Defending the Truth

garysher · 10-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Homosexuality debate on Beliefnet. It's a freaking joke. There's about a half-dozen to ten regulars over there, including some monitors, who act like a gang of school-yard bullies. And like I said, the R.O.C. are structured in such a way that they get away with it.

Go over there, and post something, I'll bet that within ten posts, you'll be accused of being a self-loathing, closeted homosexual.

I'd probably get banned inside 10 minutes.

Or maybe they'd all put me on ignore in the name of tolerance!

foundit66 · 10-05-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Well, as detailed in another thread, the majority apparently think the U.S. was founded as and meant to be a "Christian Nation." At one time, the majority were more or less okay with slavery too.
1) "Christian Nation"
The flawed re-interpretations of historical fact do not concern me.
Things cannot be any more clear than the Treaty of Tripoli, passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate in 1796:
""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..."
This example is simply a matter of fact, or personal belief in spite of the facts.

2) "slavery more or less okay"
A better example, and if the opinion of the majority changes then that's a possibility.
But I don't see that happening with regards to hate crime legislation for two reasons.
A) The history of using the motive during sentencing is a long established one. We already have legislation which distinguishes different sentences based on motive (murder one vs murder two). The practice of using the motive during sentencing is not going anywhere.
B) Unlike slavery, there is not really much division on the issue.
Polls show that even a majority of REPUBLICANS support hate crimes, and they also support hate crimes for sexual orientation as well.
From the beginning of this country, slavery had people who were opposed.

Also, this legislation has a very big "feel-good" factor to it, which makes the basic concept an easy sell. After all, who doesn't want to be against hate?
So, it comes as no suprise that this sugar-coated turkey has garnered a lot of apparent public support.
You can try to deride the concept with slogans, but like I said the practice of using the motive during sentencing is long established.
Just because it can be described as "feel-good" doesn't mean it's going anywhere.

I think there's elements supporting this legislation and similar concepts that would love to see just that happen. Some people have a vested interest in seeing their opponents forced to shut up.
Some elements?
It wouldn't surprise me.
But by the same token, isn't ANTI-BLACK a much more reviled issue in our society?
If such an incursion into freedom of speech were to occur, I would think it would start there. I think Jesse Jackson and Sharpton would love to go there.
I find it as significant that there aren't any real signs of that. The KKK can still say what they want to say.

I think the legislation points things in that direction. It's a clear step in that direction, IMO.
The step to establish motive as a sentencing tool has long been established, along with the capability to abuse it.
Society has typically been fairly vigilant on the idea of protecting freedom of speech.

If we ever see hate crime legislation create NEW crimes, instead of simply modifying the sentencing of existing crimes, I think the comment is justified.
But as long as hate crimes work off of something that was already a crime, I don't see the justification.

Just as is much of what GLAAD says.
That's a deflection of the issue.
If you want to start a thread on GLAAD propaganda, I'm all ears.
But I'll take your non-response as a non-response...

No, but again, I don't think most people realize what "hate crime" legislation actually represents, or how far from its origonal intent it's gotten. Again, it started out with a good concept, giving the federal government jurisdiction over cases stemming from such incidents as attempts to intimidate or terrorize certian groups from voting or going to school.
I see no sign of the public being ignorant of what hate crime legislation is.
I can show you a couple polls which EXPLICITLY STATE what hate crime legislation actually is, and the response demonstrates the same majority supporting hate crimes.
I see no evidence of your claim.

Furthermore, the civil rights legislation you speak of is distinctly different from hate crime legislation.

Rosie O'Donnel. Melissa Ethridge. GLAAD.
Ahhhh.
I don't listen to Rosie or Melissa. I am unfamiliar with their comments.
As for GLAAD, I have seen some of their statements, but not a regular listener...

What examples do you have where they got involved and spoke out in the manner you describe?

All worthy causes. But there's also good arguments against some of those things. For instance, if it can be proven that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would in any way, shape or form disrupt morale...
And when blacks were introduced, that also "disrupted morale"...
But in the bigger picture, there have been a couple of research endeavors on the issue which demonstrate that the issue is overblown by those against gays.
The RAND Report investigated the issue of openly gay integration, and it recommended openly gay integration.
There is a long list of other countries which do not discriminate against gays in the military.

