:tup: :tup:
I think ya just proved his point!
When you write "human rights" it appears like ya actually impling "my rights to be what I personally wants to be"...caring less about what the other man/woman want you to be in "their" society! So when the Taliban imprisoned people for being Christian "in their society” that is cool. I understand now. In other words...you asked the wider society to adapt to you...unwilling to consider their "human rights"...to reject you if they so feel! After all, human rights goes "two" ways friend! This is so true equal human rights goes both ways. You by all means have the right to exclude people from your privet life. But all people have a right to public places and to be safe. The wider society has no right to take my life, my livelyhood, my family, my freedom to go to public places in safty, my freedome of expression and self expression and so on. That is called the rights of the individual. Oh that that to in in the Constitution. /
At first I had a small exception to the notion of liberalism equated with nihilism in his otherwise well elucidated piece, but I now see the core jist of the piece...."ya want your way"....norwithstanding the "ingrained" views of others....who have a human right to socially reject you....and are most usually adement in having it done in "their" right way!
On and on...none willing to consider the other's point of view...eventually, no view is possible...eurgo...his "conflict" dynamic!
Thus! The logical conclusion is....social nihilism...if no adaptation or compromise is forthcoming from either!!!!!! :cheers:

Sorry but he has not landed a blow yet.
And watch out now he saying he is Bisexual.

:what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what:

Umm. I don't remember saying that. Is that your dyslexia kicking in??
But truly, if it gets you to shut up and go away. I'll claim it.

Post 16 this thread.

So I'm not just telling you that you aren't fully homosexual, I am also telling you that I'm not fully heterosexual. And just like I may have tendencies that I choose to repress or reject -- so do you.

hmmm I almost miss this one....
What are YOU doing for the people in Darfur?
Warfares has been going on for years in certain parts of Africa for years...there are Christian organizations there that has been assisting with food, water and medical supplies. Grace Community Church (which Rev Major is a member of) DO pass the basket around for funding which aids these grief stricken countries such as Africa...How do I know...I was at the church at the time.
Also, Rev Major and his family members has couple ministries in the church which assist locally eg. a Prison's Ministry and a ministry for the deaf...(these are not the only ministries in the church which serve people however)
Even though a basket was not passed along specifically for Dafur at Rawson Square due to the fact that we were not focusing on them at the time, however, we know that aid does get to them and many others in Africa!!!!

Did you see the money going to Africa or just in the basket?????

Post 16 this thread.


Not that I have to defend my sexuality. But I think its interesting that someone who is born a man but pretends to be a woman doesn't seem to understand the spectrum of sexuality.

Here's what it looks like:


HE<---------------------------------BI------------------------------->HO
^ Nobody is here. Or Here.^



Everyone falls in between. Some are closer to HE than others and some are closer to HO than others and some are in the middle or BI. But nobody is 100 percent HE or 100 percent HO.

Selfish? According to who and in what way.
So we should open these freedoms up to voters. I think the world has just about had enough of radical muslims (as a poor example). Shall we now put to vote a referendum outlawing the building or gathering of muslims in houses of worship? Ive had enough of the christian right wings rhetoric and hate....can i now propose a vote to ban all conservative churhes and make it illegal for them to gather and preach. Where do you draw the line? WHo decides what. Just leave it to the majority of the people who cast a vote? Are we so confident in the ability of mankind to do the moral and ethical thing.
I think it better that peoples personal biases and issues be left to their personal lives and not imposed on the public at large.

You hit that nail so hard the sparks were like fire works. Hammer on hammer on:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

I messed that up.

Religion is a bad example.
Radical muslims are not radical because they are muslim. Same for right wing conservativism. Religion is a comfortable excuse for radical behavior.
We can outlaw behavior. We can't outlaw belief. Radical muslims have the right to believe as they wish -- if they go beyond that then their behavior becomes a threat.
We outlaw behavior all the time. Homosexuality is sexual behavior that can be outlawed. I'm not saying that it should be, I'm just pointing out the difference between belief and behavior. And let's remember that nobody is advocating outlawing homosexual behavior. What is outlawed or not legal is homosexual marriage.
There are an array of issues surrounding homosexuality and you seem to be muddling all the issues together. The only issue up for debate is homosexual marriage. Whether homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant -- there are several moral codes that say that it is and arguing against that fact is ridiculous. But marriage is different which is why it is open to public opinion.
If you create a law that nullifies one of the basic institutions of social order then all other institutions that build and fortify our social order can be nullified. The benefits to society at large are minimal if they are even identifiable, the costs are tremendous.

Adding homosexual marriage to the institution of marriage will not nullify it. It will add to it.

Adding homosexual marriage to the institution of marriage will not nullify it. It will add to it.


Prove it.

The institution of marriage has been on a downward spiral for years -- explain how homosexual marriage will add to it -- unless you mean that it'll push the institution further down.

Not that I have to defend my sexuality. But I think its interesting that someone who is born a man but pretends to be a woman doesn't seem to understand the spectrum of sexuality. I have understood this longer than you have been living. (guessing you are a bit younger than I) I have also understood the same specturm in gender identity as well.
Fe<--------------------------Tg-inter sexed--------------------------->Ma
^ Nobody is here. -----------------------------------------------Or Here.^

Here's what it looks like:
HE<---------------------------------BI------------------------------->HO
^ Nobody is here. Or Here.^
Everyone falls in between. Some are closer to HE than others and some are closer to HO than others and some are in the middle or BI. But nobody is 100 percent HE or 100 percent HO.

