This book should be required reading. I see a very strong parallel with the thinly veiled racism leading the scientists intent on proving their belief that black people are less intelligent, though I think those 19th Century men were a bit better at hiding their biases behind the BS of verbage. But since those bigots were among the smartest, most well educated people in the world at the time, it should not be unexpected. My other observation is that reading between the lines Landlord Landry at the core appears to be operating from the fallacy of The Wisdom of Repugnance, in that stripped to its core, his position seems to be pretty much, "yuck". When people assign the highest degree of value to such viceral reactions, arguments of logic of any kind in any direction will necessarily fail in the face of a gut reaction, which is impervious to words.
No surprise there. You're also ignoring the world around you. You're a professional ignorer. And a pro bigot. Your kind won't last long. You're a dying breed. Thank God.
I don't know who james dobson is, nor have I heard of these conventions. They don't sound pleasant. I have never stated that homosexuality is a disease and that it should be cured. Even if that was my objective, I doubt this would be the proper outlet to achieve that goal. I've stated why I am against homosexual marriage, and why I don't believe homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. I'm not saying that homosexuals SHOULD change their sexual actions, only that I believe they can. I'm just stating what I believe. You're more than welcome to disagree with me.
Good to hear the pain is under control. If it still bothering you you might want to consider acupuncture.
I think I'm cured, man. Of the brutal pain at least. Dr. doubled my pain meds and gave me strong anti-inflammatory and something to work on my nerves (said the problem sounded at least partly neurological). Somewhere in there he fixed me. I was at a 9/10 pain almost non-stop for 23 days, now I'm at a 2 or 3. Such a relief.
You are free to believe what ever you want and personally I will defend your right to believe whatever you want to but it is a complete logical fallacy to claim bigotry towards your view or any other sort of victimhood. You are arguing for legal discrimination yet are claiming victimhood that you are being forced to not discriminate. That strikes me as very ironic. As I said before you can keep your views and I would be very strongly against forcing you to accept a view and even more strongly against if you were forced to have a gay marriage. That is not the case here. You aren't being victimized in anyway. People are disagreeing with you but that is far from bigotry.
I don't want to second guess your doctor but if you were in that much pain for that long that doesn't sound right for me. I was in severe pain following my femur getting put together but I wouldn't characterize it that bad.
Glad to hear it, Batman. Those who haven't experienced pain like that are damned lucky. I still can't believe you had to fly across the Atlantic to get the help you needed. That could/should have been handled in Amsterdam.
Thanks, Deckard. Maybe it's because the meds they were giving me for pain didn't work at all. It was as if I didn't have any pain medication at all. Except when I got dilautid shots in the hospital, I had virtually zero relief from the car accident until today. But I kind of suspect the nerve pain drug might have been what made the difference. And that could indicate that they caught a nerve or something during the surgery. The surgeon is supposed to be one of the best around but anybody can screw up. All I know is that I feel a million times better. Sorry for the long derail. Back to figuring out "what is gay??"
That's just it, it wasn't a comparison between slavery and gay marriage rights, and you're so dense you still don't get that. It's simply something that refutes your "been around a long time = complicated" claim. Bringing up slavery disproves that particular point, it's not a 1:1 comparison to the gay issue. It's profoundly pathetic when someone can't bring themselves to address a yes/no question that directly relates to the debate at hand. How do you explain that? Answer: you know if you answer "yes, it's complicated," then you're endorsing slavery. If you answer "no, it's not," then you have to concede your earlier statement is wrong. You're not refusing to answer because you thin it's dumb, you're refusing to answer because you know it will make YOU look dumb. Classic TJ tactic...
judo, I honestly respect your diligent approach to each and every post. It really is appreciated. My argument is to keep homosexual and heterosexual marriage seperate. Gay advocates are fighting for homosexual marriage, and if they succeed in that quest, I have to recognize their marriage as equal to mine, something I don't believe in, therefore, I am being forced to accept a view I completely disagree with. To make this less personal, and possibly more understandable, you could easily replace my/I with our/we and the majority of Americans would be our/we.
You could also easily replace "gay" with "black" in every one of your posts and you'd have a perfect picture of LL's type 50 years ago.
Someday in the future, I hope you realize how offensive that post is to a hell of a lot of people, including me. As I've said before here, I remember riding buses in Houston in the 1950's and Blacks being stuffed into the back. I remember "Whites Only" signs on the bathrooms at my local Southeast Houston public park. What you are advocating is no different. It's not different at all.
sweet, so now I am a racist. you'll never know what kind of ridicule I have been dealt on the grounds of my wife being a mexican immigrant. I'm not advocating any of that BS and a phat ass middle finger to you for suggesting it. You're delusional man. Congrats though, I will admit that you are the first person here to ever piss me off. stay classy BBS.
oh, I get it......"I'm not saying you're a racist, just that you think like one and advocate the same types of behaviors as racists" sugarcoat it all you want. A spade is a spade.....and he just called me one.
To be fair, if you're throwing out labels about other people and their behaviors...your sensitivity to being labeled yourself speaks volumes. Though to be honest, I don't think you deserve so much flak for your honest beliefs. All this talk about you being a bigot and well, "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset." Kettle calling the pot black? To this day, quite a few still believe in the superiority of their race over others and I don't quite think branding people as intolerant and rushing to attack them has done any good in that regard. You have to consider the evidence when it comes to your claims that homosexuals can "switch teams" and can "choose". http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology As for your moral decisions regarding marriage, I understand them. I don't agree with them. But I respect the fact that you're willing to defend them. Sanctity of marriage may be an important thing for you and it's nice to see you won't back down even when you're being pigeonholed as someone who cannot accept the beliefs of others...ironic enough I guess.
Inevitably though, I personally believe your beliefs will soon be in the minority...which doesn't invalidate them. But I think you'll soon have to come to terms with a society that values individual differences over collectivist norms/traditions.
No worries, I was pointing my rhetoric at your position, not you personally. You are welcome to join in. Yes, it is. Some people in this country are allowed to be married while others aren't. That is not "equal protection of the laws" as guaranteed in the 14th amendment. Here is the definition of discrimination from dictionary.com. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. Refusing to allow homosexuals to marry is the very definition of discrimination. No, I do not agree. Here, your bigotry shows clearly. It doesn't matter what you think has been "designed" (this has religious connotations too), the only thing that matters is that you are being discriminatory. You can "like to think" anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. In virtually every homosexual relationship I have encountered, one of the partners takes on a traditional male role (strong, decisive, disciplined) and the other takes on a more feminine role (nurturing, compassionate). Children raised by homosexual parents are getting what they need, namely a loving family that cares for the child and loves them deeply. There is no evidence that there is any more "healthy balance" in a homosexual relationship than in a heterosexual relationship. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, even though it is discriminatory. The union achieves the uniting of two people who love each other deeply, which is the same as a hetero marriage. You are. At least 50% of the country believed that african-Americans were treated fine in the 1950s, but that didn't make the way they were treated right. You are on the wrong side of history, it won't be too long before your bigotry is universally recognized for what it is.
