The No Win Situation

[Guest]

Fine. Please discriminate.

A good start would be for you to ignore me or not read my posts. Im sure that will teach me a hearty lesson. But you may choose what ever method you like.

What ever you choose to do, I wont fault you for it as long as when you do argue you do so on the basis of the subject. I agree in this case while your arguement is weak, the comments about me are linked to the subject.

[Tiffany_Scott]

Hi. This is the "Scott" half speaking, so don't get all over Tiffy's case next time she posts some innocuous comment about Raven Frost rings absorbing Duriel's cold damage attacks, or whatever. :/

I'm sick to DEATH of the cowardly, weak, anarchic attitudes so common amongst so many younger people today. You possess no proper historical perspectives about the world because you have never ONCE been exposted in your pathetic K-12 ed-yoo-kay-shuns to any meaningful writings whatsover--just a lot of revisionist propaganda designed to indoctrinate you all into thinking a certain way--which the bulk of you do VERY well. You're delightfully brainwashed and ignorant concerning the realities of the universe you inhabit, I assure you. Makes your skewl teachers grin ear from ear to ear, I'll bet... and your university professors positively giddy with glee. :/

So. Somehow you're too foolish and 'tolerant" (rofl) to even comprehend that when employers CANNOT say 'no" to hiring a man in a dress (and I don't give a rat's rear end about anyone's claims concerning his "job qualifications"), said employer is no longer an employer at all, but rather a serf--a slave--a PROPERTY of the government. And THIS, in a nation which laughably (and quite falsely) declares itself to be a government "--of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Tell me, you "tolerant" little boys, how is it you all have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER trampling on people's religious and moral freedoms (and I've never yet met any self-proclaimed 'tolerant' person who wasn't hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular), while at the same tiime insisting that--in this case, which is VERY typical of you "tolerant" types--there is absolutely nothing at all wrong, strange, odd, unacceptable, unhealthy, undesirable, or unlawful about men who INSIST they are not men at all--but really women. Men who like to don skirts and panties and blouses and dresses or what-have-you, normally in private but INCREASINGLY in public?

Oh, but you are all the same tolerant little boys (and girls, I won't try and excuse the girls here) who will passionately defend homosexual behavior; passionately insist that laws could, should, and / or must be passed guaranteeing gay "marriage", and non-discimination in the workplace, blah blah blah hallelujah world without end, amen. All the while simultaneously berating Christians and others who opposive formulating ANY public policies which sanction or reward citizens for such behavior. Tolerant?? My ass. Like most people, you are "tolerant" only insofar as the world is forcibly molded by both yourselves and others into the shape YOU desire... and damn everyone else. Damn the Christian and Jew and Muslim who is under command from God to NOT condone such behavior, to NOT willingly choose such people to work for him, or to live in his house, or to associate with his children. Like stubborn donkeys you bray endlessly about "separation of church and state" while AGAIN simultaneously allowing--and desiring!!--the government to possess SUPREME AND FINAL AUTHORITY over everyone's life, and the churches be damned! Tax the churchgoers to pay for government skewls which will tell them both overtly and subtly, day in and day out, that THERE!! IS!! NO!! GOD!! and religion is just a silly, wishful fantasy that some people choose to indulge in merely because it makes them feel good, and that they are SCIENTIFICALLY really just meaningless blobs of protoplasm inhabiting a purposeless universe formed out of nothing via some strange, unfathomable combination of time plus chance plus, um well matter hehe but don't ask where all that matter came from it just... DID okay?

It just did.


:huh:

I detest living in a nation once so great, so purposeful, so confident, which is fast becoming a weak, stupid, illogical, irrational chunk of varied geography, increasingly inhabited by beings so weak and fearful and blind that they cannot even understand such things as why human beings and their bodies are not designed for homosexual behavior, why and how there ARE two different sexes whose differences should be celebrated, honored, and preserved rather than torn down and dismissed, simply so that a few decidedly UNhealthy people can "cross-dress", or stick their pee-pees into anything warm and wet they fancy without any fear of being scolded for it...

FEMINIZED MALES!! Aside from the Doc, that seems to be the only kind of male (I won't call you men, in my view you're too indecisive and immature to warrant the title) willing to express any opinions on this topic.... :blink:

It's not "tolerance" you people preach. It's INDIFFERENCE. You don't give a damn how much people's foolish behaviors hurt themselves and others, so long as YOU PERCEIVE it isn't hurting you. You're like Cain when God confronted him after Cain had murdered his brother Abel... "Am I my brother's keeper?" you "tolerantly" proclaim. :(

Men dressing up like women are hurting themselves in NUMEROUS ways. Anyone who refuses to see this and boldly, unashamedly proclaim it is both unreasoning and unstable; and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson "--wholly undeserving of the liberties which a republican government offers."

Liberty is not LICENSE. Freedom does not mean allowing every individual to indulge in every silly and stupid whim which pops into their heads. And since ALL of you who favor this madman democrat's legislation most assuraedly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER saying 'no" to Judeo-Christian morality (talk about a given!!!), why then can you not say "no' to THIS obvious lunacy? WHY? Are you truly so desirous to destroy the republic which at least SOME of your forefathers both established and fought to preserve? Because the inability to say 'no' to such idiocy being vented in the public square as THIS, is via any historical precedent a sure and certain sign that the collapse of your civilization is drawing near. And when great civilizations fall, they have a proven tendency to take a LOT of humanity with them...


...fittingly, ESPECIALLY the 'tolerant' types who have always played such a prime role in such societal collapses! :blink:

[WarBlade]

-what you smell like

Hmm, that one's not so easy to dismiss . . .

Back in '97 I was working in a software retail store that was a very face-to-face, greet-them-as-they-walk-in-the-door kind of business. One day my chinese co-worker started talking to a customer over the counter just before I emerged from the backroom . . . I got to around three metres away from this guy and suddenly remembered something very important dragging me back into the back room that I had yet to dream up. Moving to within three metres of this halitosis record benchmark person (with maybe as many as a third of his teeth still vaguely intact after extensive rot) was like walking face first into a brick wall! :blink:

Can you imagine someone like that applying for a waiter's position in your restaurant, or other face to face job. It just wouldn't work.

Poor Richard. When the mutant non-customer finally got the hell out of our shop, I looked at my coworker sagging heavily at the counter, pushing fingers up under his glasses to wipe at the teary eyes, and I just said, "take a break man. You need it." :(

I have great respect for dentists after that encounter.

[Archon_Wing]

Hello,

Perhaps we share a common ground that those insane atheist Christian bashers who preach tolerance but hate the major religons to be annoying and terrible.

Oh, but you are all the same tolerant little boys (and girls, I won't try and excuse the girls here) who will passionately defend homosexual behavior; passionately insist that laws could, should, and / or must be passed guaranteeing gay "marriage", and non-discimination in the workplace, blah blah blah hallelujah world without end, amen. All the while simultaneously berating Christians and others who opposive formulating ANY public policies which sanction or reward citizens for such behavior. Tolerant?? My ass. Like most people, you are "tolerant" only insofar as the world is forcibly molded by both yourselves and others into the shape YOU desire... and damn everyone else. Damn the Christian and Jew and Muslim who is under command from God to NOT condone such behavior, to NOT willingly choose such people to work for him, or to live in his house, or to associate with his children.

I respect your position on homosexuality. However, your beliefs do not extend beyond yourself. You're entilted to your opinions, mind you. However, our government is not a theorocracy. If you choose to not condone thise behavior, that's with you. I tolerate that, and everyone is expected to. However, nobody has to accept your opinions. People aren't going to change just because you or a group said so. You have a choice to not allow you or your family to interact with them. You can voice your concern over such matters.

Consider some religons that are not allowed to eat certain foods. They should be provided with alternate types of meals. But they can't force everyone else to not eat that type of food.

I detest living in a nation once so great, so purposeful, so confident, which is fast becoming a weak, stupid, illogical, irrational chunk of varied geography, increasingly inhabited by beings so weak and fearful and blind that they cannot even understand such things as why human beings and their bodies are not designed for homosexual behavior, why and how there ARE two different sexes whose differences should be celebrated, honored, and preserved rather than torn down and dismissed, simply so that a few decidedly UNhealthy people can "cross-dress", or stick their pee-pees into anything warm and wet they fancy without any fear of being scolded for it...

Hmm... I would consider promiscouity highly immoral too. Shall we outlaw that? Oh and go prove that humans were not designed for homosexual behaviorl.

Oh, and yes while i'll agree with you that ignorance is on the rise, I don't agree that people are stupid because they do not "see it" the way you do.

Liberty is not LICENSE. Freedom does not mean allowing every individual to indulge in every silly and stupid whim which pops into their heads. And since ALL of you who favor this madman democrat's legislation most assuraedly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER saying 'no" to Judeo-Christian morality (talk about a given!!!), why then can you not say "no' to THIS obvious lunacy? WHY? Are you truly so desirous to destroy the republic which at least SOME of your forefathers both established and fought to preserve? Because the inability to say 'no' to such idiocy being vented in the public square as THIS, is via any historical precedent a sure and certain sign that the collapse of your civilization is drawing near. And when great civilizations fall, they have a proven tendency to take a LOT of humanity with them...

Well, I'd definitely agree to the idea that there is a limit of freedrom people can have. You can't just kill people randomly , because society could not possibly function like that. But heh... a guy wearing a dress causing the downfall of society is rather hard for me to picture. The truth is that these people are in the minority. I doubt you would see cross dressers all running over town.

The truth is Mr. Cross Dresser has a right to apply for a job, but a comapny should be able to regulate its dress code.

[Tiffany_Scott]

<_<

Perhaps we share a common ground that those insane atheist Christian bashers who preach tolerance but hate the major religons to be annoying and terrible.

Perhaps. But your subsequent statements don't lend much credence to this. <_<

I respect your position on homosexuality. However, your beliefs do not extend beyond yourself.

Then why is that openly homosexual donkey-party legislator okay in formulating a bill designed to extend HIS views on homosexual behavior into the lives of every sentient being living within the confines of the nation's most populous state? Was there a demand, a wild outcry on the part of WE!! THE!! PEOPLE!! for him to draft that particular bill? To be sure, a very small minority of Californians would no doubt cheer and clap and stomp their feet in support of such a law... but what about the OTHER fifty million people who reside there? Moreover, what about ME and all the other people who believe the Bible to be at least slightly more accurate and substantive than last month's Spiderman comic book, or this morning's editorial in the New York Times?? The question of this nations attitudes on homosexuality are NO DIFFERENT than the questions we faced a 100+ years ago concerning African slavery, or the questions we've wrestled with for 30+ years now concerning abortion. Meaning: what kind of nation do we choose to be? What ideas and principles do the majority of us espouse, embrace, and defend? I see NOTHING!!! about homosexual behavior or cross-dressing worthy of defense on the part of ANY governmental institution. NOTHING. You name me what sort of benefit humanity derives from homosexual behavior, and maybe I'll defend it. I see only negativity associated with and from that behavior, period. ONLY negativity. But we'll pick this topic up again after your next quote.

However, our government is not a theocracy. If you choose to not condone thise behavior, that's with you.

What is "our government?" How I am a part of "our" when the aforementioned goveernment starts to aggressively promote and defend homosexual behavior? Which it does. Primarily through the Democratic party (who of course all the gay lobby groups support with huge amounts of money), today's government--mostly on the state level but increasingly on the federal--has become the biggest promoter and defender of homosexual behavior there is. California skewls in particular STRIONGLY OVERWHELMINGLY present in their various K-12 social studies-health class textbooks the specious notion that homosexual behavior is morally equivalent to male-female relations in every way imaginable. They browbeat and intimidate students into being ashamed of even THINKING of daring to express any criticism of homosexual behavior. They call it 'tolerance' but so what, it is NOT tolerant any more than Hitler's pre-WW2 policies towards german jews equated into 'tolerance.' The government is choosing sides in the culture war concerning homosexual behavior and so far it is VERY MUCH firmly on the side of punishing Christians and others, as evidenced (for starters) by stealing THEIR tax dollars to provide full benefits to the "live-in partners" of state and / or federal workers who engage in homosexual bahavior. And that's just ONE example. Add on all these Orwellian "Hate Crimes" bills which will serve mainly to frighten people into NEVER daring to express any public disapproval of homosexual behavior (which is precisely what has happened in Canada and other socialist countries which have already adopted such laws), and again--you're faced not with tolerance but rather with outright governmental discrimination against anyone who DOESN'T approve of homosexual behavior. I don't see any self-proclaimed 'gay'people being forcibly taxed to provide me with full medical and dental benefits for loving Jesus Christ--so why am I taxed simply to give THEM benefits for engaging in homosexual acts?? Again, the government is already choosing sides, already LITERALLY forcing their views on me and others, and from a purely historical perspective this is ALL very recent and is wholly media-driven. MEDIA DRIVEN. It is not 'we the people" it is instead CBS, NBC, ABC, MTV, and all the rest of that pack-mentality ilk, along with their allies in the fields of both print journalism and now of course publik ed-yoo-kay-shun. Hell, the whole "gay-rights movement" is a HOLLYWOOD-driven phenomenom more than anything else, and so of course California is the state suffering the most from it!!

But heh... a guy wearing a dress causing the downfall of society is rather hard for me to picture.

You're thinking WAY too narrowly, then. I clearly stated that it is a historical fact that when human socities decline to such a point that they can no longer say 'no" to any of of the silly, nonsensical, unhealthy, and above all UNWORTHY whims which are ALWAYS being promulgated by various small groups of out-of-the-mainstream people, then wholesale societal collapse inevitably follows. All of the great human civilizations, from Babylon to Britain, once revolved around core sets of shared foundational principals and attitudes. And all of them also later gave birth (unhappily) to later generations of people whom--for whatever reasons (none of which could be classified as either logical or workable) abandoned those foundational principals, ALL THE WHILE congratulating themselves on how progressive-enlightened-advanced-superior-evolved-blahblahblah they were. Augustine in his legendary 20-volume CITY OF GOD series of tomes (circa 5th century AD) covered the attitudinal downfall of Rome in stunningly graphic detail, lending much of the later inspiration for Edward Gibbon's monumental writings which--until quite recently--were familiar to most western college students ("the Rise, Decline, and Fall of the Roman Empire").Until of course the recent wave of anti-dead-white-male sentiment purged Gibbons' works from the shelves of most western universities. And why purged?? Because Gibbon's writings lacked empirical educational value? No. Purged for the same blindly stupid reasons that religion in general and Christianity in particular has been and continues to be systematically purged from the American public square--that is, BECAUSE A FEW SELF-PROCLAIMED TOLERANT SMART PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH IT. :blink:


I have no interest WHATSOEVER in being 'tolerant" in the deceitful, manipulative, straight-out-of-a-George-Orwell-novel manner that word is now used by educators, media people, and politicians. NONE. I will not be a good German and start hating the Jews simply because the President and his political party sez so. Meaning I demand to hear some LOGICAL VALID reasons as to how homosexual behavior (and so-called cross-dressing fits right in with this) benefits the general welfare, and thusly should be both rewarded with tax dollars and protected and promulgated via public policy.

