Page 64 of 190 FirstFirst ... 145460616263646566676874114164 ... LastLast
Results 1,576 to 1,600 of 4735

Thread: Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

  1. #1576
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    If the FRC is a hate group any group that supports abortion is a hate group. There is literally no way around it. Is that what you people really want? Do you really want to be labeled a part of a hate group/hate movement?
    Why would being pro-abortion be a hate crime? Fetuses aren't people.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Hmm lets see, making a absurd point, linking your opponent to unsavory people, insulting them, and completely ignoring the main points of the argument.

    How very Family Research Council of you.
    Were you complimenting me, or insulting the FRC?
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  2. #1577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    Why would being pro-abortion be a hate crime? Fetuses aren't people.
    Fetuses are living human beings. You want to take every right away from them, including the right to life? You don't even want to recognize them as people? You are nothing but a hateful bigot.

    That is, if the FRC is a hate group for the reasons you've all listed in this very thread.

    If you want to call the FRC and people who oppose homosexual marriage members of a hate group and hateful bigots for:
    1) repeating what you consider to be incorrect scientific information about homosexuality
    and
    2) what you consider to be seeking to take rights away from homosexuals,

    then I should feel free to call people like you who:
    1) repeat what I consider to be incorrect scientific information about unborn children
    and
    2) what I consider to be seeking to take rights away from unborn children,
    members of a hate group and hateful bigots.

    Or we could all just be grown ups and realize that people disagree with each other and vote on legislation without actually hating anyone.


    or that.


    It doesn't feel so good when you apply the same judgement to yourself does it?
    Last edited by mattj; 19th August 2012 at 2:01 AM.

  3. #1578
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    Fetuses are living human beings. You want to take every right away from them, including the right to life? You don't even want to recognize them as people? You are nothing but a hateful bigot.

    That is, if the FRC is a hate group for the reasons you've all listed in this very thread.

    If you want to call the FRC and people who oppose homosexual marriage members of a hate group and hateful bigots for:
    1) repeating what you consider to be incorrect scientific information about homosexuality
    and
    2) what you consider to be seeking to take rights away from homosexuals,

    then I should feel free to call people like you who:
    1) repeat what I consider to be incorrect scientific information about unborn children
    and
    2) what I consider to be seeking to take rights away from unborn children,
    members of a hate group and hateful bigots.

    Or we could all just be grown ups and realize that people disagree with each other and vote on legislation without actually hating anyone.


    or that.


    It doesn't feel so good when you apply the same judgement to yourself does it?
    The abortion debate has nothing to do with hate groups.

  4. #1579
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    That's great, but we're not debating about abortion or the rights of fetuses. We're debating about the rights of anyone of any sexual orientation or identification other than straight or cisgendered (all of whom have clearly already been born anyway). You might not want to try and veer the topic away from the main point like that.

    I'd think scientific information about fetuses and embryos is an ongoing discovery process even in the scientific community, whereas scientific information about the workings of homosexuality and sexual orientation is pretty solid across the board. We're also not debating about whether homosexual people should be defined as people or not, so it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

    It's not really much of a discussion of rights if people have to vote on those rights, is it?


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  5. #1580
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    Were you complimenting me, or insulting the FRC?
    I am not a fan of the petty tactic that they, or you used, it lowers the discussion and debate.

  6. #1581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eterna View Post
    The abortion debate has nothing to do with hate groups.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiserin View Post
    That's great, but we're not debating about abortion or the rights of fetuses. We're debating about the rights of anyone of any sexual orientation or identification other than straight or cisgendered (all of whom have clearly already been born anyway). You might not want to try and veer the topic away from the main point like that.

    I'd think scientific information about fetuses and embryos is an ongoing discovery process even in the scientific community, whereas scientific information about the workings of homosexuality and sexual orientation is pretty solid across the board. We're also not debating about whether homosexual people should be defined as people or not, so it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

    It's not really much of a discussion of rights if people have to vote on those rights, is it?
    I have no desire to debate abortion here. But if you want to call people who oppose homosexual marriage hateful and their organizations hate groups, get ready for them to call organizations that support abortion hateful and hate groups for the exact same reason. You cannot call the FRC a hate group and not call Planned Parenthood a hate group when they do the exact same thing, but from opposing sides of the political spectrum.

    or you could be an adult and realize that just as planned parenthood doesn't hate the unborn children to whom they seek to deny the right to life, the FRC doesn't hate the homosexuals to whom they seek to deny the right to marry
    Last edited by mattj; 19th August 2012 at 2:34 AM.

  7. #1582
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    BigLutz is sounding like those idiots that think that homosexuality is just a choice because they heard that a guy said it was a choice.
    BigLutz did literally nothing for you to call him an idiot here. He both condemned the FRC for what they said and defended their right to free speech. He was trying to meet you halfway. Hate groups are groups that advocate violence against others. It is about what they do, not what they say. Merely saying hurtful things does not make you a hate group, or calling someone an idiot, telling someone their religion is evil, and laughing over them having a funeral for their miscarried fetus would also be considere hate group activity.

    I am not comfortable with your rudeness in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  8. #1583
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Not hating a group of people outright doesn't make it okay to place them in a lower tier than white, straight, cisgendered individuals just because you say, "Well, we don't hate them, we just don't think they should be allowed the same rights and protections."

    You don't have to hate them. It doesn't make what they're doing somehow more righteous because it's not motivated by hate.

    EDIT: And stop dragging abortion into this. I am not looking to debate abortion in a thread about a topic that's, at best, only peripherally related. In a sense that they both happen to be hot button issues.


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  9. #1584

    Default

    Did I say it made them okay? I said it didn't make them a hate group, which is what people in this thread have called them.

  10. #1585
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    Did I say it made them okay? I said it didn't make them a hate group, which is what people in this thread have called them.
    Perhaps not, but that's splitting hairs. The issue remains that what they're doing is oppressive to anyone who isn't straight/cis, even if it's not done out of hate.


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  11. #1586
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    I have no desire to debate abortion here. But if you want to call people who oppose homosexual marriage hateful and their organizations hate groups, get ready for them to call organizations that support abortion hateful and hate groups for the exact same reason. You cannot call the FRC a hate group and not call Planned Parenthood a hate group when they do the exact same thing, but from opposing sides of the political spectrum.

    or you could be an adult and realize that just as planned parenthood doesn't hate the unborn children to whom they seek to deny the right to life, the FRC doesn't hate the homosexuals to whom they seek to deny the right to marry
    Seeking criminal sanctions against people who are homosexual is hate.

  12. #1587

    Default

    Seeking criminal sanctions against people who are homosexual is not hate. Do those who vote to criminalize marijuana use hate pot smokers? Obviously not. People vote to criminalize various things every election without feeling hatred for the group involved.
    Last edited by mattj; 19th August 2012 at 2:58 PM.

  13. #1588
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    Seeking criminal sanctions against people who are homosexual is not hate. Do those who vote to criminalize marijuana use hate pot smokers? Obviously not. People vote to criminalize various things every election without feeling hatred for the group involved.
    ...In that case, may I ask your definition of the word hate? I'd argue it doesn't have to be this clear-cut, spiteful feeling towards a certain group of people to qualify, myself.


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  14. #1589
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apartment 139
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiserin View Post
    ...In that case, may I ask your definition of the word hate? I'd argue it doesn't have to be this clear-cut, spiteful feeling towards a certain group of people to qualify, myself.
    Well, then you're not using the definition of the word. Take a look at Merriam-Webster's definition of hate:

    1
    a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>
    2: an object of hatred
    On what grounds do you say that hate does not have to be a clear-cut spiteful feeling?




    Let me point out a disturbing portion of the article you linked to:

    "As Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now. Still, she said that the hate group designation doesn’t mean the SPLC thinks everyone who supports the FRC “has a full understanding of what they’re up to.” Many who support the FRC may do so because of the group’s very public ties to evangelical Christianity, and Beirich stressed that the SPLC designation has nothing to do with an “attack on the churchly world.”

