist just because he didn't get the promotion he wanted, in truth there were others who could do the job better than him regardless of race or orientation.
Jtbo would be pleased.
Regarding proposition 8, relatively the USA is still a very religious, old fashioned country in some ways, perhaps they should be careful that the dinoasaur doesn't become extinct.
But we must also be careful we don't go too far, what annoys me is that in this country many companies are forced to employ gay people and people of ethnic minorities just to tick the 'equal opportunities' boxes, regardless of wether said person has the skills to do the job, they have a better chance simply because of who they are, its segregation, but the other way round so that those who are white and straight suffer.
We had a case with a leading policeman who was from an ethnic minority who threw his toys out of the pram and claimed we were all racist just because he didn't get the promotion he wanted, in truth there were others who could do the job better than him regardless of race or orientation.
Jtbo would be pleased.
Hmm, well this is all very interesting, but, no one seems to have noticed that a particular Mr Alien T seems to be having a few life issues at the moment. At the start of the thread he was a good old proppa Jock with a very cultivated, dry Scottish wit. But after a few too many whiskeys and having obviously read to many of the posts in this thread it would now appear that he's been turned into a rampant homosexual and has moved to a drug ladened coffee shop somewhere in Holland
You alright dude ?If you ever doubted a feeble and suggestive mind can be easily swayed, then there's yer proof right there.
But back on topic. It's quite clear that the term "a free and fair society" means different things to different people, and i guess it always will. We don't live in an ideal world, and i very much doubt we ever will. But it would be nice to reach a point where we don't judge and condem a person just because they have different 'tastes' to us. It would be nice if everyone just 'got on' with each other. Not that i'm against the odd argument here and there, but it would be nice if the human race could just grow up a bit. Unfortunately self righteous stupidity seems to always win over common sense and maturity.
Maybe god had a point when he sent that huge non-existant global flood back in the days of Noah. But like the complete tool that he is, he changed his mind and let a few of us survive. But just take a look at who it was he let live...Noah...a lazy good for nothing drunkard...is it any wonder we turned out the way we did.
I was in the playground at the National Railway Museum last weekend (that's a good 'Fun With Scissors' quote to take, right there) with my black nephew, who was playing with a little asian girl, whose grandmother was in a wheelchair. I was dumbfounded that no marketing people with cameras showed up.
Yo Jeff.. don't go confusing yourself. I think the US healthcare system sucks the big weiner en masse. I think it's disgusting that they are allowed to refuse ANYONE.
That isn't an issue about HIV over cancer, that's a core issue with your SOCIETY, that you find it acceptable to live in a society where poor people and old people are allowed to suffer and die when they could be so easily helped and saved. I'd go so far as to say that a society that ALLOWS ANY people to die from preventable illnesses is no society at all.
Our UK healthcare system isn't as efficient as it could be, but when my friend's child in Wisconsin dies from a birth defect because they can't raise the money needed to correct it through cake stalls and 4-way crossing collections, PURELY because the child was born in the US instead of a couple of hundred miles further north in Canada (or if it'd been born just about anywhere else in Europe or the modern/western world).. the US stinks like a 3rd-world country. But worse than that, when it could DO something about it and when it COULD afford to save that child's life, it chooses not to. Its people don't care enough about its neighbours to do something about it. Some society.
And your issue is that HIV sufferers get "special treatment", eh? I'm appalled.
What I find appalling is this ignorant & retarded yet doggedly persistent "AIDS = the gay plague" meme, which seems to have contributed to this situation with the insurance companies. And thinking this situation is the result of some kind of intervention by the "gay agenda" in the first place is pure paranoia - the kind of irrational fear the Bush team have been feeding and feeding on for 8 years. Just sounds like Rush Limbaugh in between mouthfuls of cheap generic Cialis.
This thread needs some more Brasseye.
You still didn't respond to my point about aids being the only disease that insurance companies can't screen for in some states. At the time, it was clearly part of what was perceived as a "gay agenda".
I don't. Many people in the USA have been indoctrinated to be paranoid of "socialism", but it's obvious that the current system needs to be fixed. It's my belief that an economic system based on greed is bound to have issues because there are a sufficient number of people unbounded by common morals or ethics willing to make a buck regardless of the consequences to others.
And it's not just economics. The lack of ethics by a few in a free society cause other issues. For example, the lack of ethics of some doctors and women deal with abortion as if it were a form of birth control, even beyond the point where a baby would survive after being removed from the mother (7 to 9 months). Instead of doing a c-section operation to deliver a viable baby, these abortions involve drilling a hole into the babies head and sucking it's brains out, then inducing labor, and it's nearly impossible to pass laws against these type of abortions. Still all of this is off topic and belongs in another thread.
Getting back on topic, both people and societies have a sense of "right" and "wrong". I don't know if it's innate, learned, or indoctrinated, but behaviors end up being considered moral, indifferent, or immoral. Considering that most in the USA consider a gay lifestyle either abnormal and/or immoral, I think the treatment has been more than fair, with benefits like domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Again, part of the concept of a free USA is for communities, counties, and states to self-govern, based on local standards, which includes morality based laws, such as "dry counties" (no sales of public alcohol) in some counties of Texas. The USA allows morality based laws, most of which are vice laws. Generally, as long as the laws apply to behaviors and not beliefs, and not in conflict with federal laws regarding those behaviors, they are legal in the USA.
Well, aint that laughable.
In Latin, this fallacious reasoning is called argumentum ad populum or "argument from popularity". However, that an apparent "majority" (sources on that, please) think something is so doesn't actually make it so. A majority of people used to "know" that the Earth was flat and six thousand years old and that it was ok to trade humans like animals, but anyone who proclaims such nonsense these days is, rightly, pointed & laughed at by reasonable people. If argumentum ad populum is the best you've got in your arsenal, pack up and go home. "Morality" and especially "normality" aren't decided by popular vote.
The question of homosexuality being a "lifestyle", as if it's some kind of conscious choice like a political affiliation, is another shining beacon of ignorance which really deserves every bit of scorn it gets. My gay friends & neighbours didn't choose to like men any more than I chose to like women.
And if these charmingly-named "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" are "more than fair" why is there such opposition to gay people just getting married and being able to call it a marriage? If gay people already have the same rights as me when it comes to a commitment, why can't they just say they're married? It pisses me off that my friends & neighbours were born with exactly the same rights as me - until the state learned they were gay and had some of those birthrights taken away (or just flatly refused to include gay people as "people" under their laws). Now gay people have to protest and form political entities and sign petitions & basically fight like hell to get their rights back. How the **** is that more than fair?
America just voted No on McCain; with any luck it'll be No on Prop 8 too.
How is morality or normality determined then? Serious question I'd like to learn your take on it.
We're still talking about California here so i'll keep on topic. People have written in this thread about the 'sanctity of marriage', but either don't understand it or consider it to be just another conservative catch-phrase. I'd like to explain it a little better.
I'm white. Lets pretend for a moment that i go around the state, speaking at rallies, fundraising dinners, etc. saying that I am, in fact, Black. I tell black people the world over that I am one of them. Obviously, I am describing myself as something I'm not. Black people would be very angry. they would say, "This guy isn't black. It offends me on a personal level that this man is calling himself black because we are obviously different." I am violating the sanctity of being black.
Maybe race is a bad analogy, it is far too open to criticism.
Lets say that I am a raging H-core conservative and I go around the state telling people about the horrors of jihadist islam, the necessity of abstinance, etc. I tell everyone that I am a democrat, and that democrats stand with me in solidarity to support my causes. Democrats would be pissed. They would say, "we don't support this. This is against everything we believe in." I am violating the sanctity of being a liberal.
I'm not being too vague, you see what I'm getting at.
Gay people calling themselves married is offensive to married couples especially because to them, including homosexuality to the term marriage tarnishes the sanctity of the term just like a white person claiming to be black. That is why it is all in a word. I am not black, I am not a liberal, and gay couples are not 'married'.
lets define the phrase 'Gay Agenda' while we're at it, because it seems to be a source of contention. The gay agenda is the name given to the fight for special rights for gay people. The agenda mimics the Black and women's civil rights movements in that it will eventually lead to more rights for gay people than for everyone else. The gay agenda pushes for affirmative action to apply to them. If they apply for a job with the same qualifications as a straight person and don't get the job, the gay agenda fights for their right to sue the employer for discrimination. If a gay person writes a college essay that is a homosexual manifesto and then doesn't get in, the gay agenda fights for their right to sue to college for discrimination so that they get into the college not out of merit, but because of affirmative action.
