Slashdot Mirror

Since it's obviously a subject that interests you, try here: https://www.glaad.org/

transgender is a very broad word, encompassing several situations.
so sounds like you're in need of some terminology lessons.
that's ok, we got you covered: http://www.glaad.org/publicati...

Incidentally, I would think that a webpage about media where someone has two mums is SFW, for example, at GLAAD or IGRA...

http://www.glaad.org/

http://www.igra.com/

So how are gay websites part of a student's education, if a teacher was found surfing any gay websites without cause they could be charged with a felony, misuse of government property. The resources the government supplies for the school are for educational purposes only, allowing the use of the resources for anything else is criminal. It would be no different then if students could take a gay class offered by the school paid for with government money.

Oh, bullshit. Are we going to charge students with a crime if they doodle on government-issued paper with government-issued pencils? As for "surfing any gay websites," who gets to draw that line? And what side of that line does the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation fall under?

The Internet is a tool, much like a hammer. You can use it for good or ill, as long as you can accept the consequences of your actions. Isn't that what we should be teaching children?

The Salvation Army is anti-gay. That is unfortunate.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1113-06.ht m

http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=1 61

http://www.glaad.org/media/np_archive_detail.php?i d=354

Please keep this in mind when you consider donating to them. Thank you.

Josh

While I do not share your religious beliefs about homosexuality...

Presumably, you do share my beliefs about homosexuality (or at least some of them). It's the beliefs I was describing that you don't share.

You are correct, that the laws would only forbid such behaviors and not eliminate them, and I believe all would agree with you on that point. Furthermore, you are also correct that bans on homosexual acts have been deemed unconstitutional - which is exactly why those who would ban homosexual acts believe they need a constitutional amendment. (By definition, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Although I'm sure many of us would believe that it could render the constitution into an inconsistent document.)

I was not away that "polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support the right of civil unions for gays", although I do know that percentage to be higher than those who support marriage rights.

Here are some links that suggest that statement to be not exactly accurate:

• From religioustolerange.org - 49% support and rising (2004)
• From marriageequalityca.org - 54% support (2001)
• Glaad agrees with religioustolerance.org - 49%

So, I wouldn't say it's consistent yet, even if 2005 shows a majority, but it does seem we're headed that way. FWIW, personally, I would not support any ban on gay marriage, even if it allowed for civil unions, as I think that it amounts to government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

P.S. If you re-read my original post, you'll notice that the whole point of my argument was that the reasons why people support FMA have little (or nothing!) to do with their support for government getting more involved in our lives in general.

Well prehaps the people of Virginia haven't had to rewrite their laws in some time, i guess thats what happens when you have a free and secure country.

Its amazing how stupid the people on slashdot are, they somehow think that just because old laws are still on the books, that they are still in full force.

The crossing on green comment made no sense

US immigation laws are quite liberal compared to most of europe

But its more fun sheepishly making fun of the US that it is to actually have indepedent thought

Ugh.

First, I need to start by saying that I agree with your point that it's important to conisder people's arguments for what they are, rather than to reject them out of hand because of who espoused them. In logic/rhetoric, this is called "poisoning the well," where you forego attacking an argument because its proponent makes an easier/more attractive target.

It's kind of a shame, really, because this is one nasty, funky well. Dr. Laura is a bigoted creep who is fond of referring to gays and lesbians as "biological errors," and refers to the practice of homosexuality as destructive. Her justification for doing so isn't rooted in scientific research, but in her personal religious convictions. An example:

Let me just read a bit of this [news story] to you: "The debate over gay rights..." Rights. RIGHTS! RIGHTS? For sexual deviant . . . sexual behavior there are now rights. That's what I'm worried about with the pedophilia and the bestiality and the sadomasochism and the cross-dressing. Is this all going to be "rights" too, to deviant sexual behavior? It's deviant sexual behavior. Why does deviant sexual behavior get rights? Don't understand that to start out with.
- Schlessinger, June 9, 1999.

I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I do have a problem when people take their own personal moral decisions, thinly cloak them under a veil of pseudo-logic, and try to ram them down everyone's throat.

Ugh.

First, I need to start by saying that I agree with your point that it's important to conisder people's arguments for what they are, rather than to reject them out of hand because of who espoused them. In logic/rhetoric, this is called "poisoning the well," where you forego attacking an argument because its proponent makes an easier/more attractive target.

It's kind of a shame, really, because this is one nasty, funky well. Dr. Laura is a bigoted creep who is fond of referring to gays and lesbians as "biological errors," and refers to the practice of homosexuality as destructive. Her justification for doing so isn't rooted in scientific research, but in her personal religious convictions. An example:

Let me just read a bit of this [news story] to you: "The debate over gay rights..." Rights. RIGHTS! RIGHTS? For sexual deviant . . . sexual behavior there are now rights. That's what I'm worried about with the pedophilia and the bestiality and the sadomasochism and the cross-dressing. Is this all going to be "rights" too, to deviant sexual behavior? It's deviant sexual behavior. Why does deviant sexual behavior get rights? Don't understand that to start out with.
- Schlessinger, June 9, 1999.

I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I do have a problem when people take their own personal moral decisions, thinly cloak them under a veil of pseudo-logic, and try to ram them down everyone's throat.

Ugh.

First, I need to start by saying that I agree with your point that it's important to conisder people's arguments for what they are, rather than to reject them out of hand because of who espoused them. In logic/rhetoric, this is called "poisoning the well," where you forego attacking an argument because its proponent makes an easier/more attractive target.

It's kind of a shame, really, because this is one nasty, funky well. Dr. Laura is a bigoted creep who is fond of referring to gays and lesbians as "biological errors," and refers to the practice of homosexuality as destructive. Her justification for doing so isn't rooted in scientific research, but in her personal religious convictions. An example:

Let me just read a bit of this [news story] to you: "The debate over gay rights..." Rights. RIGHTS! RIGHTS? For sexual deviant . . . sexual behavior there are now rights. That's what I'm worried about with the pedophilia and the bestiality and the sadomasochism and the cross-dressing. Is this all going to be "rights" too, to deviant sexual behavior? It's deviant sexual behavior. Why does deviant sexual behavior get rights? Don't understand that to start out with.
- Schlessinger, June 9, 1999.

I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I do have a problem when people take their own personal moral decisions, thinly cloak them under a veil of pseudo-logic, and try to ram them down everyone's throat.