Obama holds gay pride reception, vows to overturn 'unjust laws'

[nomix]

Indeed.

It's no different than feminism and black pride. It's a result of historical persecution and/or injustice.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

When an entire section of society is marginalized they tend to stick up for themselves and become loud and defensive. This is a direct product from the fuck heads that wish to turn their morals into law. Don't blame the GLBT community, I'd do the same thing if who I was as a human being was targeted as immoral and unjustly treated.

True that.

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

When an entire section of society is marginalized they tend to stick up for themselves and become loud and defensive. This is a direct product from the fuck heads that wish to turn their morals into law. Don't blame the GLBT community, I'd do the same thing if who I was as a human being was targeted as immoral and unjustly treated.

Correct. Of course, morals must exist in some form in society (otherwise murder for example would not be illegal) but religion or sect rather than logic-based morals should be ignored and kept far, far away from the government and law.

Also, jayhawk, nice to see a Christian who doesn't (1) condemn or (2) shrug off the "gay" "issue".

EDIT: Fixed the incorrect name. Sorry jayhawk.

 

[Aircooled]

Correct. Of course, morals must exist in some form in society (otherwise murder for example would not be illegal) but religion or sect rather than logic-based morals should be ignored and kept far, far away from the government and law.

Also, jetsetter, nice to see a Christian who doesn't (1) condemn or (2) shrug off the "gay" "issue".

It's obvious as social beings that murder is counterproductive to survival. No proper thinking mind could possibly think murder is good for the human race. However as a whole I understand your message. There needs to be laws to protect life and preserve freedoms.

 

[Dogbert]

Correct. Of course, morals must exist in some form in society (otherwise murder for example would not be illegal) but religion or sect rather than logic-based morals should be ignored and kept far, far away from the government and law.

Also, jetsetter, nice to see a Christian who doesn't (1) condemn or (2) shrug off the "gay" "issue".

"Human rights" and "morals" are two entirely separate entities. Government should only be involved with guaranteeing everyone has one of the above, and you can see the difference between governments who try to guarantee human rights, and those who try to guarantee morals.

Also, it was jayhawk who eloquently made the point you referenced, FYI.

 

[nomix]

Roy Jenkins (Harold MacMillan's interior secretary) put it quite well.

- I believe the task of the ministery of the interior is to maintain order with as little intrusion to everyday lives.

(Freely quoted from memory)

I think he was absolutely right. The thing is, it's one thing to maintain order (involving banning of murder, rape, stealing etc.), while homosexuality and sexual "perversations" are something the state should never intervene in (clear exception for pedophilia and the likes, of course. Also, not dealing with "domestic problems" because it's the private sphere is wrong in my mind.).

Legalize swearing!

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Legalize swearing!

Fuck yeah!

 

[nomix]

But really, that is one of the causes that makes me really angry. Swearing is not wrong. It's part of every culture's langauge, and I truely hate situations like when schools punish pupils for swearing. That's complete and utter rubbish.

/Rant

 

[Momentum57]

I for one hope the gays get their rights. It is natural just like dogs eating shit. Sure the majority of people feel homosexuality is obscene and disgusting. So what if anal sex, fisting, and general butt play increases diseases, chances of cancer, HIV/AIDS, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and incontinence.

When they get their rights it will be a step closer that I can have women as horses in an elaborate stables. PONY PLAY is the FUTURE and it is my RIGHT to ride women on public roads bareback or saddle.

WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN we have the ENTITLEMENT to do whatever we want. Just because something is unhealthy for the general population does not mean that people would support laws against it. I mean smoking causes cancer and encourage teachers smoke in schools. Diabetes and heart disease can be combated with moderate exercise and a healthy diet but we don't publish that because it would offend the fat.

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

"Human rights" and "morals" are two entirely separate entities. Government should only be involved with guaranteeing everyone has one of the above, and you can see the difference between governments who try to guarantee human rights, and those who try to guarantee morals.

Also, it was jayhawk who eloquently made the point you referenced, FYI.

@jayhawk/jetsetter issue: Shit.

Now fixt.:lol:

I understand your point, I should have been more careful with wording. Yes, I meant rights, in this case human rights. Morals in this case means someone's completely faith-based opinions.

It's obvious as social beings that murder is counterproductive to survival. No proper thinking mind could possibly think murder is good for the human race. However as a whole I understand your message. There needs to be laws to protect life and preserve freedoms.

Yes murder is counterproductive to survival as a species but most people who would murder do so without thought for the species but rather thought for themselves- ie greed jealousy or whatever it may be. But yeah I meant laws to protect one's freedom, and by logic I mean based on such thinking as you mentioned rather than a religion or belief or any other unproven statement.

Sorry if I'm somewhat incoherent because I know I must sound it but I'm currently somewhat drunk. Went out to some steakhouse here in austin and had a little more beer than i was planning for.

 

[Momentum57]

I understand your point, I should have been more careful with wording. Yes, I meant rights, in this case human rights. Morals in this case means someone's completely faith-based opinions.

Frankly these are not completely faith-based opinions! People love to throw stones at churches and peoples faith because it is easier than attacking reason.

Homosexual sex has unique medical and public health concerns. The ethical and moral statement is that no group of people should endanger the entire population. That is not a faith based opinion its just a logical, practical, following reached by society.

That said it is improbably to police homosexuality without constant inspections of the walls of the anus. Monogamous homosexual marriage could help contain the public health concern. Understand that marriage is a legal definition that implies transference of rights and benefits. This is the major concern that cost billions in tax dollars and benefits payed.

BOTTOM LINE (like the gay pun)

I don't understand how people believe that because the President is a Democrat he will lose control of his faculties. President Obama is not going to pull out all the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan just as hes not going to give gays equal rights magically. There are vast ramifications to these decisions that at least require careful planning and slow development.

THIS IS NOT SIMPLE stop thinking about gays or Christians, or whatever group you identify yourself with and think about the bigger picture.

 

[teeb]

But really, that is one of the causes that makes me really angry. Swearing is not wrong. It's part of every culture's langauge, and I truely hate situations like when schools punish pupils for swearing. That's complete and utter rubbish.

/Rant

It's a time-and-place issue. School is a situation where one of the key ingredients is respect for the teacher from the pupils. If the kids don't respect the teacher - and know the boundaries - then they're less likely to learn. And swearing in general - and swearing at the teacher - shows a lack of respect.

I don't believe swearing - in general - should be illegal, but like most things it should be used in moderation. People - that I inevitably meet on the bus - whose every second word is a swear word, for example, are just doing it wrong.

 

[nomix]

I am not talking about telling the teacher she is a "f*cking wh*re", or telling some other kid to "f*ck off". That's verbal abuse, and I don't support that.

But when someone says "I f*cking love crisps" or "this equation is f*cking hard", that's not disrespect. They are in essense no different than "I really love crisps" or "this equation is very hard".

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

Frankly these are not completely faith-based opinions! People love to throw stones at churches and peoples faith because it is easier than attacking reason.

Homosexual sex has unique medical and public health concerns. The ethical and moral statement is that no group of people should endanger the entire population. That is not a faith based opinion its just a logical, practical, following reached by society.

That said it is improbably to police homosexuality without constant inspections of the walls of the anus. Monogamous homosexual marriage could help contain the public health concern. Understand that marriage is a legal definition that implies transference of rights and benefits. This is the major concern that cost billions in tax dollars and benefits payed.

BOTTOM LINE (like the gay pun)

I don't understand how people believe that because the President is a Democrat he will lose control of his faculties. President Obama is not going to pull out all the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan just as hes not going to give gays equal rights magically. There are vast ramifications to these decisions that at least require careful planning and slow development.

THIS IS NOT SIMPLE stop thinking about gays or Christians, or whatever group you identify yourself with and think about the bigger picture.

True but as you said before there are many things unhealthly for the country or species as a whole which are allowed- smoking, drinking, fast food, motorsport, skydiving blah blah blah. In a free nation it is your choice to do what you want regardless of the consequences it sets on you- provided you don't hurt someone else while doing it.

 

[TC]

True but as you said before there are many things unhealthly for the country or species as a whole which are allowed- smoking, drinking, fast food, motorsport, skydiving blah blah blah. In a free nation it is your choice to do what you want regardless of the consequences it sets on you- provided you don't hurt someone else while doing it.

You make it sound like gay sex is illegal, rather then just same sex marriage.

 

[nomix]

Isn't anal sex and the likes banned in some US states?

Anyhoo. Homosexuality is actually naturally enough for monkies to be involved with it, and the legal, binding contract of marriage should not be exlusive for hetrosexual couples. The religious seremony is something different, as long as you don't have a state church like much of Europe, you can't impose equal rights in that department.

But I see no problem with gay couples forming a legal contract, ie. a marriage, and even churces who approve of homosexuality marrying them in the eyes of God as well.

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

Isn't anal sex and the likes banned in some US states?

Anyhoo. Homosexuality is actually naturally enough for monkies to be involved with it, and the legal, binding contract of marriage should not be exlusive for hetrosexual couples. The religious seremony is something different, as long as you don't have a state church like much of Europe, you can't impose equal rights in that department.

But I see no problem with gay couples forming a legal contract, ie. a marriage, and even churces who approve of homosexuality marrying them in the eyes of God as well.

I'd heard that before about other mammals being "gay", basically disproves the religious arguments that it is "unnatural".

But yes I too have no problem with churches marrying gays- the some churches might be better for it if they did, even if solely for financial reasons.

You make it sound like gay sex is illegal, rather then just same sex marriage.

I was replying to momentum57, who pointed out an argument could be made that it wasn't in society's interest due to aids- and that most definitely did not reference marriage. The concerns about marriage itself- not the acts preceding or following it- IS purely religious and therefore meaningless. It also begs the question, if preventing aids is the only qualm with homosexual marriage, it isn't in fact a problem with marriage at all- people are going to have sex whether they are allowed marriage or not, so even that argument makes little sense.

 

[Momentum57]

For the record :

Homosexuality is actually naturally enough for monkies to be involved with it

Thats the same reason why I throw my fecal matter at passing children.

I'd heard that before about other mammals being "gay", basically disproves the religious arguments that it is "unnatural".

That does not mean that it is something that society should embrace. Dolphins have been know to have sex with other animals other than dolphins or aquatic life. Next time I'm over your house I'm going to fuck your cat! What its natural!

was replying to momentum57, who pointed out an argument could be made that it wasn't in society's interest due to aids- and that most definitely did not reference marriage.

Not just AIDS but Hepatitis and cancer among others. It did reference marriage: (see italicized)

​

Monogamous homosexual marriage could help contain the public health concern. Understand that marriage is a legal definition that implies transference of rights and benefits. This is the major concern that cost billions in tax dollars and benefits payed.

Which leads to your next completely wrong statement.

The concerns about marriage itself- not the acts preceding or following it- IS purely religious and therefore meaningless. It also begs the question, if preventing aids is the only qualm with homosexual marriage, it isn't in fact a problem with marriage at all- people are going to have sex whether they are allowed marriage or not, so even that argument makes little sense.

Where in the bold did I mention any religious thought. I have not stated that I against homosexual marriage(see italicized). I am against homosexuals in that many don't know the harm they are doing to themselves. In any case society pays for their pleasure in higher health care cost. This cost will only increase if homosexual marriage is legal.

... There are vast ramifications to these decisions that at least require careful planning and slow development.

THIS IS NOT SIMPLE ...

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

For the record :



Thats the same reason why I throw my fecal matter at passing children.



That does not mean that it is something that society should embrace. Dolphins have been know to have sex with other animals other than dolphins or aquatic life. Next time I'm over your house I'm going to fuck your cat! What its natural!



Not just AIDS but Hepatitis and cancer among others. It did reference marriage: (see italicized)

​

Which leads to your next completely wrong statement.



Where in the bold did I mention any religious thought. I have not stated that I against homosexual marriage(see italicized). I am against homosexuals in that many don't know the harm they are doing to themselves. In any case society pays for their pleasure in higher health care cost. This cost will only increase if homosexual marriage is legal.

Ignoring the marriage and animal issues for the moment, your main problem is public health and the cost that diseases contracted by gays would increase health care cost/endanger public health/etc. Taking this solely into account- that your reason for disallowing something is based on health care costs and public health- then it is only logical that you would support banning, for example, cigarettes- which meet the same requirements, endangerment of public health (even discounting "secondhand-smoke") and increased healthcare costs to pay for the ailing or aging smokers. What else meets those requirements? Unhealthy food, too little exercise, visiting forgein nations (possibility of carrying virulent disease) etc. To exercise control over something because in increase health care costs and may endanger public health sounds nice but in my mind is frankly totalitarian.

 

[nomix]

For the record :
Thats the same reason why I throw my fecal matter at passing children.

It's also assault. Which is natural. But illegal. And it ain't exactly something the passing children consent to - and if they do, they're not adult, and can't really consent to getting fecal matter thrown at them.

Comparison is invalid.

That does not mean that it is something that society should embrace. Dolphins have been know to have sex with other animals other than dolphins or aquatic life. Next time I'm over your house I'm going to fuck your cat! What its natural!

It's natural. But when you fuck my cat (he's dead, if you'd tried, you'd get beaten up), my cat has no say. He can't say yes or no.

Again, comparison is invalid.

Where in the bold did I mention any religious thought. I have not stated that I against homosexual marriage(see italicized). I am against homosexuals in that many don't know the harm they are doing to themselves. In any case society pays for their pleasure in higher health care cost. This cost will only increase if homosexual marriage is legal.

And how about kids who fuck around without a condom? If I'm not mistaken, the Bush regime payed big money for christian organizations to tell kids they should abstain from sex, instead of using a condom, leading to most of them still having sex, but without a condom, and often in using anal cavities instead of the vaginal cavities.

And we're still in the position where it's quite acceptable for people to smoke, people to drink, people to eat fatty foods and so on.

The notion that marriage must me regulated to heterosexual couples for the good of the people is quite simply a communist view.