It may seem far-fetched but that is the condition of affirmative action today. I am 1/8th native american, so my college advisor told me to include that on my applications because statistics show I will be more likely to get in. Minorities are regularly accepted to colleges like Stanford and Harvard with grades and extracurricular activities that are far below those of an accepted white or asian student. People may not be afraid of or even particularly care what gay people do, but they are afraid of yet another group getting on the affirmative action bandwagon and getting special treatment that puts them at an advantage.
Are you calling me a gay, alcaholic, stereotypical depressed Scotsman with a drug problem? Let me tell you mate if you had red hair and wore a tartan skirt wouldn't you be?
Oh and I was supposed to be flying to Holland yesterday for a job interview, but the flight from Aberdeen got cancelled due to bleedin fog........so I went to the bar instead.
The Obama factor of high voter turnout, especially with minorities, which tend to be more religious, may be the deciding factor in prop 8 passing. This has been mentioned on several local news channels. The similar prop 2 in Florida and prop 102 in Arizona already passed. Prop 8 is currently ahead at 52% or so with about 71% of the votes, but due to which areas the votes haven't been counted yet, it's too close to call.
Although Florida's prop 2 and Arizona's prop 102 are essentially the same as California's prop 8, prop 2 and prop 102 weren't expected to be close, and didn't get much attention. So far, about 25 states have already passed similar constitutional amendments, so this year's election grows the list to 28 states. 20 other states define marriage as between a man and woman, but not as amendments to their consitutions.
You do realize that agenda means a set of goals or topics?
I've heard way too many people (predominantly Americans, and if my memory serves me right mostly from people who will stoop so low as to identify themselves completely with a political party of all things) using the word "agenda" as both implying a negative thing and as if it describes a cabal, a coven, a cult or some other nefarious gathering of people scheming in the dark. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's been used as a catch phrase and has lost it's meaning completely.
****ing dark age waste of ****ing space we should just nuke the country from orbit right now. I can't believe the shit i'm reading about me, it's all bollocks.
Question: Have you ever filled in an application form for a job that asked you a question about your homosexuality?
I'm gay, I have never been asked at interview about my sexuality. I've never even been asked to mention which country i'm from, if anything most jobs would assume i'm straight & white & English. I am white yes, the rest I could tick quota boxes but you know what, i've never been asked.
You have not been asked either, so stop making this crap up.
The whole gay agenda over AIDS thing, I wasnt there but if I had to guess I would imagine that straight people with AIDS where sick and tired of the stigma of having a gay disease, because they where getting the prejudice of being called gay - and living in a society where being gay isn't tolerated.
I'm making that up of course, truth is I just dont know why some states in America refuse to help people who are ill because I live in a country where we take care of those who need help. But the argument raised was also done so without providing supporting evidence - sorry, it was "AIDS is a gay disease" as evidence.
AIDS is not a gay disease. Infact as a lesbian I am less likely to get AIDS than you - where I say 'less likely' what I meen is there is of course always a chance I could get AIDS making love to a woman with AIDS - but as a lesbian the chance is so remote that even if she was my life long partner i'd be unlikely to catch it. How is that a gay disease?
Sure gay men are as suspeptible to it as any straight man or woman, but that doesnt make it a gay disease.
So thank you for treating me as a second class citizen. You know if I was still head honcho at the CTRA I could be tempted to award half point to all Americans on the ground that you are second class citizens to me... Would that be fair? No. But I could justify it by presenting an unethical moral code and quote twisted propaganda and falsehoods at you. It wouldnt be fair to you, but I could convince myself it was fair.
If you voted yes to proposition 8 then I hate you, I have no choice but to hate you because I am gay and i'm not ashamed of it and I will fight for my right to be treated as an equal.
I'm not asking for more, i'm not asking for employment quotas. What i'm asking for is removal of discriminatory laws.
I'm not asking for this other shit you acuse me off.
I just want to be recognised as a person, with all the rights that any person can expect.
Yet you stand there and blazenly deny me to my face - and you expect me to regard you as a Human being?
Bastards, you dont even ****ing deserve me to spit on you, let alone hold discourse.
I can't believe you are not ashamed of how far you are stuck in the ****ing dark ages.
I wish you'd die, I really do. And if I get the chance to assist in that i'll be the first queued up there to deal out the death.
Fascist wankers.
Question: Have you ever filled in an application form for a job that asked you a question about your homosexuality?
I'm gay, I have never been asked at interview about my sexuality. I've never even been asked to mention which country i'm from, if anything most jobs would assume i'm straight & white & English. I am white yes, the rest I could tick quota boxes but you know what, i've never been asked.
You have not been asked either, so stop making this crap up.
The whole gay agenda over AIDS thing, I wasnt there but if I had to guess I would imagine that straight people with AIDS where sick and tired of the stigma of having a gay disease, because they where getting the prejudice of being called gay - and living in a society where being gay isn't tolerated.
I'm making that up of course, truth is I just dont know why some states in America refuse to help people who are ill because I live in a country where we take care of those who need help. But the argument raised was also done so without providing supporting evidence - sorry, it was "AIDS is a gay disease" as evidence.
AIDS is not a gay disease. Infact as a lesbian I am less likely to get AIDS than you - where I say 'less likely' what I meen is there is of course always a chance I could get AIDS making love to a woman with AIDS - but as a lesbian the chance is so remote that even if she was my life long partner i'd be unlikely to catch it. How is that a gay disease?
Sure gay men are as suspeptible to it as any straight man or woman, but that doesnt make it a gay disease.
So thank you for treating me as a second class citizen. You know if I was still head honcho at the CTRA I could be tempted to award half point to all Americans on the ground that you are second class citizens to me... Would that be fair? No. But I could justify it by presenting an unethical moral code and quote twisted propaganda and falsehoods at you. It wouldnt be fair to you, but I could convince myself it was fair.
If you voted yes to proposition 8 then I hate you, I have no choice but to hate you because I am gay and i'm not ashamed of it and I will fight for my right to be treated as an equal.
I'm not asking for more, i'm not asking for employment quotas. What i'm asking for is removal of discriminatory laws.
I'm not asking for this other shit you acuse me off.
I just want to be recognised as a person, with all the rights that any person can expect.
Yet you stand there and blazenly deny me to my face - and you expect me to regard you as a Human being?
Bastards, you dont even ****ing deserve me to spit on you, let alone hold discourse.
I can't believe you are not ashamed of how far you are stuck in the ****ing dark ages.
I wish you'd die, I really do. And if I get the chance to assist in that i'll be the first queued up there to deal out the death.
Fascist wankers.
Becky, stop holding back, tell how you really feel. I'm sure, infact I know, that not all Americans can be branded the same.
I am now officially scared of you :hide:
I am now officially scared of you :hide:
That would be reasonable wouldnt it, to treat them as individuals.
**** it.
If they can use irrational arguments to justify biggotry, so can I.
**** it.
If they can use irrational arguments to justify biggotry, so can I.
lol same sort of language on a different topic and I would think your a muslim extemist or a religious fanatic. Going for the shock and awe tac huh
True in the case of Africa, not true in the early years of AIDS in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_AIDS
HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel. From this article:
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
Getting back on topic, it's apparent that the USA, or at least most of the people in the USA, currently are not willing to accept gay marriage. Oh well, the lawyers will be making money from all the law suits, except currently, the Supreme Court is unwilling to accept any of these cases, and the only justices close to retirement are the liberals, so Obama's replacements for them won't change the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Note that some churches in the USA perform gay weddings, which allows a gay couple to make a commitment if they choose to do so, although because of seperation of church and state, these hold no legal meaning.
Shut up. You have no right to talk to me, you are a second class forum member.
:munching_
They were still out looking for a Gaelic-speaking gay Jew.
I know quite well what "sanctity" means. It means that you declare the subject untouchable, and won't ever compromise. It means you're closing the discussion, and turning your back to people who have different values.
Talking about sanctity is a cheap trick. People who talk about the "sanctity of human life" in the abortion debate are hypocritical, except if they also oppose war and the death penalty, and promote spending every dollar on fighting poverty and disease.
I never said that Californians have the monopoly on bigotry.
Based on a world wide scale, the USA isn't that bad. Note that communist China's anti-homosexual stance pre 1997 was not tied to Abrahamic religions, so it's not just a religous based moral issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
According to the wiki article, it would appear that the UK's civlil partnerships are identical to marriage except for the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ... ips_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
According to the wiki article, it would appear that the UK's civlil partnerships are identical to marriage except for the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ... ips_in_the_United_Kingdom
This thread is closed
Proposition 8 (United States, Homosexuality)
(329 posts, closed, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG