$400.00 per child Tax-relief Checks are in the Mail- Bush screws the working poor!!!!

[kg_veteran]

Side note: I really can't decide which I love more: the inherent elitism and callousness of the above argument, or the totally gratuitous homophobia which was used to support it. Such a toss up.

I don't think ape was being elitist or making an argument; I think he was just being over the top and sarcastic.

Also, I'm curious. Not that I'm condoning ape's post, but in what way was is it homophobic? I don't see how it shows a fear of homosexuals. IMO, the word homophobic is among the most overused and misused in the English language.




Edited for typo

[Murphy3]

There is a position in American society for everyone. Reeds - your position entails being pinned up against a back-alley garbage dumpster with a d*** in your *ss and $40 sweat-dreanched dollars in your tightened fist.

it's probably that comment KG

[Rhylan]

ehhh, never mind.

i was gonna try and compose a coherent response to all the blood and tears spilled on the d-m.com floor, but it's just not worth it.

let's just all live in government barracks together, love love love.

[AnMan21]

i find it ironic that these liberals are always saying "there's more important things than money." but then they turn around and complain when they're not getting any.

[Murphy3]

the fighting between the "liberals" and "conservatives" is sickening.

It's painfully obvious that most of you are incapable of seeing any other point of view other than the liberal and/or conservative views that have been beaten into your head. It gets to a point to where you don't even hear what is being said. All some of you know is that there's a fight between "liberals" and "conservatives" so you jump in to throw in your 2 cents. Unfortunately, too often, it's 2 cents that you don't have to spare

[Rhylan]

That might be the smartest thing you've said in 2 years.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[veruca salt]

Oh Murphy thank you, I was starting to think I was the only person who had noticed!

[MFFL]

Thanks murph.

I was going to do a scathing retort to sturm und drang's remarks but you've made me realize that it is a waste of time. She's never going to see my point of view so why bother posting it.

Arguing politics on an internet board is a waste of time.

[Murphy3]

actually, i agree with sturm

the damn conservatives

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Chiwas]

The post by mattyd was very illuminating. It seems the very rich are getting more rich (this is my personal oppinion) while the rest are having less prerrogatives and money in time (mattyd's college case). This is neo-liberalism. And I thought it was happening only in the Third World.

The post by sturm was very good. I don't need to classify her in any political side, to find the humanitarianism, something that the politicians can't (and many don't want to) comprehend.

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: JoshHoward5
I agree with reeds. If there is anyone in this country who should get money in the mail, it is poor people, simple as that.

They already do.

This is obviously nothing more than a theory for you to spout off. If there was any practice behind your sentiment you wouldn't have had the blind bumbling audacity to post it. You're not alone here with your rosey theory of making the world a better place for the poor helpless adults who couldn't help but end up uneducated, irresponsible parents of children they would need somebody else to support.

I'm in favor of some social programs, but you take part of your life and invest it in this population you so deeply care about. Then come back and offer us your feedback on how we can make a difference and improve life conditions of those in the lowest income bracket.

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: reeds
I will be honest, I wont be sending in my checks to the poor- BUT, I will help them however I can. Donate to local food banks, buy school supplies for families in need, anything I can that may help. No matter if you are a Dem or a Rep, little things like that can really help in the life of child or family in need. That is all I will say about that. As long as people show some heart, that is really the main point here. I just feel Bush could have really helped with this tax cut, but it missed too many poor families....

use a black marker to cross out the bar codes on your gift items, senor. otherwise they will just get returned to wal-mart in exchange for cash. sorry to break it to you.

and i think it is wonderful to give nice school items to children who will be very proud to fit in with their peers. i think almost any invest in a child who's parents made poor choices can make a big difference in their future. Even if it just makes him feel confident for a short while, it is invaluable.

[MFFL]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
actually, i agree with sturm

the damn conservatives

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

The line I had a problem with was this one "You are sorely, sorely ignorant if you think that hard work and a desire to succeed is all it takes to make it off the streets."

I can guarantee you that I had as rough of a childhood as anyone and I didn't let it hold me back. Winners win, losers whine that life isn't fair.

[Smiles]

edit: maybe this should be PM'd. i don't really want to scathe anyone publically. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Murphy3

it's probably that comment KG

To me, that comment doesn't show homophobia. If anything, he's talking about male/gay prostitution, not implying that he's afraid of homosexuals.

[madape]

I'm not anti-gay. I'm pro prositution. Prostitution is a legitimate way for the underpriveledged to lift themselves out of the ghetto. A non-discriminatory industry where everyone gets an equal shot. Besides, isn't it simply an arrangement between two consenting adults exchanging sex for money? A crime without a victim? If this were truly a free society, people would be able to decide where and how they make their income. But instead, the wicked conservative right has legislated morality. I say let's put an end to it! End the prohibition on prostitution. Take the power out of the hands of the thugs and pimps. Give it back to the honest hard working men and women who give their hearts, soles, and crotches to this industry. It's a a pro-labor anthem even Karl Marx and Hilary Clinton would be proud of!

You talk about tax programs that steal from the rich and give to the poor? Well, we can tax prostitution just as we do gasoline, cigarettes, and horse racing. If we funnel those funds into school and community programs for America's impoverished, we'd essentially institute a ghetto tax paid by those who live in the ghetto! People helping themselves! Isn't that the American way? Maybe the mafia was right all along.

Don't live off the dole. Bob on the pole.

Increase your stash. Trade @ss for cash.

[MavKikiNYC]

Geez.....how'd I miss this socio-political food fight?

[MavKikiNYC]

Give it back to the honest hard working men and women who give their hearts, soles, and crotches to this industry.

Foot fetish, huh, Ape?

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

To me, that comment doesn't show homophobia. If anything, he's talking about male/gay prostitution, not implying that he's afraid of homosexuals.

I would tend to agree, KG. Clearly this is an equal opportunity position, determined by the preference, or lack thereof, of the consumer.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

I would tend to agree, KG. Clearly this is an equal opportunity position, determined by the preference, or lack thereof, of the consumer.

Exactly.

[sturm und drang]

Homophobia is a bit broader than being "afraid of homosexuals"; indeed, the American Heritage dictionary defines it as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men." And while madape certainly exhibited no fear of homosexuals, I'm quite confident he did exhibit a bit of contempt.

Ah, if I only had the time to go through the past six months of d-m.com posts that featured the word "fag", "faggot" or "homo" (or variations thereof) as an argument's central slur-- indeed, it's the ultimate slur! I kept my mouth shut about it for some time, but finally decided to step up and say that such language and insinuation offends me. I know I will be ridiculed for such a statement, but I would be surprised if I'm the only one who has read and been shocked and saddened at the copious use of such language and insinuation on this board.

And to anyone who thinks homophobia doesn't exist or is overblown, I suggest you read the results of the new Gallup Poll re: tolerance of homosexuality that was released today. Really, it makes me ashamed to be American, and all too sadly aware of the inherent irony of proclaiming ourselves the bastion of freedom while ghettoizing-- socially and politically-- a particular minority.

[Chiwas]

A crime without a victim?

The victim is the society.

However, nobody in milleniums has controled -eliminated- prostitution.

But, hardly they -who prostitute- abandoned it, along the ghettos, IMO. I think a poor with some education is more able to abandon them, than a -relatively- rich prostitute.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Homophobia is a bit broader than being "afraid of homosexuals"; indeed, the American Heritage dictionary defines it as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men." And while madape certainly exhibited no fear of homosexuals, I'm quite confident he did exhibit a bit of contempt.

Perhaps this is my point. The term is even defined incorrectly. When someone is claustrophobic, they aren't contemptuous of closed spaces; when someone has arachnophobia, they don't have contempt for spiders -- they fear them. I think the term was defined in such a way as to create a derogatory term for anyone who disapproves of homosexuality in general. And I think that's how you meant to use it -- as a derogatory term to describe Madape's perceived dislike of homosexuals.

Ah, if I only had the time to go through the past six months of d-m.com posts that featured the word "fag", "faggot" or "homo" (or variations thereof) as an argument's central slur-- indeed, it's the ultimate slur! I kept my mouth shut about it for some time, but finally decided to step up and say that such language and insinuation offends me. I know I will be ridiculed for such a statement, but I would be surprised if I'm the only one who has read and been shocked and saddened at the copious use of such language and insinuation on this board. And to anyone who thinks homophobia doesn't exist or is overblown, I suggest you read the results of the new Gallup Poll re: tolerance of homosexuality that was released today. Really, it makes me ashamed to be American, and all too sadly aware of the inherent irony of proclaiming ourselves the bastion of freedom while ghettoizing-- socially and politically-- a particular minority.

Why are homosexuals a minority? We're talking about who they engage in intercourse with, not things they were born with like the color of the skin, their gender, or their nationality.

"Tolerance" of homosexuality is one thing, if you mean that people shouldn't go around beating people up and killing them because they don't approve of the gender that person chooses to sleep with. However, expecting society as a whole to accept and condone homosexuality is another thing entirely. Is a person somehow immoral because they don't condone a lifestyle they find to be perverse and disgusting? That's twisted logic. If a majority of Americans don't <U>condone</U> homosexuality, it's probably for those very reasons.

Homosexuals are free to sleep with whom they choose. The vast majority of homosexuals in this country will never be physically or verbally assaulted simply because they are homosexual. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't detect whether the majority of homosexuals in this country were, in fact, homosexuals, just by looking at them and passing them on the street. So when I hear people complaining that homosexuals are discriminated against, as if it were some widespread epidemic, I just don't agree.

[sturm und drang]

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are denied access to critical state-sanctioned benefits, such as marriage. Homosexuals are discriminated against because they can, in many states (including, of course, Texas) still legally be fired for their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are discriminated against because they do not enjoy many of the basic rights-- partner hospital visitation, some life insurance and Social Security benefits, partner medical insurance coverage and the right of adoption-- guaranteed by our government to its citizens. Is that a "widespread epidemic"? It seems so to me.

Obviously, it is the right of every American to sit back and judge for themselves whether they think homosexuality to be "perverse" and "disgusting". Likewise does your friendly neighborhood racist have the right to sit in his or her home thinking blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. are inferior. When the government corroborates this thinking with the above laws, however, I start to have a problem. Especially when both the thought and practice are so obviously rooted in the Bible; Sen. Frist's recent description of marriage as a "sacrament" are especially telling, I think.

And I would disagree with you that a "vast majority" of homosexuals will never be physically or verbally assaulted for their sexuality. I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and I've known many gays who have experienced it.

The one thing I do agree with you on is the inadequacy of the word itself. The semantics of it are strange; it really should be one of the infamous "ism"s. I wonder why it is a "phobia"?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Homosexuals are a minority because they are denied access to critical state-sanctioned benefits, such as marriage.

So black persons and asians can't get married? New one on me.

Homosexuals are a minority because they can, in many states (including, of course, Texas) still legally be fired for their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are a minority because they do not enjoy many of the basic rights-- partner hospital visitation, some life insurance and Social Security benefits, partner medical insurance coverage and legal adoption-- guaranteed by our government to its citizens.

Blacks and asians can get fired legally because they are black or asian? Not following you on this one....

Obviously, it is the right of every American to sit back and judge for themselves whether they think homosexuality to be "perverse" and "disgusting". Likewise does your friendly neighborhood racist have the right to sit in his or her home thinking blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. are inferior.

Not the same thing at all. Being a racist, and not agreeing with homosexual practice are not equal tenets. That is like equating me to a racist if I disagree with the shows you watch on television.

When the government corroborates this thinking with the above laws, however, I start to have a problem. Especially when both the thought and practice are so obviously rooted in the Bible; Sen. Frist's recent description of marriage as a "sacrament" are especially telling, I think.

Whether you choose to believe this or not, marriage is a sacrament. And you saying or thinking it is not does not make it so. That may sound juvenile, but as a Christian, and anyone who holds Christian values knows that this is a true statement.

And I would disagree with you that a "vast majority" of homosexuals will never be physically or verbally assaulted for their sexuality. I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and I've known many gays who have experienced it.

On this I agree with you fully. I do not condone the practice, but I do sympathize with the hatred that is shown to homosexuals.

[madape]

I must be doing something right. In back-to-back posts it has been implied that I am both a gay man and a gay basher.

I won't ridicule anyone for being offended by my choice of words/arguments. Everyone is entitled to their own sensitivities, I suppose. But I will say that there is far too much whining and crying going on in this forum... whether it be by numbskulls who aren't getting the government handout they think they deserve, or by well meaning people who feel obligated to take up the fight for people who aren't in a fight to begin with. A ghetto prostitute is just about low as one can get in this society. And it's a damn shame that you can't call someone a gay ghetto whore without someone calling you a homophobe, bigot or some other PC catchphrase in return. The last time I checked, no actual ghetto whore has ever lodged a descriminatory complaint against me or anyone else. So can we please stop defending them?

What IS insulting i (and I speak from experience here) is when people come out of the woodwork, twist your words, and lay some blanket statement down about your attitude towards gays and minorities after you utter one harmless little insult to some stupid left-wing twit. I don't know what is more reactionary and over-the-top: my insult towards reeds - a statement fully intended to be shocking and appalling; or Sturm's wild accusation of my hatred of all things ethnic - a statement she attempts to pass off as rational argument. If you ask me, Sturm and Reed's comments on this thread greatly examplify what is wrong with contemporary American social thought. Too few Americans actually seem willing to take responsibility for has gone wrong with their lives. It's always someone else's fault - the president who ignores the poor, the biggot who hates the gays, the pharmaceudical companies who charge too much for medicine, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Call me elitist, call me whatever you want. But I fully believe that the minute you stop pointing the finger at everyone else around you and start pointing it at yourself is the minute you actually get off your ass and make something of yourself. That's the American way, not this whiney, politically correct, bullcrap.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: madape
Call me elitist, call me whatever you want. But I fully believe that the minute you stop pointing the finger at everyone else around you and start pointing it at yourself is the minute you actually get off your ass and make something of yourself. That's the American way, not this whiney, politically correct, bullcrap

I think that is one of the most true(non basketball related) statements I have read since coming to this board. Kudos.

[Rhylan]

This thread is gay.

[Rhylan]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

First of all, madape, I never once accused or even insinuated that you hate all things "ethnic". That, my friend, is wild fabrication. I do think, however, that you're a homophobe. And that, to me, is just as despicable as being racist.

I take it as a compliment that you single me out as an example of what is wrong with America. I truly do. Thank you.

What I don't understand is how you can make wild, unsubstantiated claims that I take no accountability for my life. By that measure, wouldn't I be unemployed, living off welfare? Or on unemployment? No, sir. I am a fully-functioning member of society who pays more than 30% of my income in taxes. I work hard and never fault anyone but myself for my failures. What I do have-- and what you are sorely lacking-- is any sense of compassion. I recognize that by birthright I was given an incredible advantage, and I think it is my responsibility-- having reaped the rewards of such privelege and my own hard work-- to give back and help those who were not so lucky.

I have the utmost respect for those, like MFFL, who pulled themselves up out of disadvantage and have succeeded. But I also volunteer at a non-profit that helps the homeless secure temporary housing so they can get jobs, and I see some people whose situation from birth is so dire that they need goverment assistance to do so. And if that goverment assistance comes from my pocket, all the better. Good. That's how it should be. I'm all for people accepting accountability for their actions; I'm also all for people accepting that we are charged with helping others who may not be as fortunate.

Compassion. God forbid.

[AnMan21]

AMEN Madape!

[signoftimes]

AMEN Sturm!

Edit: I need a new avatar

[madape]

For the love of ... @&^@$

I shouldn't feel the need to defend myself on this.. But I really feel I've been unjustly attacked here. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAYS. AT ALL! I have friends who are gay. I have family members who are gay. It really doesn't bother me. I'm not gay. I don't really understand why some people become gay. Sometimes I joke about them...but sometimes they joke about straight people. I've spent my whole life around gays and never in my life been accused of being a homophobe before today... and I don't think my one statement about Reeds being pinned up against a trash can is enough to comdemn me.

Sturm, as you know, I am a pretty conservative guy in general, but you'd probably be suprised that I do actually NOT agree with the far right on this issue. I am not opposed to gay marriage. And while I don't think gays should be given the same protection as other REAL minorities, they shouldn't be treated any differently than any other person. They SHOULD be given the freedom to practice any sexual act they please, just as straight people should. And as long as we are forced to have anti-discrimination legislation - gays SHOULD be protected as well. Homosexuals have the right, as does everyone else in this society, to be treated fairly...and the US government has the responsibilty to protect their right to be treated fairly. The truth is Surm, that if you took the time to notice, you just might find that my political views on this matter don't stray too far from your own. You have stated that you think I'm dispicable and out of line, but I think you are REALLY out of line. You are making a strong accusation, a hurtful one, and a false one. It is one thing to jokingly call someone a gay ghetto whore. It is another thing alltogether to label someone a racist or a homophobe.

[kg_veteran]

First, let me say that being discriminated against and being a minority are two very different things. I said that homosexuals weren't minorities. You're talking about discrimination. But for purposes of our discussion, I continue...

Originally posted by: sturm und drang

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are denied access to critical state-sanctioned benefits, such as marriage.

Marriage is a "state-sanctioned benefit"? Huh? Actually, "marriage" is defined as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The dictionary defines it as a man and a woman. If you want to sleep with someone of your own sex, fine. That doesn't mean you have the "right" to be married.

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they can, in many states (including, of course, Texas) still legally be fired for their sexual orientation.

You mean your boss can fire you if he doesn't like who you sleep with? Horror of all horrors. Your boss can also fire you in Texas if he thinks you're ugly...or fat...or stupid. That seems discriminatory too, doesn't it? There are lots of ugly people out there, and lots of fat people as well. Lord knows there are a lot of stupid people. They shouldn't be fired because they're ugly, or fat, or stupid, any more than someone should be fired just because they're gay. But that doesn't mean we should make a law that says you can't be fired for being ugly.

Homosexuals are discriminated against because they do not enjoy many of the basic rights-- partner hospital visitation, some life insurance and Social Security benefits, partner medical insurance coverage and the right of adoption-- guaranteed by our government to its citizens. Is that a "widespread epidemic"? It seems so to me.

Since when is hospital visitation, medical insurance coverage, adoption, or life insurance guaranteed to the government by its citizens? If it is, then why are we always talking about how there's a health care crisis, and people can't get medical insurance coverage?

I've not heard that homosexuals were being denied the opportunity to visit their sexual partners in the hospital -- where is that happening? And even if it is, is that something the government should regulate?

As for medical insurance coverage, you should take that up with the insurance companies, not the government, eh? Life insurance, the same.

As for adoption, there's no law that prohibits gays from adopting.

I really can't say I agree with you on any of the above.

Obviously, it is the right of every American to sit back and judge for themselves whether they think homosexuality to be "perverse" and "disgusting". Likewise does your friendly neighborhood racist have the right to sit in his or her home thinking blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. are inferior.

It's interesting how you imply that someone who finds homosexuality perverse or disgusting is judgmental.

It's also interesting how you equate a person who doesn't approve of homosexuality with a racist. I think there's a big difference in looking down on someone because their skin is a different color than yours and thinking that it's disgusting when two men have anal sex.

When the government corroborates this thinking with the above laws, however, I start to have a problem. Especially when both the thought and practice are so obviously rooted in the Bible; Sen. Frist's recent description of marriage as a "sacrament" are especially telling, I think. And I would disagree with you that a "vast majority" of homosexuals will never be physically or verbally assaulted for their sexuality. I've seen it happen with my own eyes, and I've known many gays who have experienced it. The one thing I do agree with you on is the inadequacy of the word itself. The semantics of it are strange; it really should be one of the infamous "ism"s. I wonder why it is a "phobia"?

I don't think the government is corroborating discrimination against homosexuals. They aren't a member of a constitutionally protected class, and the government doesn't have any obligation to pass laws to favor or protect them.

As for the contention that the "discrimination" is rooted in the Bible, marriage has been around longer than the Bible has. It's not solely a Christian institution. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., all get married. But the men in those religions don't, as far as I know. That's because marriage contemplates a man and a woman.

Also, how many gays do you know vs. the number of gays in the general population? For every gay that you've seen verbally or physically assaulted, I'm certain I've seen 100 that haven't been.

As for why it's a "phobia", I don't know, but it shouldn't be. Unless we're actually talking about fear, that is.

[southern_sweets]

Originally posted by: madape
I'm not anti-gay. I'm pro prositution. Prostitution is a legitimate way for the underpriveledged to lift themselves out of the ghetto. A non-discriminatory industry where everyone gets an equal shot. Besides, isn't it simply an arrangement between two consenting adults exchanging sex for money? A crime without a victim? If this were truly a free society, people would be able to decide where and how they make their income. But instead, the wicked conservative right has legislated morality. I say let's put an end to it! End the prohibition on prostitution. Take the power out of the hands of the thugs and pimps. Give it back to the honest hard working men and women who give their hearts, soles, and crotches to this industry. It's a a pro-labor anthem even Karl Marx and Hilary Clinton would be proud of!

You talk about tax programs that steal from the rich and give to the poor? Well, we can tax prostitution just as we do gasoline, cigarettes, and horse racing. If we funnel those funds into school and community programs for America's impoverished...

Already done! Income earned from prostitution and other illegal activities is fully taxable. Many a career criminal has gone down due to tax evasion (Al Capone for example). The initial investigation into Heidi Fleiss was for non payment of income tax.

So, if anyone wants to pursue prostitution as a career choice remember you are more likely to avoid costly and career limiting legal problems if you pay tax on the income your earn.



Note: This post does not necessarily represent a viewpoint of pro or anti prostitution. Any reference to a political viewpoint, either liberal or conservative, is purely coincidental.

[MavKikiNYC]

My but we're covering a lot of ground here.

Interesting, albeit emotional, topic(s) about which to exchange perspectives. Some of the differences of perspective come as the result of different experiences, some as the result of different observation, some as the result of different information.

For example, KG’s statement that:

As for adoption, there's no law that prohibits gays from adopting.

may result from different information.

Unless it's been repealed very recently, Florida still has a state law prohibiting gays from adopting, and I believe there were a handful of other states that had similar prohibitions until relatively recently.

And while adoption by same-sex partners is not prohibited in other states, it is made more complicated and more costly by lack of equal legal recognition and standing for same-sex partners. A brewing court battle in Massachusetts over state recognition of same-sex marriages illustrates the often unanticipated legal difficulties that same-sex partners face, despite being in long-term stable, commited partnerships, and despite having taken legal steps to protect themselves in the event of death of disability of one of the partners.

Online Newshour 07.11.03

I used to work with a lesbian couple (in Massachusetts) one of whom was carrying artificially-conceived twins. I recall thinking to myself that with so many parentless children in need of loving homes, that going to this length to become a parent seemed something of a vanity. That is, until I found out how expensive it would be (legally, of course), and how long it would take them as a lesbian couple to gain custody of an adopted child. They had determined that it would be easier for one of them to be a biological parent and to have the other partner adopt the children, rather than waiting for years to be appoved for adoption.

Closer to home for Dallasites, a bill was presented this spring in the Texas legistlature the aim of which was to prohibit homosexuals from becoming foster parents. You can read about it here:

Austin Chronicle 05.02.03

Acknowledged that the Chronicle has an unfortunate tendency to paint conservatives unsympathetically, but based on the quotes attributed to Rep. Robert Talton, it's difficult to interpret this ill-fated attempted legislative slur as anything other than bigotry, let alone mere discrimination. Doesn't make me ashamed to be a Texan, though; just extremely sorry that Talton is.

More to come. Perhaps

[veruca salt]

Note: This post does not necessarily represent a viewpoint of pro or anti prostitution. Any reference to a political viewpoint, either liberal or conservative, is purely coincidental.

i like this a lot [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

Mav_Kiki beat me to the "yes, gays cannot adopt in certain states" refutement. And did it much more articulately than I ever could have.

kg_veteran wrote:

"Homosexuals are discriminated against because they are denied access to critical state-sanctioned benefits, such as marriage.
Marriage is a "state-sanctioned benefit"? Huh? Actually, "marriage" is defined as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The dictionary defines it as a man and a woman. If you want to sleep with someone of your own sex, fine. That doesn't mean you have the "right" to be married.

You mean your boss can fire you if he doesn't like who you sleep with? Horror of all horrors. Your boss can also fire you in Texas if he thinks you're ugly...or fat...or stupid. That seems discriminatory too, doesn't it? There are lots of ugly people out there, and lots of fat people as well. Lord knows there are a lot of stupid people. They shouldn't be fired because they're ugly, or fat, or stupid, any more than someone should be fired just because they're gay. But that doesn't mean we should make a law that says you can't be fired for being ugly."

Well this is a first: I have never heard anyone defend the legality of firing someone because they are gay. Do you think people should be fired because of their race? Is that fair? If I'm gay, is it right for my boss to find out and fire me simply because he or she doesn't agree with what I do in the privacy of my own home? By that token, can someone be fired because they're Jewish? Or Muslim? I think most people have huge problems with people being fired so capriciously, with no regard to job performance. And sexuality has NOTHING to do with job performance-- just as race doesn't. By your logic espoused above, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should simply be repealed, because no one should be protected from being fired because of their boss's philosophical/religious/political leanings and/or prejudices.

And marriage is a state-sanctioned benefit. Tax implications, next-of-kin implications, medical/insurance/Social Security implications... and an infinite host of other government-dictated benefits, it will cease to be. But until then... homosexuals are being excluded from one of the basic governmental benefits.

To madape: I've repeatedly denied ever calling you racist. I'll say it again. I do, however, think your language and implications today (and in the past) are homophobic and offensive. I've also received a number of PMs today from other members who agree.

Many members in the past have admonished people (rightly so) for using abrasive language that might offend others. After months of repeatedly reading such epithets-- "homo" and "fag" being wielded as the ultimate insult-- I came forward to say that I, for one, find this type language abrasive, needlessly derogatory and offensive. What you do with that input is your decision; your post today just finally compelled me to really gather my thoughts on the matter and speak up.

[Drbio]

I will not apologize for using the word gay or homo in posts. It does NOT mean I am homophobic or whatever. It is symantics....not prejudice no matter how you care to spin it. I know the intent and if you cannot get over the damn political correctness crap then its your own problem.

Rhylan is right...this thread is gay.

[veruca salt]

Well if you're going to show such disrespect for others DrBio, how dare you ask them to abide by your rules?
Since you made your original post about the language on this board, i've actually gone out of my way to watch what
i say, as to not mess with the harmony that this board once had, but it seems you and others have absolutely
no intention of doing this for others.