In terms of intellect, being ignorant of some nobody's views has nothing to do with intellect. The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect.
You are presuming that she wouldn't allow it with no evidence that she wouldn't - and then passing judgement against her on top of such an imaginary claim by implying she is being a hypocrite!
> Wonder what this Constitutional Crusader Librarian feels about a patron's ability to exercise their second amendment rights?
It's always obvious about how a person's soul ticks when they say things like this. No matter how awful an erect penis may be to someone, it can't kill them - but a gun can. God forbid an erect penis enter a crowded theater. God help us if loaded guns can't.
You've been misinformed, or are interpreting in a deceptive way. Nudity should not be prohibited by the government because other people don't like it. That doesn't mean crying fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.
You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?
Also, as far as the dragnet goes, I wholeheartedly agree that it sucks. I certainly don't like the fact that I could get pulled over for speeding and be checked for "illegal" drugs like pot. However, from what I understand it's legal.
Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.
Oh I'm not really defending the TSA... what I said was that if they allowed HIM to go through unsearched but not ME, then I would think that would be corruption and abuse of power.
Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people
You mistook me to think that the TSA screenings are a "good thing". I don't think that, I'm arguing a theoretical point here.
I'm just saying that as far as "rights" are concerned, a citizen shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want which harms other people. Sorta like how you don't have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater - your right to freedom of speech CAN be curtailed by the government in the interest of protecting others from harm.
First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal or that the TSA is attempting to harass one of the few critics who actually has any kind of power over the agency, you side with TSA?
That's one way of thinking about it... on the other hand, I would have thought it horribly corrupt if the senator had been allowed to pass through security WITHOUT being searched, because that's what happens to everyone else. No, I would not have expected him of doing something illegal - but I doubt they did, either.
Third, are you truly so focused on your goals that you are willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve them -- even if that goal is simply arriving at your intended destination at your intended arrival time, rather than taking a longer route rather than be a good sheep as you pass through a TSA check point?
You say that so nonchalantly. Hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens who fly on a plane do that every time they fly.
Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched. Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others. For example, if they searched me as I was entering and exiting my private home. But hell, they have the right to prevent me from driving a 2 ton car on the roads which is dangerously lethal - if I don't have proper training.
The point is, the government shouldn't prevent us from doing something that harms no one else like having non-missionary sex in the privacy of my own home or smoking pot in the privacy of my own home. But driving a car on public roads and getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.
If every social issue starts getting labeled a "rights violation" then that term has no meaning any more, and society will really suffer.
OK, well being denied tax breaks doesn't qualify as a human rights violation for sure. I believe that being denied the ability to act upon your natural inborn emotions of love and connection towards another human does. The same would apply to a government splitting up a child from a parent, for example.
Awesome! Yes, I concur. I'd prefer the law (and all laws) to be merit-based only. In other words, the only condition for tax breaks for the purposes of raising children is that you support them financially... whoever that is, so be it. I also think that tax breaks for the wealthy should be the same... tax breaks for job creation, not level of income.
Without objectivity, there are only attempts to force people to conform to opinions, and that, in my opinion, is the worst violation of "human rights" that can exist.
I hope you didn't really mean this, but me being denied from seeing my partner in the last 8 hours of his dying life in a hospital is a way fucking worse violation of "human rights" (your quotes) than theoretical debates which cause you to "suffer" emotionally because you believe the gays are immoral and therefore the thought of gays being able to visit their partners in the hospital while dying like heterosexuals is a violation of your "human rights".
I don't want to force anything upon anyone... I want freedom from others. I don't want special status, I want equal status. I don't give a shit if you hate gays, I give a shit if the government discriminates against me.
Your logic is flawed. He never said MS just recruits from the locals... he's saying gay people don't apply to Microsoft in Richmond because they would only apply in San Francisco or Boston, et al. The argument is that MS is having trouble getting certain people to Washington, and businesses like theirs would be better served if they could competitively recruit gays to Washington.
As a gay man, I concur that homosexuality isn't the majority result in the human species. But neither is left-handedness. Everyone has something that isn't normal, everyone. It could be as small as a cell that grows abnormally in a small organ somewhere in your body.
And just because you don't like gays, doesn't mean everyone doesn't like them.
"Immoral" is a relevant term - I think your post is quite immoral.
What stats? The Nazis had the most elaborate census data in human history, and found that the number was around 8%.
Stats are very hard to determine. Health clinics now use the term "men who have sex with men" because many of them don't identify as "gay". I'm an American, and I've never written down on any census or poll that I'm gay.
Now, I'm not bashing you... it's just that I've never seen any reliable data which puts the number at 1%-2%. I personally don't know the correct and actual answer, either, and I suspect nobody really can scientifically determine it in today's world.
Gay marriage is already legal in many areas of the world and it hasn't caused the downfall of society.
I don't know what "mainstreaming homosexuality" is, but what I do know is that all I want is the end of governmental discrimination. I don't think (and no rational person thinks) that Baptists are going to start homosexual marrying each other in areas where it's legal.
No. But the numbers don't lie either. The odds of a gay man being busted is far higher (on a per capita basis) than for a hetero.
The ratio of pedophiles that are gay to straight is the same ratio of people who are gay to straight. And pedophilia isn't homosexuality anyways... a real homosexual wants a big fat hairy cock to suck, and little boys don't have those.
And since this is Slashdot, I'll cite. Pedophiles who are attracted to young boys tend NOT to be attracted to adult men. Here's a link to a reference for a 1978 paper on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract
And the abstract:
"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."
If it costs $2K for gays and 0$ for heterosexuals, there's a problem.
And if marriage has specific religious meanings for specific religious sects, it shouldn't be in the government's domain.
what marriage means....just makes the meaning worthless......and that i believe is the real motivation
No it's not the motivation. I don't even believe that you believe that. The motivation is to not have any governmental discrimination (de jure). De facto there will always be discrimination among minorities or any different "group" between peoples.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
Yes. Most rational discourses that I am involved in come down to that exact sentiment - the government shouldn't have a role in defining what a marriage is at all. Consenting polygamists shouldn't be discriminated against, just as consenting homosexuals shouldn't, either. Also, it wasn't in your post, but another huge argument in the discourses is procreation. There can be societal benefits to procreation without defining marriage, such as tax breaks for people supporting children.
Oh I knew it... you're positioning yourself as the discriminated one. You're not being "attacked" because you're disagreeing with orthodoxy, you're being "attacked" out of the defense of people who are actually being discriminated.
You may have received some irrational responses, but that doesn't mean all responses to your argument are irrational. And you have made quite irrational statements, jmorris42.
I'll reply to you as if you weren't trolling, which I don't believe you were. I myself am a gay man with a family.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots.
I don't care to define what YOU think is marriage. What I care is that a government, which is in reality the will of 50%+1 of a population, can define it. I don't want anyone to tell me what my church says is a marriage. BTW, when you say "redefine", the legal definition of marriage has changed so fucking much throughout history it's unbelievable. For example, until the 1970s interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country. Marriage was redefined to allow interracial marriages in the U.S. after that.
But don't let that bit stump the argument... once again I don't give a shit what you and anyone else thinks is a marriage. I think it is wrong for any gay person to go into a Baptist church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the Baptists to come into a Lutheran church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the government to define marriage, period. Your "definition" is perfectly fine, and I don't care for you to change it at all... I just don't want you defining it for me, either.
Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting?
The fact that you're actually asking this gives you no credibility to make judgement. There are so many things that I want. I don't want to have any fear of driving through Arkansas and having my children taken away from me and my husband because Arkansas doesn't acknowledge my children as my children. I don't want to be kept out of my dying husbands hospital room, to let him die alone and without me in the last 8 hours of his life, terrified and just wanting me by his side and I by his. I don't want the government to discriminate against me and my husband with children over a heterosexual couple with children or a single mother with children or a heterosexual couple without children or a previously divorced couple with children from their previous marriages. I don't want to have to testify against my spouse, unlike heterosexuals. There's a WHOLE lot more.
Considering who pushes both concepts seems to have a LOT of overlap in membership, is it wrong to suspect an agenda?
Yes, that is a logical fallacy. I suspect you're a Glen Beck fan. Correlation is not causation. Also, the idea that a majority of gays wants to destroy religion is simply unfounded and untestable and therefore unprovable. You're probably getting it confused with the idea that gays generally try to prevent Baptist prejudices in government - which is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted as well. That in no way means gays hate religion. If gays hate the firey Baptist-style "God hates fags" religions, it doesn't imply that a gay person hates religion in general. What tends to happen is that if a gay person is arguing against that bullshit, they are arguing against such religious beliefs (or specifically in the government)... but that does NOT imply that a gay person is against religion in general.
Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.
OK, fine, so is left handedness. Gayness and left-handedness shouldn't be discriminated by the government, only actions that cause harm to other people.
They should NOT be given the ability to form family units and adopt for example.
For an example of what? I'm gay and already in a fucking family unit you fucktard, and I and other gay people are quite capable of raising children. (Sorry, but this one statement deserves you being called a fucktard) Statements like this are the reason that people like you are the most dangerous threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays are ALREADY IN family units from the day they were born, they ALREADY FOR
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of intellect, being ignorant of some nobody's views has nothing to do with intellect. The fact that you think that indicates your lack of intellect.
Oh, and you're a douche.
You are presuming that she wouldn't allow it with no evidence that she wouldn't - and then passing judgement against her on top of such an imaginary claim by implying she is being a hypocrite!
Well said, sir or madam.
> Wonder what this Constitutional Crusader Librarian feels about a patron's ability to exercise their second amendment rights?
It's always obvious about how a person's soul ticks when they say things like this. No matter how awful an erect penis may be to someone, it can't kill them - but a gun can. God forbid an erect penis enter a crowded theater. God help us if loaded guns can't.
You've been misinformed, or are interpreting in a deceptive way. Nudity should not be prohibited by the government because other people don't like it. That doesn't mean crying fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.
In other words, it's all about the context.
I think it would fix so many problems...
You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?
Also, as far as the dragnet goes, I wholeheartedly agree that it sucks. I certainly don't like the fact that I could get pulled over for speeding and be checked for "illegal" drugs like pot. However, from what I understand it's legal.
Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.
Oh I'm not really defending the TSA... what I said was that if they allowed HIM to go through unsearched but not ME, then I would think that would be corruption and abuse of power.
Where's the proof? There's good reason to believe that these TSA screenings are killing people
You mistook me to think that the TSA screenings are a "good thing". I don't think that, I'm arguing a theoretical point here.
I'm just saying that as far as "rights" are concerned, a citizen shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want which harms other people. Sorta like how you don't have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater - your right to freedom of speech CAN be curtailed by the government in the interest of protecting others from harm.
First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal or that the TSA is attempting to harass one of the few critics who actually has any kind of power over the agency, you side with TSA?
That's one way of thinking about it... on the other hand, I would have thought it horribly corrupt if the senator had been allowed to pass through security WITHOUT being searched, because that's what happens to everyone else. No, I would not have expected him of doing something illegal - but I doubt they did, either.
Third, are you truly so focused on your goals that you are willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve them -- even if that goal is simply arriving at your intended destination at your intended arrival time, rather than taking a longer route rather than be a good sheep as you pass through a TSA check point?
You say that so nonchalantly. Hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens who fly on a plane do that every time they fly.
Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched. Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others. For example, if they searched me as I was entering and exiting my private home. But hell, they have the right to prevent me from driving a 2 ton car on the roads which is dangerously lethal - if I don't have proper training.
The point is, the government shouldn't prevent us from doing something that harms no one else like having non-missionary sex in the privacy of my own home or smoking pot in the privacy of my own home. But driving a car on public roads and getting on an airplane without being searched DOES have the potential to harm other people.
If every social issue starts getting labeled a "rights violation" then that term has no meaning any more, and society will really suffer.
OK, well being denied tax breaks doesn't qualify as a human rights violation for sure. I believe that being denied the ability to act upon your natural inborn emotions of love and connection towards another human does. The same would apply to a government splitting up a child from a parent, for example.
Awesome! Yes, I concur. I'd prefer the law (and all laws) to be merit-based only. In other words, the only condition for tax breaks for the purposes of raising children is that you support them financially... whoever that is, so be it. I also think that tax breaks for the wealthy should be the same... tax breaks for job creation, not level of income.
Without objectivity, there are only attempts to force people to conform to opinions, and that, in my opinion, is the worst violation of "human rights" that can exist.
I hope you didn't really mean this, but me being denied from seeing my partner in the last 8 hours of his dying life in a hospital is a way fucking worse violation of "human rights" (your quotes) than theoretical debates which cause you to "suffer" emotionally because you believe the gays are immoral and therefore the thought of gays being able to visit their partners in the hospital while dying like heterosexuals is a violation of your "human rights".
I don't want to force anything upon anyone... I want freedom from others. I don't want special status, I want equal status. I don't give a shit if you hate gays, I give a shit if the government discriminates against me.
LOL. Xbox 360 is pretty sweet, too.
Your logic is flawed. He never said MS just recruits from the locals... he's saying gay people don't apply to Microsoft in Richmond because they would only apply in San Francisco or Boston, et al. The argument is that MS is having trouble getting certain people to Washington, and businesses like theirs would be better served if they could competitively recruit gays to Washington.
What's a militant gay?
HA! My thoughts exactly. He loves feeling "persecuted".
As a gay man, I concur that homosexuality isn't the majority result in the human species. But neither is left-handedness. Everyone has something that isn't normal, everyone. It could be as small as a cell that grows abnormally in a small organ somewhere in your body.
And just because you don't like gays, doesn't mean everyone doesn't like them.
"Immoral" is a relevant term - I think your post is quite immoral.
What stats? The Nazis had the most elaborate census data in human history, and found that the number was around 8%.
Stats are very hard to determine. Health clinics now use the term "men who have sex with men" because many of them don't identify as "gay". I'm an American, and I've never written down on any census or poll that I'm gay.
Now, I'm not bashing you... it's just that I've never seen any reliable data which puts the number at 1%-2%. I personally don't know the correct and actual answer, either, and I suspect nobody really can scientifically determine it in today's world.
Gay marriage is already legal in many areas of the world and it hasn't caused the downfall of society.
I don't know what "mainstreaming homosexuality" is, but what I do know is that all I want is the end of governmental discrimination. I don't think (and no rational person thinks) that Baptists are going to start homosexual marrying each other in areas where it's legal.
No. But the numbers don't lie either. The odds of a gay man being busted is far higher (on a per capita basis) than for a hetero.
The ratio of pedophiles that are gay to straight is the same ratio of people who are gay to straight. And pedophilia isn't homosexuality anyways... a real homosexual wants a big fat hairy cock to suck, and little boys don't have those.
And since this is Slashdot, I'll cite. Pedophiles who are attracted to young boys tend NOT to be attracted to adult men. Here's a link to a reference for a 1978 paper on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract
And the abstract:
"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."
If it costs $2K for gays and 0$ for heterosexuals, there's a problem.
And if marriage has specific religious meanings for specific religious sects, it shouldn't be in the government's domain.
what marriage means....just makes the meaning worthless......and that i believe is the real motivation
No it's not the motivation. I don't even believe that you believe that. The motivation is to not have any governmental discrimination (de jure). De facto there will always be discrimination among minorities or any different "group" between peoples.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
Yes. Most rational discourses that I am involved in come down to that exact sentiment - the government shouldn't have a role in defining what a marriage is at all. Consenting polygamists shouldn't be discriminated against, just as consenting homosexuals shouldn't, either. Also, it wasn't in your post, but another huge argument in the discourses is procreation. There can be societal benefits to procreation without defining marriage, such as tax breaks for people supporting children.
Oh I knew it... you're positioning yourself as the discriminated one. You're not being "attacked" because you're disagreeing with orthodoxy, you're being "attacked" out of the defense of people who are actually being discriminated.
You may have received some irrational responses, but that doesn't mean all responses to your argument are irrational. And you have made quite irrational statements, jmorris42.
I'll reply to you as if you weren't trolling, which I don't believe you were. I myself am a gay man with a family.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots.
I don't care to define what YOU think is marriage. What I care is that a government, which is in reality the will of 50%+1 of a population, can define it. I don't want anyone to tell me what my church says is a marriage. BTW, when you say "redefine", the legal definition of marriage has changed so fucking much throughout history it's unbelievable. For example, until the 1970s interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country. Marriage was redefined to allow interracial marriages in the U.S. after that.
But don't let that bit stump the argument... once again I don't give a shit what you and anyone else thinks is a marriage. I think it is wrong for any gay person to go into a Baptist church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the Baptists to come into a Lutheran church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the government to define marriage, period. Your "definition" is perfectly fine, and I don't care for you to change it at all... I just don't want you defining it for me, either.
Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting?
The fact that you're actually asking this gives you no credibility to make judgement. There are so many things that I want. I don't want to have any fear of driving through Arkansas and having my children taken away from me and my husband because Arkansas doesn't acknowledge my children as my children. I don't want to be kept out of my dying husbands hospital room, to let him die alone and without me in the last 8 hours of his life, terrified and just wanting me by his side and I by his. I don't want the government to discriminate against me and my husband with children over a heterosexual couple with children or a single mother with children or a heterosexual couple without children or a previously divorced couple with children from their previous marriages. I don't want to have to testify against my spouse, unlike heterosexuals. There's a WHOLE lot more.
Considering who pushes both concepts seems to have a LOT of overlap in membership, is it wrong to suspect an agenda?
Yes, that is a logical fallacy. I suspect you're a Glen Beck fan. Correlation is not causation. Also, the idea that a majority of gays wants to destroy religion is simply unfounded and untestable and therefore unprovable. You're probably getting it confused with the idea that gays generally try to prevent Baptist prejudices in government - which is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted as well. That in no way means gays hate religion. If gays hate the firey Baptist-style "God hates fags" religions, it doesn't imply that a gay person hates religion in general. What tends to happen is that if a gay person is arguing against that bullshit, they are arguing against such religious beliefs (or specifically in the government)... but that does NOT imply that a gay person is against religion in general.
Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.
OK, fine, so is left handedness. Gayness and left-handedness shouldn't be discriminated by the government, only actions that cause harm to other people.
They should NOT be given the ability to form family units and adopt for example.
For an example of what? I'm gay and already in a fucking family unit you fucktard, and I and other gay people are quite capable of raising children. (Sorry, but this one statement deserves you being called a fucktard) Statements like this are the reason that people like you are the most dangerous threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays are ALREADY IN family units from the day they were born, they ALREADY FOR