Quite frankly, I think the best argument which shoots holes in claims like you state is the observation that the military, in times of war/military conflict, LESSENS their gay exclusion.
At the time you would need the military to perform at its best, they REDUCE how many gays are being kicked out.
I know of one example of a guy who was kicked out for "coming out", and now he has been RECALLED by the military to serve. (He's still out.)
That speaks volumes about the reality of the situation.

The job of the military is not to protect soldiers from having their feelings hurt. It is to protect the country and inflict disabling damage upon any threat as quickly as possible
If the argument for including gays in the military revolved around "feelings hurt", with credible evidence demonstrating detriment, I would be more inclined to have more sympathy towards that position.
But the truth is that the gay exclusion policy is DAMAGING our military readiness and capability, for NO OTHER PURPOSE other than to cater to those soldiers who don't want to have "their feelings hurt" because they have to serve with a gay military member.
And quite frankly, the way that the excuses for preventing gays from serving in the military have changed over the years also demonstrates a reality of the situation.

And yes, I get undertones from some elements of the gay rights movement that what they are really fighting for is to get everybody who disagrees with them to shut up.
Quite frankly, I think part of my contention works off of the tendency of some to go from "some elements" to stereo-type the gay rights movement.
And I know that is not what you have done, but seeing it happen so often makes me leary of the issue.

Well, maybe there's something to that. The GLBT movement seems to be pissing more and more people off for some reason.
I see it more as a vocal minority. I see a lot of noise being made, by people who are trying to scare up votes and political action, but little in the way of "backlash".
Like a WND article that claims the will of the voters is being violated by the legislature which is looking to pass legislation on civil unions in one state.
Their reference point is a voter initiative which dealt with GAY MARRIAGE, which they were trying to infer to prevent civil unions.
From what I hear, their attempts to block the legislature is going badly.
There are examples of legislation attempts in some states on gay adoption as well, which also failed.

As far as tangible results, I don't see any "backlash".
(And as for gay marriage, we're talking about states that didn't allow gay marriage before, and not allowing it afterwards. Not really a "tangible result" to me, and since the effects are limited to marriage I see it more of a "marriage" issue than a "gay" issue.
Interracial marriage was the last major stumbling black for black equality as well, IMO.

This board is good that way. I've been on another board (as has FX) were the behavior I described is blatantly rampant. Then again, I fully admit that board is basically set up to be a GLBT echo chamber. The rules of conduct simply won't allow dissent in any form, while the "pro-gay" side is basically free to engange in all sorts of character assasination, personal attacks and ridicule of others' beliefs. Hence, I go here now, not there.
I suspect I would be butting heads on a board like that.
If you don't mind, could you PM me a link to that board?
If you aren't inclined, don't sweat it.

Again, GLAAD. Read their website, you'd think the world was out to get them.
GLAAD? I'll pay it a visit.
Have you heard some of the comments which were made in the U.S. Congress for the passing of the Amendment version of DOMA? Quite frankly, I think in some ways GLAAD could have firm examples of exactly that stemming from there.

That's why I say "elements of" the GLBT movement.

In which case I suspect that there might be some conflict in that I assign a little more emphasis / meaning to the phrase "elements of..." as opposed to "some..."
Thanks for explaining that to me, and I'll try to appreciate your meaning better in the future.

mytmouse57 · 10-05-2007, 05:08 PM

"1) "Christian Nation"
The flawed re-interpretations of historical fact do not concern me.
Things cannot be any more clear than the Treaty of Tripoli, passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate in 1796:
""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..."
This example is simply a matter of fact, or personal belief in spite of the facts.

2) "slavery more or less okay"
A better example, and if the opinion of the majority changes then that's a possibility.
But I don't see that happening with regards to hate crime legislation for two reasons.
A) The history of using the motive during sentencing is a long established one. We already have legislation which distinguishes different sentences based on motive (murder one vs murder two). The practice of using the motive during sentencing is not going anywhere."

Yes, motive is to come into play DURING SENTENCING and during arguments. See, we agree after all! That's what I support. Not supposed motive written into law. And the distinction between murder one and murder two has nothing to do with motive. It has to do with circumstances -- whether the killing was pre-meditated.