PS I defy you to look up the word "natural" and tell me how homosexual behavior (and again, cross-dressing fits right in with this) dovetails with the given meaning. Is the human race promulgated through homosexual behavior? Homosexual behavior cannot both be natural AND unnatural. The primary law of logic is that 'a' cannot be 'non-a.' I despise the term 'heterosexual' being tossed around as it is today, so as to help brainwash people into making the connection that hetero and homo are merely two equal variants of the same theme. One produces babies; the other inevitably produces (in its most popular male variants) physical injury and bodily distress. :/ One matches up perfectly with how the human body is designed; the parts fit together snugly and the end result has helped inspire men and women both to great heights of both physical and creative ecstasy... not to mention being sanctioned and approved by their Creator. Whereas the other is much akin to trying to force a square peg into a round hole, or inducing water into flowing upstream... :unsure:

One deserves recognition by humanity AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS as being proper and worthy of acceptance; the other should be merely tolerated IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD by government simply keeping its fat ugly nose out of people's wallets, and out of their children's HEADS. We don't need skewls to say one freaking word to our kids about homosexual behavior. I'd rather see such behavior pitied and condemned, but i'd settlle for silence. Let all the gay activists and whatnot propagandize THEIR kids, God help them. But I'm sick of the damned government doing it FOR everyone, and basically continuing to be the best, most influential spokesmen any radical honmosexual lobbying group could ever hope for in the form of mandatory, publicly-funded educational institutions promoting a 'tolerance" that is--again!!--no more tolerant towards its dissenters than 1930's Germany was towards Jewish sympathizers.....

[Doc]

Wow. Lots of good points here, brought up by a few folks. I treaded carefully, not wanting to cross the line, but it seems like it's done been crossed.

A while back, in Calafornia, there was a bit of work done on outlawing public prayer. Prayer in public places. Because there was Christian, there was Jew, and there was Muslims, and a wide variety of other faiths, and Jews hearing the prayers of Muslims found them offensive. Or whatever. This bill was, thankfully, vetoed, but it caused a lot of scares in many different circles. So on the grounds of it being publicly offensive, public prayer was nearly canned.

Now, I know for a fact that there are many folks who find public xdressing offensive, yet, and here is where the double standard comes in, instead of making laws to keep it in the closet, instead, they are trying to make it where even mumbling about it will be a hate crime. Protecting publicly offensive behaviour for what ever reason they chose to do.

Something about that just don't seem right to me. It offends my 50 some odd year old man's Southern Sensibilities.

How about the fact that many students can not bring a Bible to school, because it is offensive. And yet as I sit here typing, there are those who want to bring graphic depictions of homosexual sex into the classroom for alternative sex ed. I have seen stills of the proposed film. There is, um, no penetration, but it shows two teenage boys engaged in open mouth kissing, groping, heavy petting, and for lack of a better description, mounting and dry humping. And this is meant to convey the perfectly natural act of 2 men having homosexual relations with one another, to show students that it is a "beautiful and wonderful thing" to quote what'sisname. Now, call me old fashioned, but I find that highly offensive. I DO NOT want my Goddaughter seeing that when she is old enough for school. And they are targeting this film for ELEMENTARY school students, for when they start getting "those special feelings." I wonder how many kids will need therapy now for having "special feelings" because of God only knows what sort of psychological trauma is done to them. So all of this hullabaloo is ok, but bring a Bible to school, a book I might add, that will have few to now pictures of anything and actually requires reading, and you can be suspended, or worse, be labeled as a troublemaker and flagged as a potential hate crime just waiting to happen.

Right here where I live there was a really great example of the double standard in action. There was a 6th grade boy running around doing sick and disturbing things to other boys, finally blowing over when he pulled another boy down and dry humped him. When the school kicked the kid out, there was a massive media circus about the school bashing homosexuals. NOW, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME HOW A 12 YEAR OLD BOY WHO PROBABLY BARELY HAS PUBIC HAIRS IS HOMOSEXUAL? The parents sued the school for discrimination against their poor "gay" son. It caused a real ruckus around here. Know what happened when it finally blew over? A 30 second blurb on tv. The boy was not gay at all. It leaked out somewhere in the court trials that the boy was infact, not gay, but reinacting the abuse patterns one of his stepdads committed. Of course, once it got out this was no gay sixth grader, all the wind went out of the sails and it was mostly ignored.

And now, we are slowly coming to a point where it's all brass tacks. Under this bill, all a man needs to get a job is a skirt. Any reason for not hiring him will not be good enough, he can use the media to gain all the leverage he needs, even paying for his lawyers, (Did you know hardcopy and like shows keep a shark tank of highly skilled lawyers just to help create buzz for the show? If your story is good enough, they will push you through the court system, so long as they get express rights to the story.) and making the poor chap who refused to hire him life a total hell.

And I agree. There is a big difference between tolerance and indifference. Very good point. Being just old enough to remember being forced to drink from different water fountains, being forced to use a different door, being forced to sit on the back of the bus, and other humiliating experiences, I found that to be a very good point.

[keenduck]

One deserves recognition by humanity AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS as being proper and worthy of acceptance; the other should be merely tolerated IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD by government simply keeping its fat ugly nose out of people's wallets, and out of their children's HEADS. We don't need skewls to say one freaking word to our kids about homosexual behavior. I'd rather see such behavior pitied and condemned, but i'd settlle for silence. Let all the gay activists and whatnot propagandize THEIR kids, God help them. But I'm sick of the damned government doing it FOR everyone, and basically continuing to be the best, most influential spokesmen any radical honmosexual lobbying group could ever hope for in the form of mandatory, publicly-funded educational institutions promoting a 'tolerance" that is--again!!--no more tolerant towards its dissenters than 1930's Germany was towards Jewish sympathizers.....

One deserves recognition by humanity AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS as being proper and worthy of acceptance; the other should be merely tolerated IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD by government simply keeping its fat ugly nose out of people's wallets, and out of their children's HEADS. We don't need skewls to say one freaking word to our kids about BLACK behavior. I'd rather see such behavior pitied and condemned, but i'd settlle for silence. Let all the BLACK activists and whatnot propagandize THEIR kids, God help them. But I'm sick of the damned government doing it FOR everyone, and basically continuing to be the best, most influential spokesmen any radical BLACK lobbying group could ever hope for in the form of mandatory, publicly-funded educational institutions promoting a 'tolerance" that is--again!!--no more tolerant towards its dissenters than 1930's Germany was towards Jewish sympathizers.....

Ahem, I think everyone can replace homosexual/gay/transexual with black and see what happens. :(

[Nystul]

Godwin's law rears its ugly head yet again. There are an extremely small number of things that can be debated which merit a comparison to Hitler/Nazi Germany. I would dare to say that unless the discussion is actually a historical debate about Nazi Germany, there is nothing to be gained by bringing it up. It looks to me like you are trying to clearly state a very tricky position along the lines of "It's hypocritical to force people to be tolerant." That's an awkward argument, but it works up to a certain point depending on the details of what you're debating. If the argument reaches a point where you are debating the morality of homosexuality, it hits a brick wall. Some here agree with you on that point and others don't, but I can almost guarantee that you will not change anyone's mind the slightest bit when it comes to that issue.

But whatever approach you were going for, most here will read your post as "Democrats are Nazis" and write it off as extremist rhetoric. That applies even to those who agree with most of what you are trying to say.

[Doc]

Edited

Doc, personal attacks are not welcome here.

-Griselda

[Tiffany_Scott]

The above is a cheap, manipulative ploy, Keenduck. <_< SERIOUS. Our current Secretary of State and former joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell--who himself is of course African-American--addressed your above-quoted charges waaay back in 1993, during the embarrassing "Gays in De Military" fiasco created by Slick Willie just a few days after the aforementioned SlickMeister took the Presidential Oath of Office.

As Colin Powell pointed out--and as ODDLY, the vast majority of people in my own age group (I am 39) understand without being told, skin color is an utterly benign characteristic. It involves no conscious choice whatsover. Conversely, homosexual behavior--as with ALL forms of sexual behavior--requires innumerable moment-by-moment choices to be made by the participant(s), each and every time it is engaged in.

Again, it is TRUE apples-and-oranges speciousness to equate the mere fact of being a human being with dark-colored skin to all of the conscious acts and choices involved in sexual behavior. The whole gay-gene, people-are-born-gay argument has been thoroughly discredited by hard science time and time again. Claims by homosexual lobbyists about "gay" (why can't they just say homosexual??? hmmmm?) genes and whatnot are all hogwash, regardless of what Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings may have once read to you off a TelePrompTer.


Common sense tells us that if human beings had no control over their sexual behaviors, actions, choices, attitudes, and whatnot, then not even rape or pedophilia could be justifiably outlawed. You cannot rightly punish people for doing that which they MUST do. Would you punish a man for eating? Noooooo. BUT!! But... you would punish that same man for stealing food to eat, would you not?? Or at least human civilizations do...

I want a return to sanity in regards to homosexual behavior. "Back in the closet", if you will. I'm sick of all teh parades and propaganda concerning homosexual behavioe. The US Centers For Disease Control, 1999 statistics, shows that the average life span of an American male who indulges in homosexual behavior with even semi-regular frequency hovers at between 47 and 48 years of age. Women who engage in similiar behavioral practices fare little better; I believe they live "clear" until age 52 or therabouts. <_<

Funny how our lying, hypocritical political elites will sue American tobaccos companies for BILLIONS of dollars, due to the loss of an average of seven years of life for a typical cigarette smoker. Yet a form of behavior which kills both men and women fully TWENTY FIVE years earlier than normal, is at the same time being promoted and defended in government skewls and government policy.


This is STUPID. It infuriates me. People are not born homosexual. They do not have to act upon 'feelings' they interpret as being "gay." I, for instance, sometimes spot a lovely young woman whom (chill Tiffy if you ever see this, we've talked about this before) causes in me feelings of a decidely sexual nature. Sexual attractiom, physical attraction, blah blah blah teh Bible calls it lust and that's all it is, folks. Sin. I maye be saved but I still have a sin nature, same as anyone else...


Now: I could EASILY--using the exact same word-for-word logic continually employed by both homosexual activists and their apologists--insist that I have NO CHOICE. I'm BORN wildly attracted to gorgeous fourteen-year-old women. Darn. Poo poor poor me, poor poor pitiful me. I cain't HEP it--I'se born dis way!!! :P Sorry Tiffy honey, my beloved wife of nearly eight years now, I must now (or at least soon, soon as we two consenting adults can agree uponm a time and a place) go engage in sexual intercourse with that sexy lil honey over dere, because I is wildly overcome by feelings which I of course didn't choose because who in their right mind would choose to have such feelings??? <_<


I could go on and on, but anyone not yet (or still) totally brainwashed by that good ol' Publik Skewl Mentality, understands what I am getting at.

You cannot be born to only engage in homosexual acts any more than you can be born to only engage in sex acts with gorgeous teenagers who look like Britney Spears once did before Britney's poor lifestyle choices started
to catch up to her.

EVERYONE feels lust (whoops!! too controversial, dat!!) err I mean physical attraction for other people in their lives. Whether and how you CHOOSE to respond to those feelings is totally up to you. The Bible warns that people who refuse to accept in their minds that actions God considers evil, ARE in fact evil, will as a consequence be allowed to surrender their wills over to desiring those actions in a POWERFUL fashion. And yeah, I know plenty of people hate and reject the Bible, but I always--without exception!!!--see what it says about people's attitudes and behaviors as matching up bang-on, 100%,with real-world verifiable stuff. Freud's ramblings by comparison fail the reality test time and time again, which is no biggee really cuz ol Siggy is long dead while God is eternal so no great loss.



Anyway, point being: skin color and sexual behavior are easily as far apart from each other in real life as the east is from the west, soo... :blink:

[zaffo]

Wow.

After reading the start of this thread and seeing nothing suggesting the facts were being accurately portrayed I thought i would do some research. As a Canadian I'm not on top of the minutia of various state politics.

The bill does not prevent companies from having a dress code. The bill does not guarantee the right to wear anything.

The bill exempts religious groups.

Three states (New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota) already prohibit discrimination of this sort.

--

The amount of reactionary hatred that has come out early and often in this thread has ensured that the discussion is pretty much not about the bill, its merits or lack thereof.

Wow.

[keenduck]

I suppose to steer the discourse back on topic:

For those interested in the actual bill, go here: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm, and search for bill number 196.

Quotes:

The bill would permit employers to require employees to comply
with reasonable workplace appearance, grooming, and dress standards
consistent with state and federal law, provided that employees are
allowed to appear or dress consistently with their gender identity.

Employers are allowed to make dress codes.

(d) "Employer" includes any person regularly employing five or
more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer,
directly or indirectly, the state or any political or civil
subdivision of the state, and cities, except as follows:
&nbsp;&nbsp; "Employer" does not include a religious association or corporation
not organized for private profit.

The hypothetical three person business would not fall under this bill. Religious associations do not fall under this bill. I'm not sure about the hypothetical Christian bookshop, but that probably does, as it is for-profit.

There is a HUGE difference in being coloured and being a butt bandit. Wait, never mind, this is not even worth explaining. Would go right over your head good sir.

Well, I guess my post was rather flame-worthy. However, what's with using "butt bandit"? I fail to see how we can have a civil discussion on this topic if people insist on using derogatory names. (The personal attack aside. ;) )

Let me explain myself more clearly then. I am not claiming an equivalence between being a minority in the traditional skin color sense, and being homosexual. I am not calling anyone racist either. But I think that discrimation based on either is equivalent. I fail to see how someone being homosexual negatively impacts your life. I don't think it is about choices; it's about discrimination.

You brought up the earlier example of the video that would be shown to elementary school children. In my experience (admittedly limited), parents are allowed to exempt their children from discussions on sexuality. I think it's the parents' responsibility for matters such as these, and thus parents should retain ultimate control there. I suspect children aren't actually forced, against their parents' will to watch.

Yet a form of behavior which kills both men and women fully TWENTY FIVE years earlier than normal, is at the same time being promoted and defended in government skewls and government policy.

I presume this is due to the prevalence of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, all of which could be prevented by safe-sex, something conservatives love to bash. Sex is a human urge after all, and handing out condoms is a more practical approach than preaching abstinence. Perhaps we should address the real cause of the mortality, and not convenient labels.

The attacks on public schools are really funny. :lol: I live in the Northeast, which is pretty liberal as far as the rest of the country goes (exception, I suppose, of California), and the public schools I attended never actively promoted homosexuality. I guess tolerance is considered gay these days.

Well, I can see this'll get nowhere, so might as well agree to disagree. I can't see anything evil about homosexuality, and any attempts to sway that view won't work, and I guess the opposite is true of Doc and Tiffany_Scott.

[Tiffany_Scott]

Wow. :rolleyes: Time for a reality check.

It matters not one bit what the bill actually says, any more than it matters what the US Constitution actually says. Our Canadian pal seems either blindly or willfully ignorant of the fact that all that WILL matter once this bill is passed, is what a whole host of hand-picked liberal judges SAY the bill contains in THEIR opinion.

I'm no fool, oh canadian pal of mine. I've been actively involved in American politics for nearly twenty years now. And again: it don't mean DICK what words you put down on paper, in any given piece of legislation. What DOES matter is the person who sponsors and introduces the bill, and what HIS plans and intentions are. Because as the Doc rightly pointed out, this bill is pure political revenge on the part of militant homosexual lobbyists. Both the ad genius donkey dude who sponsored the bill and all his donkey cronies who signed it know EXACTLY how politics works in this country. We are not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and haven't been ever since the era of the hard-left Earl Warren Supremely Stupid Court. We are a nation of couch-potatoes ruled chiefly by an unelected, unaccountable judicial oligarchy whose judicial philosophies are as far to the left as Ted Kennedy's kneecaps. The media laughably calls our current Court conservative haha even though not one real-life political or religious conservative I know or have met or whose writings I have read, agrees with that label. The only reason the media labels them conservative is so that the bulk of the couch-potato voters here will continue to give little or no thought to the types of judges who will be appointed by whichever candidiate they select as President. Most couch-potatoes are comfortable with anyone called conservative, regardless of what that person's actions, words, or voting record truly indicates.

But back to the point, so-called left-wing judges are simply arrogant elitists who have NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for what words and ideas may or may not be contained on any given legal document. They have their little pet idealogical stances concerning abortion and THE!! ENVIRONMENT!! and overopulation and gay rights and blahblahblah already firmly set in their minds, and they will hand down rulings which are as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, the former ACLU puke vomited up onto the high-on-drugs Supreme Court by Bill Clinton, is as easy to figure out in all of her judicial responses as is a Gerry Trudeau character from DOONESBURY. During her first year or so on the Court I used my priviledges over at the American Center for Law And Justice (ACLJ) to examine dockets and briefs pertaining to every upcoming case headed before the High Court. I would then "guess" as to how Ruth Bader Ginsberg would rule, even BEFORE any of the evidence and arguments were presented. And whadday know, I nailed that *censored*'s rulings down pat 100%. Like all ACLU pukes, Ginsberg could care less about truth, and FAR less about her obligations and responsibilites as a judge. Bill Clinton put her there to insure that the secular left worldview would be one vote closer to total triumph with each and every new judicial case, and she's never yet dissappointed him I am sure. She's no more a judge than I am Napolean Bonaparte. She is a tyrant in a black robe, a judicial vampire steadily draining the lifeblood out of what little life remains in our Constitutional republic, and if the impeachment procedures were followed in accordance with the detailed instructions left to us by our Founders she'd be booted off the high court for high crimes and misdemeanors. Along with John Paul Stevens and those four other kneejerk leftwing dinosaurs still sadly fossilized before that famous marble wall upon which are inscribed the Ten Commandments (yes, the same Ten Commandments which that SAME COURT has repeatedly ruled as being "unconstitutional" in public buildings, mind you!!"

WHAT I AM SAYING IS: once that California cross-dress bill is passed into law all the radical gay-rights groups will begin filing trumped-up lawsuits against employers for "discrimination" right and left. And never mind any alleged religious exemptions or company dress policies, THEY WILL NOT BE HONORED by some, most, or all of California's judges. And THAT is political reality here in the good ol' U S of A, my canadian pal who CHEAPLY tossed the word "hate' around to try and demonize me and others for expressing logical, rational disagreement with current governmental policy regarding homosexual behavior... <_<

[yangman]

The US Centers For Disease Control, 1999 statistics, shows that the average life span of an American male who indulges in homosexual behavior with even semi-regular frequency hovers at between 47 and 48 years of age. Women who engage in similiar behavioral practices fare little better; I believe they live "clear" until age 52 or therabouts.&nbsp; <_<

This is a new one to me, so I spent a few minutes looking up where it came from. All that's turned up, however, were a few articles of a secondary-source nature pointing back to an almost decade-old study where data was gathered from obituaries in newspapers over the course of a few years.

Several searches at the Center For Disease Control website turned up nothing.

Would you care to point out references to more reliable sources? I'm simply curious.

Although current studies conclude that homosexuality is not stemed in genetics or psychology, it doesn't explain how many individuals discover what homosexuality is AFTER they've realized their attraction to the same sex. Maybe people are indeed born homosexual, just as most of us are born heterosexual. Science has certainly been wrong before. ;)

[Tiffany_Scott]

Checked the site again myself. Last time I was there (February??), the site displayed 1998-1999 health-related statistical data. You'll notice it currently shows 2000-2001 data. How do you access the archives, then? :huh:

Anyway, the rest of your odd attempt at defending homosexual behavior blatantly ignores both common sense and many of my previous points. Why are there two sexes? Why does reproduction work like it does? Why are our bodies perfectly designed for (damn this manipulative term!!) heterosexual behavior, whereas homosexual behavior is every bit as nonsensical as designing a car which drives only backwards and has no brakes...

It saddens me that I have to pretend, in responding to you, that all the words in the Bible are meaningless. Any written sources YOU might site could easily be dismissed by me and everyone else as being equally meaningless. I'm sick of the modern prejudicial attituse that the Judeo_Christian Bible is utterly without meirt, has no real-world applications and MUST!!! MUST!!! be ignored and dismissed (presumably with a suitable accompanying sneer) as a "religious" book. I see no end to the amount of blatant lies referred to by either the media or some chosen governmental PR flak as being "scientific", and this is of course supposed to END ALL ARGUMENT even though the word 'science" once referred to a specific methodological process which the bulk of today's "science" neither follows nor COULD follow. Macroevolution--the crown jewel of modern biology-- being a prime example. We cannot go back in time to examine what the Earth or anything on it was like even 200 years ago, much less the millions and billions of years which self-proclaimed "scientists" routinely toss around as being factual. Fossil records are overall quite scanty; fossil records pertaining to human beings are EXTREMELYscanty; and so again, the bulk of much of today's science is based solely on THEORIES devoid of all true scientific evisence and which will ALWAYS remain devoid of said evidence due to the physical constraints imposed by reality itself (the ravages of Time).

Common sense is no longer common, granted. But when human beings refuse to even acknowledge TRUE scientific evidence which the mere laboratory of the senses (eyes, fingers, etc) reveals, then what hope is there? Human beings are SCIENTIFICALLY observable to be built excelusively for (aaargh here it comes again!!!) heterosexual behavior. And WHY the mulings and whinings of a small number of people who insist that no, ignore all of the evidence and listen to THEM, because THEY say they are "gay" and the world must change in order to adopt THEIR views of human sexuality--or at the very least never ever EVER criticize or complain about it, and also pay for it with their tax dollars--remains a source of puzzlement to me. America has no problem at all today saying "no" to the Judeo-Christian worldview, and heaping abuse upon it and slandering it and portraying it as being dangerous, divisive, and destructive. Yet those same Amercians can't muster the courage to point out the obvious fallacy of equating homosexual behavior as being equal with male-female relationships? WHY? I still haven't heard one good reason, just a lot of vitriol and demagoguery...

[Skandranon]

If a xdresser comes in, asks for a job, and you refuse, there is a good chance that he could press the issue.

And so he should, if you a) dismissed his application without an interview, or b) rejected him solely on the basis of transvestisism. All they ask is for fair and equal treatment.

There is a big difference between tolerance and indifference

Hmmm. From what I see, though, your definitions look kind of like this.

Tolerance is accepting something you like.
Indifference is accepting something you don't like.

I can't make you like it against your will, Doc. So I don't see much further point in sticking around.

[Rhydderch Hael]

**Dons asbestos underpants** Flame me if you wish, but that does not change much in my mind. Do what ever, if it makes you feel better to avoid the issue by dancing around the edges and lighting fires. Or, you could add some real flavour to the conversation.

It's a bit hard to pursue the issue due to the misrepresented bias you placed upon the opening post. That forced this tangent as the mistake had to be cleared up. My initial remark questioned the validity of that opening viewpoint, one that is indeed taken to be false. Your responses to that tangent did nothing to further the point. On the contrary, if there is anyone here to be accussed of sidestepping a debate, your refusal to defend the accusation that you misrepresented the issue in your opening volley proves who here shirked from the challenge to uphold their perspective.

If there was anyone who sabotaged this debate into following a tangent between affirmative action and anti-discrimination, the fault lies entirely upon you, for you opened the thread about transvestite anti-discrimnation by presenting it as transvestite affirmative action.

[Cybit]

You know, I heard this same argument back when they said you couldn't discriminate on basis of race or religion.

All the blacks would sue because of discrimination, yadda yadda...and you know what, for all the bellyaching and cries of how it would play out in reality, not one single of those fears really panned out. Unless you were the type that preferred to see blacks discriminated against regardless.

All I see is a bill that says you can't discriminate against cross-dressers. If some guy wants to wear a dress, who gives a damn, honestly? Hell, my Calculus III professor was a cross-dresser, and probably gay (the pink tuxedo suggests a few things), but he was still a darned good teacher. Oh, you don't want your kids to see it? Too bad, I'm sick of intolerant schmucks calling me a terrorist (Both of my parents are from India, who ironically enough, has had to deal with muslim terrorists for about 50 years now) and telling me to go back to where I came from, or tell me I'm not going to heaven or other random intolerant BS. Look, if you got a problem with homosexuals, fine, but guess what, they are as much of a human being as you are, as much of a US citizen, and deserve every god damn right that you do. I think eating meat is inhumane, you don't see me whining and moaning about how the government is doing the "immoral" thing by letting people eat meat am I? No, see, I realize that hey, some people believe differently then I do, so, I have the choice (remember that word, choice), of not eating meat. If a place is serving mostly meat products, I don't go there. If I have to, I'll go cook myself some vegetarian food if I have to. MORALITY IS RELATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE UNIVERSAL. DEAL WITH IT.

On another note: The government isn't being malicious at all, it is caught between a crossfire between two opposing groups. Take for example, the ten commandments ruling. If 15-20 people come up and say its offensive, the government has to believe them. You cannot prove their intent is to infuriate Christians, even if it is. I'm pretty sure after 9/11 most people wouldn't have liked a posting out of the Qu'ran, eh? Hell, why don't we make all the kids read part of the Qu'ran along with the Bible in school. Add some good Buddhist scriptures, and some scientology.....

Seriously, I've probably never seen more conservative tripe in my entire life. The entire country is sooo liberal, I mean, lets disregard the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the fact that Republicans control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Right, let's forget that President Bush's first cousin runs election central (John Ellis) on FOX. Or the threatented veto by Bush on repealing the FCC act that allows big media corporations to own more stations. Of course, everything's all set against the poor little conservative trying to so innocently protect his morals and the "right" thing to do. For the death penatly and against abortion...ahhh, gotta love it. Reads like a passage from the new Ann Coulter book. Speaking of which, I better put that back next to my Michael Moore book.

[yangman]

"Defending homosexual behavior"? Where, where?

I always find it amusing when people read so much between the lines that what is written on them serves as decorations at best.

I don't recall defending homosexuality in any of my posts; I've merely been pointing out flaws in vocabulary use and reasoning.

"Fact" is a dangerous word in science. Science is built on axioms, and a scientific theory is never proven right, only wrong. Evolution is not a fact: it is a set of reasoning that has thus far worked in predicting the -- for the lack of a better word -- "nature" of nature and whose elementary components have never yet been logically proven wrong based on the assumptions of the scientific method.
You're right that much of today's science is based on thoeries, as it always have been since the time of the Greek and Romans. Evidences do not make a theory true, but rather make it un-false.

Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the population in check when conventional means have become ineffective. "Evidences" point to the observation that homosexual couples cannot natually produce babies, so it does indeed reduce the rate of reproduction. But is it "true"? Who knows -- that's something science won't tell you.

[Tiffany_Scott]

Edited

Scott, you've crossed the line from stating your case into name-calling. That's unacceptable.

-Griselda