Gay Ban Soon Lifted?

Pretty much what the title says, all off-topic related posts can be posted here to share with everyone.
User avatar
Cokedoctor
2GN Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:12 am
Location: Western NY

Post by Cokedoctor » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:43 am

TheNumberOneD wrote:
but i'll be damned if i had to put up with a flamming homosexual.


:wink: wouldn't mind putting up with lesbians though.
Lesbians ARE homosexuals.
Opi wrote:(no he's not)

Oh, and speaking of un-natural.

Sodomy is un-natural, and illeagal and several states.

If you like lesbians so much, then why are you so homophobic? It's no different. It's still same gender sex, is it not? Just becuase society looks down on two guys going at it, does not make it different in any way, shape, or form.

Not starting a flame war... asking honest questions.
Thank you.
'13 Chrysler 300S 5.7 AWD - the financial burden
'95 Dodge Neon NYG ACR SRT Coupe - 1 of 98
'86 Mitsubishi Starion ESi-R - all original
Official "I'm Going to Drive My Neon till it Dies" Club #000123

User avatar
MyNeonSaysHi
2GN Veteran
Posts: 11795
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by MyNeonSaysHi » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:50 am

Opi wrote:(no he's not)

Oh, and speaking of un-natural.

Sodomy is un-natural, and illeagal and several states.

If you like lesbians so much, then why are you so homophobic? It's no different. It's still same gender sex, is it not? Just becuase society looks down on two guys going at it, does not make it different in any way, shape, or form.

Not starting a flame war... asking honest questions.
That wasn't directed towards me... right? :? I assume it wasn't because I never mentioned lesbians in any of my posts. :wink:

08 Acura TL-S
05 Neon SRT-4

Mr Josh Zombie
2010 Platinum Contributor
Posts: 8357
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:43 pm
Location: Toledo, OH

Post by Mr Josh Zombie » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:55 am

it was directed at... oh, who-ever the hell said it

i can't remember... thenumberoned! that's who it was...
Modify your Car • Modify your Body • Modify your Life

bige1030
2GN Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:21 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS

Post by bige1030 » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:20 pm

I don't think that gay rights should be based on whether or not sexual orientation is inherent at birth or a choice. After all, religion is a protected status, even under the Constitution, and never did it enter that debate whether religion is a choice. I would contend that it is, since lots of people convert and fall astray, and if religion weren't taught to your kids, they'd be atheists or "spiritual" until they learned about it somewhere.

The point is: religion is a choice and is a protected. Even if one's religion is totally off the wall, s/he is still allowed to believe whatever s/he wants to (so long as the religion harms no one). What's so wrong with granting homosexuality the same sort of status, regardless of whether or not it is a choice, and regardless of whether or not it is "natural"?

And what's the big deal with gay != "natural"? And what is "natural" anyway? If keeping sex "natural" is the aim of anti-homosexual discrimination, then I suppose that we aren't going far enough. If sex is only to be practiced in a "natural" way, then I guess the only sex that people can have is through coital copulation without condoms, lube, spermicide, birth control, sex toys, and the like. Society would have to totally get off of the whole "teen pregnancy == bad" kick, too, because teen pregnancy is completely and totally "natural"! We were meant to be self-sufficient and start families at puberty - the thing that is "unnatural" here is the arbitrary societal conditions that we live under precluding self-sufficiency until at least adulthood at age 18!
Image

User avatar
kc2005ptgt
Former Moderator
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Post by kc2005ptgt » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:41 pm

A lot of people may argue that before the age of 18 you really do not have the "psychological" capacity to make such "desicions". The argument with teen pregnancy does not stem from it being natural or not, it stems from people (call them kids, or adults, pre-adult, post-tenn, whatever you want) under the age of 18 are still doing several things, which mainly are: living at home with mom, dad, or both; still in school; do not fully support themselves (financially, etc); and that they usually are not 'prepared' in the 'conventionaly way' of 'having a child'. I put all those in quotes because they really need to be defined.

Comparing homosexuality to either teen pregnancy or religion is a bad comparison, because you are doing two things, and one is; when it comes to teen-pregnancy you are forgetting that most teens get pregnant mostly due to unprotected sex because of the psycological feeling that most teens will go through what educational psychologist would call risk-taking behavior; a sense of feeling like it won't happen to me, etc. Other reason for teens and pre-teens getting pregnant are molestation either by an uncle of father or step-father. Other reason as to why it is a "hot topic debate" is because of the costs to tax-payers. In 2004, taxpayers in all 50 states paid out over 9,009 Millions of dollars, with the lasrgest numbers coming from our most populous states and states filled with the most minorities (demographics) such as, TX, FL, NY, and CA.

As for the religion argument, you are comparing apples to oranges. I see you are using it as the basis for it being Constitutionally protected, when in fact it already is protected. It is not against the law to be in love with a member of the same sex, or be homosexual. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it, although I bet you meant to argue for laws to be put in place that would protect 'spouses' of homosexuals, just as there are for male and female spouses. The reason religion is protected, no matter how grotesque or odd it may be (you can even sacrifice animals if your religion permits it, just not your neighbors dog :lol:), is because the founding fathers were from countries which persecuted religions against the state run religion, such as England, France, Spain... and even when the colonists got to America, they too persecuted religions which were different than their own (ie: puritans and catholics). Also, the constitution protects religion from becoming state regulated and ran, hence the no-establishment clause.

I must have to disagree with your final statement about it being "unnatural" in the "arbitrary societal conditions that we live in under precluding self-sufficiency until at least adulthood at age 16"... now, granted most of the stuff you said is what I call word vomit and could have easily been said by stating simply: we (gov't) say you are an adult at age 18. Truth be told, in our society, most 15, 16 yr olds couldn't make enough mney to 1) support themselves, and 2) support a family. Last thing I want is someone who hasn't been in the work force making decisions (ie: voting) that affect my life, as well as my pocketbook. I also do not want someone who has no sense of the world outside of their own egocentric life in which they live in. To give examples from history, in Sparta you weren't even a considered a citizen until you served in the military from the tie you were 7 till 30 yrs old. :shock: THEN you got some privilages, and this was over 2500 years ago!

Sorry for all the writing, but I serisouly think that this society puts too much focus on ME (I) than on the WE (US, or in democratic-republic society the majority). What is good for all of us is never able to be accomplished because of the differing of opinions, beliefs, society we grew up in, etc etc etc (you get the point). In this huge world we live in we sometimes feel like we get lost and the we are not heard - "My voice is not being listened too and I got something important to say!" I have to say we should still stick to the majority rules; special interest groups only speak for a minority of the population (and I mean all, including those like oil, big business, etc) and do not take into consideration the entire populous.

Just my views.
SOLD 5/13- 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Convertible | 2.4L Turbo HO | Bright Silver Metallic
SOLD 7/09- 2002 Dodge Neon ACR | Flame Red
The Offical: Sold My Neon Even Though I Swore I Never Would Club | Member #777

Image

bige1030
2GN Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:21 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS

Post by bige1030 » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:11 pm

kc2002acr wrote:I must have to disagree with your final statement about it being "unnatural" in the "arbitrary societal conditions that we live in under precluding self-sufficiency until at least adulthood at age 16"... now, granted most of the stuff you said is what I call word vomit and could have easily been said by stating simply: we (gov't) say you are an adult at age 18. Truth be told, in our society, most 15, 16 yr olds couldn't make enough mney to 1) support themselves, and 2) support a family.
Rather than calling most of my post word vomit and misquoting me (the age was 18 not 16!), why don't you try to actually understand what the whole point of it was? I was simply trying to point out one reason that the argument Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong. Perhaps my mode of expression precluded understanding, as satire and reductio ad absurdum often do. So I think an analysis of the argument is in order.

Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. How can we break it down? How about this:

Homosexuality is unnatural.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

There is something missing in that argument. How do you go from unnatural to wrong? How about we write this as a syllogism rather than an enthymeme? Now, we have:

Homosexuality is unnatural.
All unnatural things are wrong.
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

That italicized premise filled in the argument logically and concisely. It is one that I take issue with. The whole point of me bringing in teen pregnancy was to disprove it. Here is how that disproof goes:

A: A lack of teen pregnancies is unnatural.
B: All unnatural things are wrong.
C: Therefore, a lack of teen pregnancies is wrong.

This argument is valid, since the conclusion follows from the premises. Is it sound, though? No, since conclusion C is false. Thus one of the premises must be false. A is not, so B must be false.

Though teen pregnancy and homosexuality are unrelated, I used the example of teen pregnancy to disprove a universal quantifier used to argue about homosexuality (All unnatural things are wrong.). Thus, the syllogism from above falls flat:

Homosexuality is unnatural.
All unnatural things are wrong. (FALSE)
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

It is a valid argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises. However, it is not sound, since not all the premises are true.
Image

User avatar
Cokedoctor
2GN Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:12 am
Location: Western NY

Post by Cokedoctor » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:12 pm

But who's to say its unnatural?
'13 Chrysler 300S 5.7 AWD - the financial burden
'95 Dodge Neon NYG ACR SRT Coupe - 1 of 98
'86 Mitsubishi Starion ESi-R - all original
Official "I'm Going to Drive My Neon till it Dies" Club #000123

User avatar
TheNumberOneD
2GN Member
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by TheNumberOneD » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:16 pm

....

lesbians are hott though...


lol.. and gay guys... are... gay...


you guys are taking this way out of whack... pshhh..
hahaha i said whack... ahahah :lol:

anywho!
who cares! if you don't like gay people... wether it be gays or lesbians.... (to be technical) then you have that right...

if you do like them.. then you have that right...

If a gay person trys to make moves on me, i'm throwing up the sexual harrasament card, and kicking the guys ass...

The end.... let gays serve in the military, i don't think it defines wether or not they are able to serve or do a good job, and as long as they don't try to stick "it" in anybody... go GAYS!
~Daniel

'2005 Dodge Neon SRT-4

bige1030
2GN Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:21 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS

Post by bige1030 » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:17 pm

Cokedoctor wrote:But who's to say its unnatural?
You're right. It doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is natural. I was just trying to destroy the argument Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural by destroying an essential premise to it without even contesting the idea that homosexuality is unnatural :)
Image

User avatar
Cokedoctor
2GN Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:12 am
Location: Western NY

Post by Cokedoctor » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:19 pm

TheNumberOneD wrote:
If a gay person trys to make moves on me, i'm throwing up the sexual harrasament card, and kicking the guys ass...
Would your reaction be the same, if an unbelievably ugly girl was hitting on you? Throw the harrassment card and kick her ass?

No, you'd say, "Sorry, I'm not interested." Point her to your best friend, then walk away.
'13 Chrysler 300S 5.7 AWD - the financial burden
'95 Dodge Neon NYG ACR SRT Coupe - 1 of 98
'86 Mitsubishi Starion ESi-R - all original
Official "I'm Going to Drive My Neon till it Dies" Club #000123

User avatar
kc2005ptgt
Former Moderator
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Post by kc2005ptgt » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:18 pm

Rather than calling most of my post word vomit and misquoting me (the age was 18 not 16!), why don't you try to actually understand what the whole point of it was? I was simply trying to point out one reason that the argument Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong.
Whoa, back off there tiger... first I wasn't trying to misquote, that is called a mistake, so please calm yourself; second I wasn't trying to be a jerk by calling your post bad; word vomit... that is a term used to describe comments made (like yours was) by poloticians, lawyers, and the like who use words that are really unecessary to get across a point, as you notice all I did was paraphrase for simplicity - that was in NO way me trying to be mean, a jerk, put down, demean, attack you or your character or imply that what you said was in anyway negative - merely trying to lighten the mood a little - later on after I walked away from the post I thought that you might find it offensive, so I apologize. Also, if you notice, it was not MOST of your post, but merely the last comment. Also, I got your point, all I did was clarify some stuff which I thought needed to be. I felt that the examples you used to describe unnatural where, in fact poor examples. Did you even read my whole post, because I noticed you only quoted the beginning..?

Lastly, I never said anything about it being unnatural in my post here, or even elsewhere in this post (did you even READ my previous post? I am assuming not.), so if you are trying to pull apart my logic, than you need to go back to my previous post and read it, then reread it and pull it apart - but then of course you would just tell me something about God, proving existance, and you know what, many people way smarter than you and I have been doing it for millenia and I really dont think a couple of retarded neon owners are going to solve it here on a car forum (lighten up again, I am just being light hearted).

I already know and understand the argument you placed forward, so thanks for the refresher course. :lol: ;) I actually, would prefer to state my belief once again, which was actually from a Judeo-Christian/Biblical POV, which I already know you disagree with and therefore, we will just have to agree to disagree with each other. This argument is not going to go anywhere and I will tell you why; because I have my beliefs and believe them to be true based on what I perceive to be fact whereas you do the same, so either way we end up butting heads. Care to just shake hands and go our separate ways?? :D Also, please do not take offense to what I said, if you still do, sorry I still meant it as no harm.
SOLD 5/13- 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Convertible | 2.4L Turbo HO | Bright Silver Metallic
SOLD 7/09- 2002 Dodge Neon ACR | Flame Red
The Offical: Sold My Neon Even Though I Swore I Never Would Club | Member #777

Image

JRM
2GN Member
Posts: 3512
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: MO

Post by JRM » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:50 pm

Image
06 Ford F150 Stock truck 23x,xxx miles and running strong
05 Chevy Equinox Wifey's

Official I sold my Neon Member #482

bige1030
2GN Member
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:21 pm
Location: Lawrence, KS

Post by bige1030 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:22 pm

kc2002acr wrote:
Rather than calling most of my post word vomit and misquoting me (the age was 18 not 16!), why don't you try to actually understand what the whole point of it was? I was simply trying to point out one reason that the argument Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong.
Whoa, back off there tiger... first I wasn't trying to misquote, that is called a mistake, so please calm yourself; second I wasn't trying to be a jerk by calling your post bad; word vomit... that is a term used to describe comments made (like yours was) by poloticians, lawyers, and the like who use words that are really unecessary to get across a point, as you notice all I did was paraphrase for simplicity - that was in NO way me trying to be mean, a jerk, put down, demean, attack you or your character or imply that what you said was in anyway negative - merely trying to lighten the mood a little - later on after I walked away from the post I thought that you might find it offensive, so I apologize. Also, if you notice, it was not MOST of your post, but merely the last comment. Also, I got your point, all I did was clarify some stuff which I thought needed to be. I felt that the examples you used to describe unnatural where, in fact poor examples. Did you even read my whole post, because I noticed you only quoted the beginning..?

Lastly, I never said anything about it being unnatural in my post here, or even elsewhere in this post (did you even READ my previous post? I am assuming not.), so if you are trying to pull apart my logic, than you need to go back to my previous post and read it, then reread it and pull it apart - but then of course you would just tell me something about God, proving existance, and you know what, many people way smarter than you and I have been doing it for millenia and I really dont think a couple of retarded neon owners are going to solve it here on a car forum (lighten up again, I am just being light hearted).

I already know and understand the argument you placed forward, so thanks for the refresher course. :lol: ;) I actually, would prefer to state my belief once again, which was actually from a Judeo-Christian/Biblical POV, which I already know you disagree with and therefore, we will just have to agree to disagree with each other. This argument is not going to go anywhere and I will tell you why; because I have my beliefs and believe them to be true based on what I perceive to be fact whereas you do the same, so either way we end up butting heads. Care to just shake hands and go our separate ways?? :D Also, please do not take offense to what I said, if you still do, sorry I still meant it as no harm.
I'm sorry. I couldn't tell that you meant to be light-hearted. I forgive you for having offended me since that clearly was not your intent.

I think that's the worst thing about debates on Internet forums - you just can't tell when someone is being light-hearted or mean-spirited. The whole nonverbal dimension of communication is missing here, so I can't see when you mean to be light-hearted, and you can't tell whether I'm making a point or just ranting.

I will agree to disagree on this. I didn't intend to convert you or anyone else; I just meant to respond to a point made by someone else. Anyway, there are some good and bad arguments on both sides, and I like to point out the bad ones when I see them.

I really didn't mean to address your previous posts when talking about this. I was aiming it more toward CgPeon's posts that made the point about "gay = unnatural and therefore wrong" in a way that I thought was worse than anything you were saying.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”