B) Unlike slavery, there is not really much division on the issue.
Polls show that even a majority of REPUBLICANS support hate crimes, and they also support hate crimes for sexual orientation as well.
From the beginning of this country, slavery had people who were opposed.

You can try to deride the concept with slogans, but like I said the practice of using the motive during sentencing is long established.
Just because it can be described as "feel-good" doesn't mean it's going anywhere.

I"m not trying to deride it, I'm merely stating facts. What does this legislation REALLY do -- other than try to make people feel good that they did something about the horrible crime committed against Matthew Sheppard? Now, we certinaly can't blame people for wanting to do something. But in reality, it doesn't do jack shit. Matthew Sheppard is still dead, and he still died horribly at the hands of peole who would not have given a flying fuck if this law had been in place at the time they were beating his skull in. Guess what.. they still would have done it.
The EXISTING laws did their job, and Sheppard's killers are locked away for life.

Some elements?
It wouldn't surprise me.
But by the same token, isn't ANTI-BLACK a much more reviled issue in our society?
If such an incursion into freedom of speech were to occur, I would think it would start there. I think Jesse Jackson and Sharpton would love to go there.
I find it as significant that there aren't any real signs of that. The KKK can still say what they want to say.

I'll give you that. But I think that has to do with steady vigilance to protect freedom of speech/expression. That's why I'll continue to speak up against things like this. They set a dangerous precident, IMO.

The step to establish motive as a sentencing tool has long been established, along with the capability to abuse it.
Society has typically been fairly vigilant on the idea of protecting freedom of speech.

There you go again. Motive AS A SENTENCING TOOL..during/after the case has been argued... NOT WRITTEN INTO THE LAWS themselves.

If we ever see hate crime legislation create NEW crimes, instead of simply modifying the sentencing of existing crimes, I think the comment is justified.
But as long as hate crimes work off of something that was already a crime, I don't see the justification.

But hate crime laws DO create a supposed new class of crime. It's silly and reduntant.... when we can already argue movites as aggravating factors.

Just as is much of what GLAAD says.
That's a deflection of the issue.
If you want to start a thread on GLAAD propaganda, I'm all ears.
But I'll take your non-response as a non-response...

I don't see it as a deflection. I was trying to point out there's propoganda being barfed out from BOTH SIDES of this issue.

I see no sign of the public being ignorant of what hate crime legislation is.
I can show you a couple polls which EXPLICITLY STATE what hate crime legislation actually is, and the response demonstrates the same majority supporting hate crimes.
I see no evidence of your claim.

Furthermore, the civil rights legislation you speak of is distinctly different from hate crime legislation.

My claim is that the civil rights legislation was MUTATED into "hate crime" legislation -- for all the wrong reasons. A bad idea is almost always a good idea that was taken too far.

Ahhhh.
I don't listen to Rosie or Melissa. I am unfamiliar with their comments.
As for GLAAD, I have seen some of their statements, but not a regular listener...

What examples do you have where they got involved and spoke out in the manner you describe?

None specific. So you got me there. With Rosie, at least, however, I think her obnoxious approach to just about everything is well-known.

And when blacks were introduced, that also "disrupted morale"...
But in the bigger picture, there have been a couple of research endeavors on the issue which demonstrate that the issue is overblown by those against gays.
The RAND Report investigated the issue of openly gay integration, and it recommended openly gay integration.
There is a long list of other countries which do not discriminate against gays in the military.

Quite frankly, I think the best argument which shoots holes in claims like you state is the observation that the military, in times of war/military conflict, LESSENS their gay exclusion.
At the time you would need the military to perform at its best, they REDUCE how many gays are being kicked out.
I know of one example of a guy who was kicked out for "coming out", and now he has been RECALLED by the military to serve. (He's still out.)
That speaks volumes about the reality of the situation.

If the argument for including gays in the military revolved around "feelings hurt", with credible evidence demonstrating detriment, I would be more inclined to have more sympathy towards that position.
But the truth is that the gay exclusion policy is DAMAGING our military readiness and capability, for NO OTHER PURPOSE other than to cater to those soldiers who don't want to have "their feelings hurt" because they have to serve with a gay military member.
And quite frankly, the way that the excuses for preventing gays from serving in the military have changed over the years also demonstrates a reality of the situation.

Okay, calm down. I said if it can be demonstrated that openly gay soliders won't have a detrmential effect on the function of the military, I have no problem with the gayest of the gay serving openly.

Quite frankly, I think part of my contention works off of the tendency of some to go from "some elements" to stereo-type the gay rights movement.
And I know that is not what you have done, but seeing it happen so often makes me leary of the issue.

For good reason.

I see it more as a vocal minority. I see a lot of noise being made, by people who are trying to scare up votes and political action, but little in the way of "backlash".
Like a WND article that claims the will of the voters is being violated by the legislature which is looking to pass legislation on civil unions in one state.
Their reference point is a voter initiative which dealt with GAY MARRIAGE, which they were trying to infer to prevent civil unions.
From what I hear, their attempts to block the legislature is going badly.
There are examples of legislation attempts in some states on gay adoption as well, which also failed.

As far as tangible results, I don't see any "backlash".
(And as for gay marriage, we're talking about states that didn't allow gay marriage before, and not allowing it afterwards. Not really a "tangible result" to me, and since the effects are limited to marriage I see it more of a "marriage" issue than a "gay" issue.
Interracial marriage was the last major stumbling black for black equality as well, IMO.

I think gay marriage in inevitable. I think it's all over but the bitching.

I suspect I would be butting heads on a board like that.
If you don't mind, could you PM me a link to that board?
If you aren't inclined, don't sweat it.

I named the board in a previous post to Gary. Maybe I shouldn't have. For one thing, I was actually stalked from that board. Some over there set a very bad examples for gays... welll, for people in general, actually. But, maybe I filter too much of my opinon through that experience. And maybe I need to lighten up... LOL.

GLAAD? I'll pay it a visit.
Have you heard some of the comments which were made in the U.S. Congress for the passing of the Amendment version of DOMA? Quite frankly, I think in some ways GLAAD could have firm examples of exactly that stemming from there.

Like I said, there's crap rhetoric on both sides of this issue. And some on both sides who really, really want to be "victims."

CrazyFlamingos · 10-05-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

With Rosie, at least, however, I think her obnoxious approach to just about everything is well-known.

This is slightly off topic but I just have to interject one thing here.

One of the things that Rosie is a loud and obnoxious advocate of is Free Speech.

During her year as moderator of The View she often was the one to suggest bringing on guests who disagreed with her views. When she had her own show she did the same thing, often bringing on guests whose views were diametrically opposed to hers.

fxashun · 10-05-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

I think gay marriage in inevitable. I think it's all over but the bitching.

Sadly, I agree with you. It's just a matter of time.

mytmouse57 · 10-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

[/b][/color][/color][/i]This is slightly off topic but I just have to interject one thing here.

One of the things that Rosie is a loud and obnoxious advocate of is Free Speech.

During her year as moderator of The View she often was the one to suggest bringing on guests who disagreed with her views. When she had her own show she did the same thing, often bringing on guests whose views were diametrically opposed to hers.

Good for Rosie. Maybe I should give her another watch sometime.

I did like the show she did a while back about the gay families on a cruise ship.

fxashun · 10-05-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I'd probably get banned inside 10 minutes.

Or maybe they'd all put me on ignore in the name of tolerance!

It took me about 4 or 5 deleted posts before I could even get a post that wouldn't get deleted. I had a whole thread get deleted once. My final post there hurt a few feelings.

mytmouse57 · 10-05-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

It took me about 4 or 5 deleted posts before I could even get a post that wouldn't get deleted. I had a whole thread get deleted once. My final post there hurt a few feelings.

Did you get the "a confused gay teen might read your post and commit suicide" lecture?

That's one is almost as good as the "a penis is perfectly designed to stimulate another man's prostate" lecture.

tristanrobin · 10-05-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Did you get the "a confused gay teen might read your post and commit suicide" lecture?

That's one is almost as good as the "a penis is perfectly designed to stimulate another man's prostate" lecture.

well, both of those things are true

mytmouse57 · 10-05-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

well, both of those things are true

The only thing here that could make a kid commit suicide is the mind-numbing length of some of these posts. (And yes, I'm guilty of that... LOL)

As for the penis/prostate thing.. I think I'll just stick with letting the ladies use their fingers to do that particular job... thank you very much.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode