1
   

Pushing the Gay Agenda

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:37 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
You're making me hungry.

If it weren't for lawyers we'd have no Congress or Senate.


That could be a good thing to get rid of them and let more average joes/janes in to make policy. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of average joes/janes that could do just as good a job of law making as the "pro's" in DC.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:44 pm
As am I.

I believe that one of the best things about the new technological advances is that it brings us closer to a true democracy, instead of a representative one.

In Athens, the equivalent of 'congress' was the first 6,000 people to show up to the meeting! Politicans were orators before anything else. It would be an interesting system to see if we could get something similar going with the internet.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
As am I.

I believe that one of the best things about the new technological advances is that it brings us closer to a true democracy, instead of a representative one.

In Athens, the equivalent of 'congress' was the first 6,000 people to show up to the meeting! Politicans were orators before anything else. It would be an interesting system to see if we could get something similar going with the internet.

Cycloptichorn


I would agree, with the advent of the internet, we could very easily have a true democracy here in the US. I would favor it if the people could vote directly on issues instead of some of these buffoons we currently have in office. Most of the time they don't even represent their voting base and instead vote based on their own feelings.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:54 pm
Well, what do you know? Something we can agree on. Lawyers, I maintain, should be negotiating existing laws before a judge (!!!!), not contriving legislation with enough loopholes that one could drive a Mac Truck through them. Of course, our "democratic" republic is based not on Athens but on Sparta. We all know what their favorite passtime was.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:00 pm
The trouble is, guys and gals, is that the power structure of today was established after the Civil War and is self-perpetuating, increasingly yanking itself away from the public will. This promotes deception but I'm afraid a lot of that is in state and local governments where it isn't so scrutinized. That's one thing I was hoping Ahnold was beginning to address but aside from his lame humorous asides criticizing the bureaucrats, he's yet to do anything really practical to change anything. Nice sold image (he's a body builder, after all) but I don't find any more substance to him than any other politician and he certainly isn't a Joe Public personality.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:04 pm
Quote:
I would agree, with the advent of the internet, we could very easily have a true democracy here in the US. I would favor it if the people could vote directly on issues instead of some of these buffoons we currently have in office. Most of the time they don't even represent their voting base and instead vote based on their own feelings.


We could phase this system in over time, with it first being used on a more local level, and then on a more nation-wide level.

I envision a system which works much like our elections/voting: while there will of course be need for bueracrats, etc. to make the system work, many of our main decisions could be decided with bi-monthly elections which are held over a weekend. Every American citizen would have exactly one vote.

The importance of the orator would come back into play; the truly powerful politician wouldn't be someone who is in office, but someone whose ideas can inspire the populace.

I'm sure there would be issues to work out, but think of the money it could save...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:05 pm
It would only save money in the long run. To begin it would cost an awful lot of money.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:16 pm
The California referendum law does keep our politicians on their toes! However, there's almost always loopholes in those propositions that become law and too many people don't realize that they are written by attorneys! Can't we find a Pied Piper who can lead all the attorneys off into the Pacific Ocean? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 11:42 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I didn't think there were any other points you made that were even worth responding to.

A pathetic retort, but if you insist upon it, so be it.

Are you talking about your "not making a moral judgement is a moral judgement" argument?

I feel confident in saying that the fact we live in a pluralistic democracy is a pretty good thing. Picking out one group because of beliefs or behavior that doesn't hurt anyone who is not involved is not "making a moral judgement" in the same way as opposing blacks or gays or catholics or Jews.

Here you have made the moral assumption that one particular group's beliefs or behaviors have not hurt anyone. I'm glad you are confident, but you are also narrow minded

There is nothing wrong with you making a moral judgement.

But of course, you are not so tolerant. You would not have the moral judgements of others intrude upon a world fashioned by your own, singular judgements.

Twist and squirm all you will, you are inconsistent at best, and hypocritical at worst.


Yes, yes, I know that what I have to say doesn't bear your reply.

The fact is you are:
1) Keeping one segment of society from having a right that is afforded to the rest of society.

Not surprisingly, you play fast and loose with "facts." In what way am I keeping one segment of society from having a right that is afforded to the rest of society? I have stated an opinion on this subject. You, as expected, have mischaracterized it, but, in any case, I can only be flattered by the reagrd you have for the power of my opinion. Than you.

The "rest of society" has the right to copulate with, basically, who they will. Fathers do not have the right to copulate with their daughters etc. I guess you are are for the legalization of incest. Is this a specific example? Yes, but so is same sex marriages
.



2) Insisting that public schools either teach kids that these people is "immoral" or made to ignore them all togther. This is in spite of the fact that this segment is part of the community.

When and where have I made the argument that public schools should teach kids that "these people" are immoral? There can be no meaningful debate if you are going to manufacture the arguments you wish to contest rather than addressing the arguments I've actually advanced.

Nor, for that matter, have I suggested that public schools should ignore homosexuals. If you believe I have, please demonstrate how and when.

"This segment," presumably means homosexuals. It could also mean muggers, philanderers, necrophiliacs, murderers, racists, thieves, etc etc etc. My question to you is "So what?" Does the fact that one is a member of the community entitle one to some special priviledge? I don't think so.


Tuis, your position is wrong in any pluralistic democracy.

Thus sprach ebrown and therefore what can I say?

My agenda does neither of these things (and is compatible with a pluralistic democracy). I don't insist on denying any civil right to any group. And, I will oppose any group being denigrated in public schools.

I think you would deny "civil rights" to any number of groups and you would have no problem in denigrating any number of groups in public schools. If I am wrong, then you are a moral void. The sort of grandiose statements you make are nothing but a tissue paper wrapping of your position. The irony is that I agree with you that same sex marriages should be socially acceptible. The problem is that your position is based on emotional, and self-righteous nonsense.

There is no contradiction in my agenda... inherent or otherwise.

Keep telling yourself that. You have already demonstrated your confidence in the infallibility of your positions.

BTW Finn. What do you think about interracial marriages?

A non-sequitor if I've ever seen one, but clearly you think you've set a trap for me on this. If you must know, I have no problem with interracial marriages. I am quite curious though as to how you will establish a line of relevance between interracial marriages and same sex marriages.

Let me guess: There was a time when neanderthals opposed interracial marriages and now "everyone" knows there is nothing wrong with them. So too, will "everyone" come to realize that same sex marriages are A-OK.

Perhaps; perhaps not.

Your faith in such a societal evolution has no bearing on the debate. It's touching, but irrelevant.

0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 11:56 pm
As I said before, if the fact that you can get a degree in being gay isn't proof of an agenda, I don't know what is.
0 Replies
 
coachryan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 01:37 am
[quote="Finn d'Abuzz
Here you have made the moral assumption that one particular group's beliefs or behaviors have not hurt anyone. I'm glad you are confident, but you are also narrow minded[/quote]

Are you suggesting that by simply being gay, you're hurting someone, and if so please explain how.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. You support the idea of gay marriage (I think) but you think that it's a moral judgement and that's a weak argument (Once again, I think).

Honestly, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here finn, I've read and re-read your post several times. From where I am standing, It simply seems you're sniping at arguments from a moral merry-go-round with a flourish of pontification.

Playing devils advocate is an important role in any discussion, however you don't seem to be doing that.

I guess I am asking you to give a more concise argument, on whatever it is you're arguing.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 09:35 pm
coachryan wrote:
[quote="Finn d'Abuzz
Here you have made the moral assumption that one particular group's beliefs or behaviors have not hurt anyone. I'm glad you are confident, but you are also narrow minded


Are you suggesting that by simply being gay, you're hurting someone, and if so please explain how.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. You support the idea of gay marriage (I think) but you think that it's a moral judgement and that's a weak argument (Once again, I think).

Honestly, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here finn, I've read and re-read your post several times. From where I am standing, It simply seems you're sniping at arguments from a moral merry-go-round with a flourish of pontification.

Playing devils advocate is an important role in any discussion, however you don't seem to be doing that.

I guess I am asking you to give a more concise argument, on whatever it is you're arguing.[/quote]

Fair enough.

My issue with ebrown's agenda is that it is replete with moral judgements, and yet , as part of his agenda, he denounces the imposition of the moral judgements of others upon public institutions. If this remains unclear to you, I'm afraid I can not be more clarifying.

Clearly he has arrived at the conclusion that homosexual behaviors do not threaten society in general. I may have missed something along the way, but this conclusion seems to be based on personal opinion rather than emprical evidence.

Not only am I not suggesting that simply being gay "hurts" anyone, I don't believe this to be the case. However, I'm not prepared to discount, entirely, the belief of those who do feel that homosexuality presents a fundamental threat to society. On this issue, at least, I do not presume to have a lock on moral correctness.

I am not a moral relativist. I do not believe that there is a possibility that within certain cultural frameworks or particular mindsets, rape is OK. However, on this issue I acknowledge moral ambiguity. Since I, generally, believe my opinion to be representative of essential truth, if I can not come to an absolute judgement on a given issue I readily accept opposing opinions.

Of course I don't, at all, accept your opinion of my arguments. I thank you for your efforts to understand my point, but am not all that concerned by the fact that you are unable to grasp it.

I have not attempted to assume the role of Devil's Advocate and so if you feel I have failed in that regard, it is not surprising.

If I have money on the line, I could care less how someone might arrive at a conclusion compatible with my own, however I have no financial stake in same sex marriages. Therefore, it is of interest to me as to how ebrown has arrived at a conclusion I have also reached.

Let me attempt to express my argument (and then some) in a manner which you will accept as digestible:

Sexual orientation, if a product of genetics, is not subject to moral analysis. Behaviors associated to such orientations are.

Personally, I believe that homosexual orientation does not preclude moral integrity. However, I can understand how someone who believes that homsosexuality is a choice would differ with me. Since, to my knowledge, there is no conclusive evidence as to whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, I am unable to draw absolute conclusions regarding to those who disagree with my position.

There is a certain amount of irony involved in an admitted conservative (of the neo persuasion) scolding a Liberal for moral absolutism, but there you have it.

Thank you for you posting, notwithstanding your condescending tone.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 06:25 am
There have been an insane amount of studies devoted to male homosexuality. Why? Maybe, let's face it, most queer bashers tend to be guys and wouldn't actually mind seeing lesbians going at it, but let's ignore that for a while.

Just go to PubMed and type in homosexuality. You'll see a lot of studies suggesting this biochemical increases homosexuality and in one New Scientist issue (I'm afraid I can't remember which) there was an article on a study that showed if the more male older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be or become a homosexual but only if you're a male (not that I said, more likely).

There is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that homosexuality can be inherited and is more to do with biological chemicals than an actual choice. Unfortunately, most studies focus on male homosexuals and most people have no idea what causes female homosexuality.

Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 7;271(1554):2217-21.

Blanchard R. Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men. J Theor Biol. 2004 Sep 21;230(2):173-87.

Blanchard R, Bogaert AF. Proportion of homosexual men who owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order: An estimate based on two national probability samples. Am J Hum Biol. 2004 Mar-Apr;16(2):151-7.

DuPree MG, Mustanski BS, Bocklandt S, Nievergelt C, Hamer DH. A candidate gene study of CYP19 (aromatase) and male sexual orientation. Behav Genet. 2004 May;34(3):243-50.

Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Hum Genet. 2005 Jan 12; [Epub ahead of print]
(You can read the abstract of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15645181. Unfortunately, the rest of it is restricted to subscribers of the journal).

So, with increasing evidence suggesting that male homosexuality is a result of genes and biological factors which the average human being has no control over, what do you think that says?
0 Replies
 
Sidderaal00
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 10:49 am
I don't know why Americans hate gays so much, because how more gays, how more women there are left for the straight guys.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:00 am
You got it, Sidder, and welcome to A2K! Of course, the ladies in the audience are going to have the opposite reaction. I don't know how many times I've heard, "All the good looking men are gay," or "All the nice sensitive men are gay" etc.
0 Replies
 
Sidderaal00
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:04 am
Lightwizard wrote:
You got it, Sidder, and welcome to A2K! Of course, the ladies in the audience are going to have the opposite reaction. I don't know how many times I've heard, "All the good looking men are gay," or "All the nice sensitive men are gay" etc.


I'm glad that we are not that conservative anymore in the Netherlands :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:10 am
The problem is when a straight man, most likely in America, encounters anything remotely gay male oriented like in a movie they imagine the sex and they find themselves identifying. It'd guess that is scary for them. I've pointed out before that it isn't any different than encountering a situation where you are imagining your parents or grandparents having sex. It's the "ewww" response. So we have the debate on the boards regarding homophobia stemming from an insecurity about one's own sexuality. While that might not be always true (it is a generalization), each individual should do some introspective searching to be sure their aloof analysis of attitudes towards gays isn't false.
0 Replies
 
Sidderaal00
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:14 am
I guess we had a lot less to laugh if we banned gays. Almost every Dutch tv- and radio-host is gay here.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:16 am
The newest most popular daytime talk show is headed up by Ellen Degeneres. SO there. And try to watch a daytime soap without realizing that the majority of good looking actors on the shows are also gay.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:17 am
(And that is funny because it makes them look like better actors romancing the ladies between the sheets).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 02:59:52