    I asked her if a Republican choosing to address the FRC convention next year would be making the same choice as one who addressed an Aryan Nation rally.

    “Yeah,” she told me. “What we’re saying is these [anti-gay] groups perpetrate hate — just like those [racist] organizations do.”

    These claims by the SPLC research director, Heidi Beirich, are far and away more hateful than the claims that the FRC are making. Why? The KKK have been historically known to engage in violence to acheive their goals and the Aryan Nation is described by the FBI as a terrorist threat.

    The FRC does not advocate violence against homosexuals, nor has the SPLC claimed that the FRC has engaged in terrorism.

    To assert that these three groups are on the same level is ludicrous and hateful.




    Now, let us take a look at some articles posted by the FRC and the SPLC.

    SPLC's Intelligence File on The Family Research Council
    The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality by Peter Sprigg

    The first thing I noticed about the article by the SPLC about the Family Research Council was its lack of sources that lead to other websites. They do give basic citations for some things they quote, but all of the links in this article lead to other articles of the SPLC. They don't give citations for the claims they make, they just point to other works of their own. Furthermore, they make very bold claims about the current president of the FRC having done illegal or unethical acts, but they fail to give any evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, they say that the FRC' intentions are to denigrate LGBT people. How, pray tell, do they know what the intentions of the FRC are? At the least, a claim like that should be cited or backed up in some sort of way...but they don't back it up.

    Contrast this with the number of formal citations in the brochure written by a member of the FRC: 84 citations in a 47 page pamphlet. That approaches two citations per page.


    Now feel free to debate or discuss the quality of the citations in the pamphlet I linked to, but it must be noted that the SPLC is a law center and, as such, they should hold themselves to a higher standard than a lobbying group. These lawyers and researchers should know the value of presenting evidence to support a claim and utilize their resources to present verifiable evidence of what they claim. Why then do they, a law center, not present such evidence that one can verify? They don't even tell you where they got some of the information in the intelligence file I linked to.




    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    So, are you basically alright with the FRC calling homosexuals child molesting sociopaths?
    Let me quote a portion of the FRC pamphlet I linked:

    As this is perhaps the most explosive claim about homosexuals, a couple of clarifications are in order. This does not mean that all homosexuals are child molesters—no one has ever claimed that. It does not even mean that most homosexuals are child molesters—there is no evidence to support that. But there is evidence that the relative rate of child sexual abuse among homosexuals is far higher than it is among heterosexuals. [Emphasis added]

    [Sprigg, Peter "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality", Pg. 34; 2010 Family Research Council, accessed from http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf]

    While you may not agree with his views or dispute his methodology, he hasn't called all homosexuals pedophiles and he explicitly says that he doesn't think that all or most are the pedophiles. Thus, you are misrepresenting this man's opinion. Now, if you find other FRC literature that says all homosexuals are pedophiles, I don't mind if you prove me wrong.
    But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
    Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light."
    See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:13-15)



        Spoiler:- Friend Codes:

  15. #1590

    Default

    If he can't find other FRC literature that says just that, he's a member of a hate group according to the SLPC's definition of hate group.

  16. #1591
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    I have no desire to debate abortion here. But if you want to call people who oppose homosexual marriage hateful and their organizations hate groups, get ready for them to call organizations that support abortion hateful and hate groups for the exact same reason. You cannot call the FRC a hate group and not call Planned Parenthood a hate group when they do the exact same thing, but from opposing sides of the political spectrum.

    or you could be an adult and realize that just as planned parenthood doesn't hate the unborn children to whom they seek to deny the right to life, the FRC doesn't hate the homosexuals to whom they seek to deny the right to marry
    There is a fundamental difference. Planned Parenthood wants those who want to have an abortion the right to do so. They are not trying to make everyone get an abortion - hence press their beliefs on everyone else. Anti-Gay groups are trying to press their beliefs on everyone else - hence not giving Gays the freedom to marry just because they think it is wrong. A better comparison would have been Anti-Abortion groups, since they are trying to get laws made to make people do something they don't want to, therefore take-away freedoms, and therefore press their beliefs onto others.
    FC: 1463 5647 1777


    Come check out my Trade Shop!!!

  17. #1592
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceberg View Post
    There is a fundamental difference. Planned Parenthood wants those who want to have an abortion the right to do so. They are not trying to make everyone get an abortion - hence press their beliefs on everyone else.
    "My time there was not spent providing prenatal care to pregnant women, providing counseling or basic health care services or educating women about reproductive health.

    Instead, I spent my days urging women to terminate their pregnancies. My superiors constantly reminded me of our abortion-centered business model: abortions first, everything else came second.

    I began to recognize their emphasis on performing abortions each time a woman would express concern or have second thoughts about having an abortion. When I notified management, though, they told me not to worry and encourage her decision to move ahead with the procedure."

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl...5#.UDF4AKPCrTo

    Don't forget for Planned Parenthood Abortion = Money. No Abortion = No Money.

  18. #1593
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    If he can't find other FRC literature that says just that, he's a member of a hate group according to the SLPC's definition of hate group.
    You know, I actually find it funny that the organization would blame SPLC for the hate group label for the incident instead of their own activities that may have brought it upon themselves. Because by the logic, Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh should be blamed for the anti-Muslim attacks recently due to his speech. I'm just giving an example.

    The point is, what I see is the equivalent of a bully playing victim.

    Either way, isn't false lies in justifications for hating a key group basically hate?

  19. #1594
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The House That Never Was
    Posts
    1,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    Seeking criminal sanctions against people who are homosexual is not hate. Do those who vote to criminalize marijuana use hate pot smokers? Obviously not. People vote to criminalize various things every election without feeling hatred for the group involved.
    You could never look at an entire organization like the FRC and flat out say none of the members have hatred toward homosexuals. That's like looking at haystack with a needle in it: the haystack looks like it's completely just hay, but everyone knows there's a needle in it. Even if they say on television or in press releases that they feel no hatred, we can't look into their minds and see how they really feel.
    "Your memories are connected, like links in a chain. Those same chains are what anchor us all together."
    -Naminé


    Pokemon X Team - French Playthrough
    *COMPLETE*
    Amphinobi | Noctali | Mentali | Farfaduvet | Darumacho | Carchakrok
    3DS FC: 0430 - 9679 - 6068
    IGN: Micah
    Friend Safari Type: Fire
    Friend Safari Pokemon: Magmar, Ninetales, Charmeleon


        Spoiler:- Credits, etc.:


  20. #1595
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apartment 139
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    You could never look at an entire organization like the FRC and flat out say none of the members have hatred toward homosexuals. That's like looking at haystack with a needle in it: the haystack looks like it's completely just hay, but everyone knows there's a needle in it. Even if they say on television or in press releases that they feel no hatred, we can't look into their minds and see how they really feel.
    "We can't look into their minds and see how they really feel." This statement is the exact reason why it isn't right to say they are full of hatred. If their literature is not hateful (according to dictionary definitions) and you don't have any internal memos or writings that are hateful (according the dictionary definition), then you can't go labeling them a hate group.

    Their words and their actions are better indicators of whether they are hate groups then your own opinions.
    But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
    Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light."
    See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:13-15)



        Spoiler:- Friend Codes:

  21. #1596
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Back in the thick of battle!
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    ...

    I've been gone way too long. So many events happened in my absence of more than two months. I should have come back sooner....



    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    You know, I actually find it funny that the organization would blame SPLC for the hate group label for the incident instead of their own activities that may have brought it upon themselves. Because by the logic, Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh should be blamed for the anti-Muslim attacks recently due to his speech. I'm just giving an example.

    The point is, what I see is the equivalent of a bully playing victim.

    Either way, isn't false lies in justifications for hating a key group basically hate?
    And comments like this are one of the reasons I should have come back sooner. I'd love to go point-by-point and ask questions like, "Are you sure you're not thinking of anti-Sikh attacks?", but instead I want to focus on just one thing: How on earth do you feel justified saying that they brought the attacks on themselves?

    Let's talk about that for a minute. If some conservative went and shot up everybody at a Communist Party meeting, would you be saying that? Even if the communists there had made some pretty inflammatory statements about factory owners or used terms like "capitalist pigs," you would not be saying the Communist Party members brought violence upon themselves.

    Or, to make it serious, how about the people in this debate on Funeral Protesting? Westboro Baptist is wrong and hateful, and I don't think that protesting funerals is morally acceptable (I also think it should be illegal). However, some pro-gay people in that debate said that the people who belong to that church are less than human and cussed them out as pieces of excrement. If someone killed some of those pro-gay people because of their hatred, did the pro-gay haters "bring it on themselves"?

    I strongly recommend you don't say that again.




    ....

    Oh, and Iceberg, it really isn't appropriate to be capitalizing the word "Gay."

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  22. #1597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Soul View Post
    ...their own activities that may have brought it upon themselves.
    and i suppose you believe every abortion doctor who got has had his head blown off by an anti-abortion nutjob "may have brought it upon themselves"

    i am speechless

  23. #1598

    Default

    Ok, so I've been lurking over this topic the past few days. Not sure what I'm going to say, but whatever. :P Here goes.


    I'm gay, I don't consider the FRC to be hateful. I think Tony Perkins is an ignorant idiot, but that's irrelevant. I don't think that anyone deserved to be shot, and honestly its shocking to me to see non-gay supporters taking that stance. FRC is annoying and ignorant, not hateful.

    I do have a problem with FRC's desire to inflict their religious morals on the rest of us. I am not a christian, and they should not expect me to live up to their morals, nor should they expect anyone else to, either. We have the freedom to choose our religion in this country, and because of that, no religion can inflict their morals on this country, or even a state for that matter.
    Why does a religious group have a say in who I can and can't marry? I don't want to get married in a church, and yet so many christians claim that gay marriage infringes upon their freedom of religion.

  24. #1599
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinySandshrew View Post
    Well, then you're not using the definition of the word. Take a look at Merriam-Webster's definition of hate:



    On what grounds do you say that hate does not have to be a clear-cut spiteful feeling?
    You're reading me way too literally there, on top of which using a dictionary definition for something that's hardly that easily pinned down on a social level doesn't do much to prove your point.

    If they claim not to hate gays, then unless they're in denial or something, they probably don't hate them. But that doesn't exempt them from being hateful. You don't hate to hate someone to be hateful of something about them, or something they've done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solstyce View Post
    I do have a problem with FRC's desire to inflict their religious morals on the rest of us. I am not a christian, and they should not expect me to live up to their morals, nor should they expect anyone else to, either. We have the freedom to choose our religion in this country, and because of that, no religion can inflict their morals on this country, or even a state for that matter.
    Why does a religious group have a say in who I can and can't marry? I don't want to get married in a church, and yet so many christians claim that gay marriage infringes upon their freedom of religion.
    This is the problem I have with every single argument of the religious right, virtually without exception. That's their opinion, they can think it, and people can debate back and forth until their throats are raw -- hell, if they wanted to start claiming the moon orbiting around the Earth was a conspiracy of [insert conspirator here], it wouldn't bother me if they just wanted to spew their opinion.

    But once talk starts of putting those religiously-rooted beliefs into my secular government and supposedly church-separated laws, then I have a problem. If something comes up that I agree with on the religious right about (and so far nothing has), I'll push for it because I agree with it on other grounds, not because the Bible said so.

    Just because Christians are the majority does not mean this should be a Christian country. The founding fathers certainly didn't think so.


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  25. #1600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiserin View Post
    The founding fathers certainly didn't think so.
    I bet that someone comes and says 'but they did though!'
    My FC for 5th gen is 4041 2078 1937
    current wifi team
        Spoiler:- MasterBark:

Page 64 of 190 FirstFirst ... 145460616263646566676874114164 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •