Gays get the bum wrap

[Professur]

True. But being intolerant of someone else's intolerance is hipocritical. The initial intolerance isn't.

 

[Squiggy]

But being intolerant of someone else's intolerance is hipocritical. The initial intolerance isn't.

Now thats signature material if I ever saw one...

 

[flavio]

True. But being intolerant of someone else's intolerance is hipocritical. The initial intolerance isn't.

The initial intolerance is bigotry the second is intolerance of bigotry...pick your poison.

 

[Gonz]

No to "MARRIAGE". Already explained.

Gays should adopt. Not infants however. There are more than enough older kids that need love & parenting to keep them busy. Leave the infants for the heterosexual, married couples. They stand a better chance at a homogeneous life. Which, believe it or not, is not a bad thing.

 

[Professur]

Can't we just exile all the gays to the same island as the pedophiles?

 

[flavio]

Can't we just exile all the gays to the same island as the pedophiles?

...and then all the bigots go on the island with the necrophiliacs.

 

[paul_valaru]

we are not itolerant of her views, as redneck as they are.

we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights

 

[Gonz]

we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights

That's a good cause. Let's see if it's true. When the gays threatened UPN(?) for even allowing Dr Laura to have a TV show, were you picketing the picketers?

 

[paul_valaru]

hell no, Dr. Laura has a right to free speech, hence the fact she had her hate mongering show

the picketers where practicing there freedom of speech, by picketing, this woman is using her freedom of speech, to start a petetion to remove certain rights of a certian segment of people.

and we are practicing our freedom of speech to tell her to go fuck herself with a chainsaw.



she has the right to her opinion, and I have the right to say I think she is wrong. she sent out faxes stating her opinion in a public forum, hence we have the right to make fun of her to our hearts content

 

[Gonz]

we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights

Then the above statement is a lie.

 

[paul_valaru]

how so, we are using our freedom of speech to do it, I think she is wrong, so I open my mouth, not here, where t does no good, but to the people who are making the laws.

I am upset with her because, In my opinion, she is using her religious beleifs to influence the goverment.

To the email I sent through a gay rights website, to the goverment of canada, I did not use phrases like fuck herself, etc.

I even spell checked it.

Here the church is making a VERY organized effort to stop gay marriage from happening, this fax the women sent is the least of what is going on. The preists of goverment officials are trying to manipulate there flock. Becasue they beleive they are always right, and know what is best for others. I am tired of this monolithic organization trying to sway lawmakers, when we set the line a long time ago about church and state.

I have no idea what point I am trying to make, I'm gonna get coffee now.

 

[Gonz]

how so, we are using our freedom of speech to do it, I think she is wrong, so I open my mouth, not here, where t does no good, but to the people who are making the laws.

I am upset with her because, In my opinion, she is using her religious beleifs to influence the goverment.

Here the church is making a VERY organized effort to stop gay marriage from happening,

You are using your freedom of speech to stop anothers freedom of speech yet you blatantly state that "we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights" when by definition you have become part of the organized assault on those rights. Pick a side. Either one. But don't make hypocritical statements or you'll get called on the carpet

"I am upset with her because, In my opinion, she is using her religious beleifs to influence the goverment." What would you expect her to do? Use beliefs she doesn't have? That wouldn't make them beliefs. Murder, thievery, et al, come from a religious background. Our country was founded by religious men. Hell, look at what an awful & vile thing they said in Declaring our Indpendence from Britain.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

[paul_valaru]

I am not trying to block her freedom of speech, I m just exersizing mine, she is using her freedom of speech to obtain her goals, I am using mine to obtain my goals.

as for the british thing, I'm Canadian, the issue is happening here.

We have laws against church interffering in state, that is the real issue

Do I think she is wrong, yes.

Do i want to, and wil I argue against her views, yes.

Did I say that she should not express them, no, and If you thought I did, then you are right, she has the right to express her beleifs, and I have the right to say

we are not itolerant of her views, as redneck as they are.

we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights

Not intolerant, well i am, but I'm not intolerant of her expressing them.

paul_valaru:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights
Then the above statement is a lie.

how is that a lie, she expressed her opinion (whisch she stated as fact) to get people to support her point of veiw, I just want to state my opinion, to get people to support my point of view.


The only thing I truly think is wrong, is preist, hell the whole catholic church, using it's clout to change what is already law in one part of this country.

If is was a priest to a politician, speaking persont to person, the priest stating his own opinion that HE thinks gay marriage is wrong, it's freedom of speech, when the priest says the same thing to a politician, speacking on behalf of the church, NOT as an individual, it is the church crossing that line into govermental affairs.

and that is what gets me steamed up

 

[Gonz]

we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights

Again,

by definition you have become part of the organized assault on those rights

I'm not even arguing the finer points of church vs state yet. I'm trying to get this settled.

 

[paul_valaru]

I am not assulting there right to free speach, I am assaulting there platform.

I beleive they have a right to speak, I have the right to speak back.

Their arguement is Gays should not be married, because, blah blah blah

My arguement is they should be afforded the same rights as straight people because blah blah blah

they shout from the rooftops

I shout from the rooftops

Where is it that I said they shouldn't have the right to speak there minds?

I just think they are wrong, as I'm sure they think I am wrong.

If it's the Dr. Laura thing, hell I hate her, I wish she never had a show, cause she is a mean bitch. They protested against her, I would too, she can say what she wants, we just let her sponsers know we are not interested in hearing it, and we are offended by what she says, nothing against freedom of speach there, it's all about capitalism, no trying to get a court order to shut her up, it's about her not getting paid to say it.

 

[Gonz]

If it's the Dr. Laura thing, hell I hate her, I wish she never had a show, cause she is a mean bitch.

It's about your hypocrisy which you plainly can't see.

about laura, what has she said that makes you hate her? have you actually listened to her stance? even if she is a mean bitch, you have the gall to to oppose her right to speak?

more leftist drivel.

 

[paul_valaru]

Leftist drivel?

What hypocracy.

I'm not allowed my opinion?

Dr. Laura, I don't like her, plain and simple, she stands for things I oppose.

Fine, she wants whole families, the message is ok most of the time, it's the holier than thou hang up on the caller presentation I particular,ly hate, it's her 20-20 hindsight, she doesn't help, she spouts her condemnation of people.

I don't oppose her freedom of speach, I have a radio dila, and a tv remote, I can change the channel. But if I am really opposed to her, I also have the right to tell the sponsers of her programs, that if they pay her to broadcast her talk, I have the right to not buy there product.

The people who picketed her show (I don't remember the whole story, so I could be wrong) where people who took offense at her calling gays all sorts of names, almost dehuminzing them *cough* krystalnaught*cough*.

They did not say lock her up, all they said was broadcast her, and we will go elsewhere, which is there right.

 

[MrBishop]

There is a fine line between 'freedom of speach' and hate-literature. Hate literature is illegal in Canada.

This woman is trying to use her freedom of speach to remove an existing right. The fact that she's using her freedom of speach is fine...good to it girlfriend etc... though... when she uses misinformation to influence a decision and change an existing right, THEN I have an issue.

Using my own rights to freedom of speach, I could, should I choose to go through the same channels and effort, create my own petition requiring equal access for same-sex couples to marriage and adoption as hetero-sexual couples.

I could use misinformation on my end and overstate the percentages of heterosexual pedophiliacs to try and deny adoption of children by heterosexual couples, and relegate it to same-sex ONLY couples.

 

[Gonz]

Leftist drivel?

What hypocracy.

I'm not allowed my opinion?

Dr. Laura, I don't like her, plain and simple, she stands for things I oppose.

Fine, she wants whole families, the message is ok most of the time, it's the holier than thou hang up on the caller presentation I particular,ly hate, it's her 20-20 hindsight, she doesn't help, she spouts her condemnation of people.

I don't oppose her freedom of speach, I have a radio dila, and a tv remote, I can change the channel. But if I am really opposed to her, I also have the right to tell the sponsers of her programs, that if they pay her to broadcast her talk, I have the right to not buy there product.

The people who picketed her show (I don't remember the whole story, so I could be wrong) where people who took offense at her calling gays all sorts of names, almost dehuminzing them *cough* krystalnaught*cough*.

They did not say lock her up, all they said was broadcast her, and we will go elsewhere, which is there right.

You're allowed any opinion you want, even when it's wrong. You said "we are standing up for the rights of others, against an organised assault to those rights" in which I've now pointed out numerous times makes you a hypocrit. You became part of an organized assault on anothers speech.

She doesn't hang up on callers.

"her calling gays all sorts of names" is absolute misinformation. Her quote was "Homosexuality is a biological error". Which it is. Show me one man that can bear children or one female that can conceive without a males help & I'll reverse my stance.

I'll debate facts until I'm dead. Show me that I'm wrong & I'll back down. Opinions are another matter. I'll show you where you're wrong & at some point get bored. But facts can't be debated. Get them straight & we'll have no problem.

 

[paul_valaru]

I became part of an organized assault on someones elses ideas, not there speech.

The 3 whole times I listened to Dr. Laura, she was rude, adn was hanging up on people.

Homosexuality is a biological error?

don't agree, won't agree.

That is the first step in dehumanizing something, calling it an error, with that train of thought, soon it will be something to be fixed, then eradicated.

the point being I never said she couldn't express her views, hence I never trampled on her freedom of speach.