You make sence here at least.
But it does not change what you said about yourself.

I have understood this longer than you have been living. (guessing you are a bit younger than I) I have also understood the same specturm in gender identity as well.
Fe<--------------------------Tg-inter sexed--------------------------->Ma
^ Nobody is here. -----------------------------------------------Or Here.^
You make sence here at least.
But it does not change what you said about yourself.


1. Gender is different than sexuality. Gender falls into male, female, and hermaphrodite. Trans-gender is not a natural gender classification. But, if you call it a gender identity -- fine. But calling it a natural categorization is laughable.

2. I've been saying that since we've been having these silly arguments back in '05.

Did you see the money going to Africa or just in the basket?????


What type of question is that? What are trying to insinuated? Are you trying to say the money is not going to the needed source? Since you are so smart and wise why don't you jump in the basket and tell me where the money goes....

You hate to see Christians doing something well instead you have to be cynical. You really should ask yourself what is RAB doing locally and internationally to help the unfortunate. Does RAB even have a basket to pass around? Or are ya'll too busy looking for persons to fund RAB's cause??? :rolleyes:

1. Gender is different than sexuality. Gender falls into male, female, and hermaphrodite. Trans-gender is not a natural gender classification. But, if you call it a gender identity -- fine. But calling it a natural categorization is laughable.
2. I've been saying that since we've been having these silly arguments back in '05.


o nooo don't say that you are destorying his little world :eek:

Adding homosexual marriage to the institution of marriage will not nullify it. It will add to it.


I read somewhere that homosexuals' marriages don't last long.

Dont yall know. These arguments are really not going to matter in the end.
Homosexual marriages are coming. They are coming here....they are coming there .... they are coming everywhere.....sooner or later. I dont mean that is a frightening prospect... only as a fact. Why. Because to put it quite simply ... it is the right thing to do. Legitimizing bigotry will only last so long. Eventually the bigots will be overcome. It really is that simple.

Same thing happened to the racist, and the sexists, and the segregationist.......etc. Patience i do have. and hate is a battle that bigots will always ultimately lose at....eventually.

Bet on it.


_______________________
"Gay Marriage Is Coming"
By Keith Boykin, in sexuality
Wednesday, June 7 2006, 10:51 AM

With the vote by the U.S. Senate today to kill the anti-gay "Marriage Protection Amendment," the handwriting is becoming clearer on the wall. Ultra conservative commentator Bill Bennett, who opposes marriage equality, all but conceded defeat last night in an unusual interview with "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart. "This debate is over," Bennett told Stewart. "Gay marriage is coming."

Although Bennett attributed the change to a few courts, Stewart was smart enough to contextualize the struggle for gay equality into the long history of oppression practiced by majorities against minorities in America. We went through this with slavery, with women's suffrage, and with so many other groups before, Stewart said. Each time conservatives complain that extending rights to another group of people who are locked out of the American dream will somehow ruin America, and each time the conservatives fail. At what point do they get tired of being on the wrong side of history?

Race Relations Provide An Example
That's not to say that change will be easy or quick. The history of America's race relations indicates a back-and-forth approach to equality. After hundreds of years of legalized slavery, the Constitution officially outlawed the importation of new slaves in the 19th Century and help accelerate what would be a 60-year struggle for abolition of slavery altogether. Even after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, slavery continued in the U.S. until after the Civil War and after the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.

From slavery we moved quickly to Reconstruction, an era that was supposed to help America rebuild and heal. Instead, it became a time for entrenched forces opposed to change to institute new Jim Crow laws that essentially made blacks into second-class citizens. When Congress tried to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. The courts were never considered "activist" as long as they did the bidding of the right-wing forces of the status quo.

When the Supreme Court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, it would be another 60 years before the nation's highest judicial body would change course in the now celebrated 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. And even then the country resisted integration for more than a dozen years. By the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, conservatives were already complaining that blacks had too many rights and wanted "special rights" and were guilty of "reverse discrimination" against presumably innocent whites.

The Language of Oppression
The language of oppression hasn't changed much in 40 years. The same now discredited arguments once used to justify racial discrimination are pulled from the grave and trotted out today to justify sexual orientation discrimination. But the day is coming to an end.

This morning, 48 senators, including 7 Republicans (Snowe, Collins, McCain, Sununu, Chafee, Gregg, Specter), essentially voted against the anti-gay constitutional amendment by voting on a procedural motion for "cloture." Only 49 senators, including 1 Democrat, voted in favor of such an amendment. That's a worse performance than the last time the amendment was introduced in the last election year. The amendment needed 2/3 of the senators to approve it, but the supporters couldn't even get a simple majority.

But that is not the end of the struggle. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used to talk about the misperception that time was on our side. In fact, Dr. King pointed out in his letter from a Birmingham jail, time is actually neutral. It can be used for good or evil, for freedom or against it. It is what we do with time that matters.