Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Black People Click Here
"Except black Protestant and Catholic churches"
hmm, i can see why not black churches, i can kinda see why not protestant chruches, but why not Catholic church's? they afraid the catholic church is too well organised and they'll go church of Scientology on their asses? after the whole priest scandals, they dont look much better then Mormons int he public eye atm.
In Southern California, Catholic Churches are full of ethnic minorities who will also beat the shit out of protestors.
it's part of our tradition, the "Church Militant". In the 1920s in South Bend IL, Notre Dame students went out and beat up Klan marchers and pinned their bloody robes to their dorm rooms.
heh, yeah, i guess you dont want to piss off almost all gang members in the area.... think how good that would be though, all the gangs united to kick gay ass.
It doesn't stop with gang members
Some dope fresh off the boat from Saigon opened a store in Little Saigon with a big Ho Chi Minh poster (Southern CA has more urban vietnamese than anywhere outside of Ho Chi Minh City)
And protestors beat him with hammers in front of cops. No arrests either, guess they all look alike, especially when they're beating up commies
> the vast majority of gays are what you would call "queers" and you ignored the point
> that they already have equal rights with everyone else; the entire gay movement is
> asking for them to have more rights then others.
Religious groups have prevented a minority from receiving the same treatment as
everyone else. I'm sorry, but thats not government favoritism -- thats resetting the
absurd views of an outdated religiously based government.
If gays wanted free land because of the way they have been treated, i'd agree with you. All
they want is equal rights. They have done nothing to lose them, and remember that a gay
is just a straight with a different view of 'whats hot'.
I'm sure we have different views on 'whats hot'. What turns you on wont be what turns me
on. Thats not even cultural differences, thats just human nature...
Anyway - Religion bad, oppression bad. Giving equal rights good.
> And protestors beat him with hammers in front of cops. No arrests either, guess they all
> look alike, especially when they're beating up commies
Then your police force is as useless as your army is at invading other countries...
dude, name 1 right that Straight people have that Gays dont have. there are equal rights...
If you have to frame an issue dishonestly, you're openly confessing your own personal belief that your position is wrong.
Stop shitting on our forum. PS. Stupid people shouldn't vote. It's just the decent thing to do... or, in this case, not do.
>>All they want is equal rights. They have done nothing to lose them, and remember that a gay
is just a straight with a different view of 'whats hot'.<<
Yes, because homosexuals clearly serve the same function in society that heterosexual couples do. They create and raise families, the most fundamental building block upon which our society is built. Oh wait, they don't do that? Weird. I was sure you had thought this one through with your strong stand on the issue.... which you haven't even completed a thought about.
> Yes, because homosexuals clearly serve the same function in society that
> heterosexual couples do.
Homosexual couples can too raise a child. And when they do, they do it out of want,
it isn't forced on them. So unlike the majority of straight couples who are 'pushed' into
having a child -- homosexuals can choose at their own discretion.
This means that a homosexual couple can become functional workers in society, powering
our economy, and THEN help raise a child. This ensures a better lifestyle for the child and
will actually help reduce crime (Look at the relation of single mothers vs. crime).
> They create and raise families, the most fundamental building block upon which our society is
> built.
Yes...because there is an absolute shortage of families! No child has ever gone without parents...
> Oh wait, they don't do that? Weird. I was sure you had thought this one through with your strong
> stand on the issue.... which you haven't even completed a thought about.
Look, the facts stand in my favor:
- Gay couples choose when to have children.
- Those children will have a better lifestyle.
- Blacks are more likely to commit a serious crime then gays.
The only reason you don't like homosexuality is due to religion. Which is ironic, because a priest
arse raping a little boy tends to lean more towards a homosexual tendency then a heterosexual one...
> dude, name 1 right that Straight people have that Gays dont have. there are equal rights...
1. no marriage
2. illegal in a lot of countries
3. can't adopt a child
4. Sodomy illegal in most militaries and alot of countries
5. ...
I'm sure there are more.
1. Gay people have to follow the same restrictions straight people do in order to get a legally sanctioned marriage. Plenty of Gay people have legally gotten married in the US with members of the opposite sex. also, the ability to have a legally sanctioned marriage isnt a right.
2. In the US, which is i think what the majority of this conversation is about, it isnt
3. adopting a child isnt a right, just like driving a car isnt a right. Straight couples dont have the right to adopt a child; they have to convince an adoption agency that they are best for the child, just like a Gay couple does
4. Sodomy isnt illegal in the US.
you said gays dont have equal rights, again, please list a single right that straight people have that gays dont. (in the US)
and i know plenty of atheists that are against Gay rights. your use of Religion as the scapegoat is faulty.
> 1. Gay people have to follow the same restrictions straight people do in order to get a
> legally sanctioned marriage. Plenty of Gay people have legally gotten married in the US
> with members of the opposite sex. also, the ability to have a legally sanctioned marriage isnt a right.
In my country i hope for equality. I don't know how you silly Yanks do it, but i want equality and
i believe everyone has the right to it. Hence why we are debating...in a politics forum.
> 2. In the US, which is i think what the majority of this conversation is about, it isnt
Only in the past few years. And no, we are talking in general.
> 3. adopting a child isnt a right, just like driving a car isnt a right. Straight couples dont
> have the right to adopt a child; they have to convince an adoption agency that they are
> best for the child, just like a Gay couple does
No, but preventing a couple from adopting a child simply because they are gay is clear descrimination.
As i have stated above, i want equality.
> 4. Sodomy isnt illegal in the US.
It was a few years back.
> you said gays dont have equal rights, again, please list a single right that straight people have that
> gays dont. (in the US)
Okay, i'd like to change the phrase 'equal rights', to 'the right to equality'.
In which the above 5 fit perfectly.
> and i know plenty of atheists that are against Gay rights. your use of Religion as the scapegoat is faulty.
Religion is why the laws were created, society is why laws have stayed. Eventually the laws will change
as people learn that gays are not the devil.
Odd how many gay people who could finally get married a year ago are getting divorced...
Marriage is not about being allowed to view yourself, it is about how other people are forced to treat you. And I think that's in back of those divorces, the husband or wife suddenly had "rights" over each other
> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> No I don't know it. The cure for angst is to think differently. Psychologists dress it up with words, but that's the base of it. <
Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? Do you think my sexuality is a choice?
> Gin isn't that popular over here, but American gays think having unprotected sex with strangers in public is mainstream and demand it be decriminalized. <
So do straight people.
> I'm not really that ironic. The reason they don't picket black churches is that they will get the shit beat out of them. <
Maybe American puffs work just like you say... maybe, but I doubt it, just like I doubt that fear of violence is the reason that American puffs won't picket Black churches. Every non-American, and even some Americans, know that American society has serious ethnic issues. Why else would your entire country have a big man-wank every time a black person does something?
So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals? (sorry to drag you back to the point, but this is my thread 
)
> avogadro wrote:
> dude, name 1 right that Straight people have that Gays dont have. there are equal rights... <
When a straight couple (in the UK) are together for five unbroken years or more they are deemed to be in a common law marriage and get the same financial benefits as a church wedded couple.
Homosexuals do not get these same benefits, no matter how long they are together, they don't even have the right to visit their partner in hospital because they're not family.
Imagine that Avo, you can't visit your nearest and dearest on their deathbed, you can't say goodbye, they have to die alone because God/Allah/The Dancing Beaver/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Mother Nature decided to make them (and you) different.
__________
__________
> Blind Guardian wrote:
Yes, because homosexuals clearly serve the same function in society that heterosexual couples do. They create and raise families, the most fundamental building block upon which our society is built. Oh wait, they don't do that? Weird. I was sure you had thought this one through with your strong stand on the issue.... which you haven't even completed a thought about. <
Homosexuals are better for the economy.
Homosexuals always choose parenthood, it is never a surprise, and so they are therfore much better prepared.
Homosexuals have to do homework to prove they're worthy of parenthood, to prove they won't irreversibly screw up their child, how many straight people do that? (I bet you can think of a few that should have been forced to do their homework first, eh?)
Hell, how great would our economy be if it wasn't haemorraging money all over the trailer park trash, council estate scum, chavs, and their many, many, many offspring... most of whom are pregnant?
__________
__________
You can try to paint it any way you like, at the end of the day homosexuals are second class citizens for no reason other than mainstream societal xenophobia, just like those people who used to ride on the back of the bus.
>>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? <<
You mentioned people killing themselves over angst about their sexuality
>>Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<
Yes
so's mine
"In my country i hope for equality. I don't know how you silly Yanks do it, but i want equality and
i believe everyone has the right to it. Hence why we are debating...in a politics forum."
in your country, a gay person has never married someone of the opposite sex? i think you're in denial. is there some type of gay test they do before 2 people of opposite sexes are married, that weeds out gays?
"
No, but preventing a couple from adopting a child simply because they are gay is clear descrimination."
every criteria they use to select which parents get the child is clear discrimination... thats the whole point; to discriminate. discrimination is a good thing when it comes to such matters...
"
It was a few years back."
its been legal since 1962.... still cant find any information on when there was ever laws that being Homosexual was illegal in the US, despite your claim it was illegal until only a few years ago; only Sodomy laws have i been able to find.
"Okay, i'd like to change the phrase 'equal rights', to 'the right to equality'."
ok, so you admit, Gays have equal rights in the US and probably many first world countries, right?
now equality is an impossibility. no two people are ever exactly equal, and no country has its people exactly equal. you want something that is physically impossible to have... you are a fool.
>>Homosexual couples can too raise a child. And when they do, they do it out of want,
it isn't forced on them. So unlike the majority of straight couples who are 'pushed' into
having a child -- homosexuals can choose at their own discretion.<<
The majority of straight couples are 'pushed' into having a child? Straight couples can't choose when to have children at their discretion? I'm pretty sure you just called the majority of the human race ****ing retarded. Homosexuals can raise children but we have no studies or evidence that it will be as ideal as a mother and father combination--the only combination naturally capable of producing children (huge COINCIDENCE, as you claim). We know that single parents are not ideal to raise children. [speaking down to you like a 10 year old because this forum seems to be more for whining than discussion between anyone who actually has any knowledge of statistics other than those they've made up:] Obviously many single parents do a great job and raise healthy, well-adjusted children. But studies show consistantly that single parents tend, on the whole, to produce far more troubled children. Single parenting is not ideal.
There are no studies I am aware of studying how well adjusted children raised by homosexual couples are. And sure, of course two loving parents of any gender may be better than most forms of foster care. However, this does no mean that homosexual couples are ideal. Men and women are different. It's not a matter of coincidence or just genitalia. Men and women are wired differently. We think differently. We work differently. We show our emotions differently. While many differences are cultural, many are physiological or physiologically based, affecting behavior uniformly or similarly, regardless of culture. To just presume that two men or two women, without the presense of the other sex as a parenting figure, can ever be as ideal as a heterosexual couple at raising a child with no evidence is strange. You're making a claim that common sense only questions: Whereas children usually learn roles from their parents, you propose that homosexual couples without the same roles can do just as well a job raising a child. Without taking a stand on the issue, the statement that "it is not natural" for homosexual couples to raise children (raise in the traditional, modern sense) is indisputable. If you want to contend that there will be no confusion in a child in learning roles (again, they're not entirely cultural and therefore "evil:" men and women function differently physiologically and at least some amount of differences in roles is the inevitable result) from homosexual "parents" as opposed to heterosexual parents, go ahead and make that case as well as you can.
But to just make the claim and not support it is silly. Men and women are different. Naturally both are involved in creating a child. Children inevitably share a gender with one of their parents and not the other. Naturally. Homosexual couples do not share this natural trait. The natural dynamics of parent-child relationships are altered. You want to make the claim that homosexual couples are as ideal as heterosexual couples? Then make it. Don't act like it's been proven and we're just ignorant for denying its validity. As it stands, I doubt you'll be able to make much of a case for its equality, and my education in psychology isn't even very much. I can't imagine how many more doubts I'd have if I'd spent years studying the dynamics of family relationships and how they'd be altered by two same-sex parents and no parents of the opposite gender.
>>This means that a homosexual couple can become functional workers in society, powering
our economy, and THEN help raise a child. This ensures a better lifestyle for the child and
will actually help reduce crime (Look at the relation of single mothers vs. crime).<<
Homosexual couples could "become" functional workers in society? They're not now? You seem a little out of touch with reality.
You made a reference to single mothers (I'm very familiar with marriage statistics [divorce, remarriage, income, crime, reported levels of happiness, etc ad nausium]) not being as ideal as married couples. The same is true of single fathers, by the way, sexist. But your own reference compares single parents to married parents--married, heterosexual parents. What if extensive studies showed that two homosexual parents could benefit a child more than single parents (statistically speaking: for the most part, as statistically significant majority of the time), but still not benefit a child as well as two heterosexual parents? If studies (which do not at this time exist) concluded that homosexual couples are not as ideal for children as heterosexual couples, would that affect your position? Because there's a lot of learning involved in becoming a well-adjusted human being, and I haven't seen you or anyone else make the argument (even without any substanciation, which I know surfaces here <1% of the time) that homosexual couples are capable of raising children as well as heterosexual couples.
In any case, you referenced studies concerning single vs married parents, none of whom were homosexual.
>>- Gay couples choose when to have children<<
So do heterosexual couples. I'm not going to say more because I'd say something like that your statement here is absolutely retarded.
>>- Those children will have a better lifestyle.<<
Than who? Single-parent children? You're making random comparisons that mean nothing. Homosexual couples in the USA might raise children under better conditoins than heterosexual couples in Sudan too, but that doesn't mean anything.
>>- Blacks are more likely to commit a serious crime then gays.<<
This statement is both racist and ignorant of the cultural and ethnic influences which result in crime. Are you claiming that blacks are more likely (statistically, across the USA, presumably? you're so vague) to commit a serious crime than gays because they are black? You're comparing one set of people, a race, to another set of people, a sexuality. Again, what did you hope to demonstrate, that you make a lot of meaningless comparisons because you lack an adequate education?
>>The only reason you don't like homosexuality is due to religion. Which is ironic, because a priest
arse raping a little boy tends to lean more towards a homosexual tendency then a heterosexual one...<<
I am not religious. I am not atheist or agnostic, either, if that further clarifies. The only reason you make things up (ie "the only reason you... is due to religion") is because you would prefer to troll than to engage the topic. It's funny you'd make a priest reference, because what unites them (and sets them apart from the general public) is their celibacy. The nearest thing we could compare this unnatural choice to would be having parents of unnatural gender. I'm not saying that would be a particularly telling comparison, but you're making a lot of comparisons and that's the closest we can draw to a priest, as you brought up.
>>3. can't adopt a child<<
They can't produce one either. Is producing children a right now too? Again you make claims with no backing. No substanciation, no reasoning, nothing.
>> And no, we are talking in general.<<
I do not support laws against homosexuality. Or sodomy; you small guys should be able to put it wherever you want. But that I am against any laws outlawing homosexuality does not mean I support homosexual marriage or adoption. As I have stated, I have doubts which no one has even addressed here.
>>No, but preventing a couple from adopting a child simply because they are gay is clear descrimination.<<
Just as preventing a person from adopting a child because they're single and unable to raise the child ideally is discrimination. Just as preventing a person from adopting a child because they have a mental disorder is discrimination. And since homosexuality is a mental disorder, I don't have to explain any further from there.
>>Religion is why the laws were created, society is why laws have stayed. Eventually the laws will change
as people learn that gays are not the devil.<<
No amount of argument against this straw-man will address my questions above. Until you address them, you have made no argument for your case, only against a straw man (nobody is stating religious objections to your position here).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>Angst? Do you think my sexuality is nothing more than some purile teenage need to be different? Do you think my sexuality is a choice?<<
I think it is a mental disorder. Many brilliant and accomplished (even famous) psychologists agree with me. I'm not saying this proves my position--I'm merely saying that getting a majority of publishers to not publish this opinion today doesn't prove your case to any extent either. And I prefer the psychologists on this questions over the publishers. This does not fall under the category of "choice," but still does not afford it the equality you ask this question to demand.
>>So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals?<<
The question is on what grounts do you compare the color of a man's skin not determining his inherent dignity with the claim that differences in functionality are not differences in functionality? There is no comparison and your attempt is only insulting to every minority who has ever had to fight for his/her rights. You have made no case against the objections and questions I and many others have raised. You attack straw men and make odd meaningless comparisons and claim outrage at an injustice against homosexuals. All without responding to our questions or objections.
>>When a straight couple (in the UK) are together for five unbroken years or more they are deemed to be in a common law marriage and get the same financial benefits as a church wedded couple.
Homosexuals do not get these same benefits, no matter how long they are together, they don't even have the right to visit their partner in hospital because they're not family.<<
I have no objection to visitation rights and some tax benefits. I agree that visitation rights ought be granted just as they are with heterosexual couples. Live and let live; it's none of my business who your mate is and who you want visiting you. Taxes are more complicated because the benefit to society is not equal. Even in the case of childless couples, that's a matter of coincidence not form.
>>Homosexuals are better for the economy.<<
Made up.
Pointing out that some parents are really awful parents does not make homosexual couples ideal parents. It does not mean that homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Rather than make your case all I've seen is the claim that, since heterosexual couples can be bad parents, then anyone better than a trashy child-molester must therefore be given adoption rights.
Aditionally, I've never busted a nut inside a girl without a condom (without her using birth control) by accident. I'm sorry you were a "mistake," but the fact is that most heterosexual couples do NOT have their children by "accident." You guys sound retarded acting like the benefit of planning makes homosexuals advantageous over heterosexuals. Maybe you're all just virgins so this whole conversation is all foreign to you.
>>So, just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe that black people deserve civil rights, but not homosexuals?<<
I just want to say, this one really does offend me. I respect your position and any remarks I may have offended you with I'm pretty sure were a matter of not respecting your form; I do respect your position, I just disagree with it. I know homosexuals who are great people. I don't hate homosexuals. I don't post my disagreements with homosexual marriage or adoption here because I'm a homophobe and everything gay is the enemy. But to claim that fighting for homosexual "rights" to marriage and adoption are anything parallel to blacks fighting for civil rights is disgusting. It's ignorant. It's insulting to those people. And even more to your own intelligence and dignity.
> its been legal since 1962.... still cant find any information on when there was ever
> laws that being Homosexual was illegal in the US, despite your claim it was illegal
> until only a few years ago; only Sodomy laws have i been able to find.
Since 2003 in most states .
> more for whining than discussion between anyone who actually has any knowledge of statistics other than those they've made up
Welcome to politics in general, not just this forum...
> Obviously many single parents do a great job and raise healthy, well-adjusted
> children. But studies show consistantly that single parents tend, on the whole,
> to produce far more troubled children. Single parenting is not ideal.
> ...
> There are no studies I am aware of studying how well adjusted children raised by
> homosexual couples are.
...>
> To just presume that two men or two women, without the presense of the other sex
> as a parenting figure, can ever be as ideal as a heterosexual couple at raising a child
> with no evidence is strange
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm
"All of the expert witnesses, both for the plaintiffs and the defense said that gay and lesbian
couples are as fit as parents and as loving as opposite sex couples."
There have been plently of studies to suggest that same-sex couples will do, not only far
better then single parents, but theres no reason why they cannot raise a child just as well
as a traditional couple.
There havn't been any significant studies in this area, and no real cases for or against
same-sex raising-children-whatever.
> Homosexual couples could "become" functional workers in society? They're not now? You
> seem a little out of touch with reality.
Read the words, then understand the context.
I'm saying homosexual couples can climb the career ladder, and then when they are ready
raise children. In fact, this is really the only solution -- since they cannot 'accidently' produce
children, the raised children will be living in a better suited environment with a higher standard
of living.
> What if extensive studies showed that two homosexual parents could benefit a child more
> than single parents (statistically speaking: for the most part, as statistically significant
> majority of the time), but still not benefit a child as well as two heterosexual parents?
Good on them. If you give me a study that 100% categorically states that same-sex couples
are FAR INFERIOR at raising a child -- then i will stop asking for that right. The study has to
be internationally accepted by both sides of the fence though.
============================================================
> This statement is both racist and ignorant of the cultural and ethnic influences which result
> in crime. Are you claiming that blacks are more likely (statistically, across the USA,
> presumably? you're so vague) to commit a serious crime than gays because they are
> black? You're comparing one set of people, a race, to another set of people, a sexuality. Again,
> what did you hope to demonstrate, that you make a lot of meaningless comparisons because
> you lack an adequate education?
Aww...did i hurt your feewings? 
.
Look at your prison systems. The majority of inmates are either black, were raised by a single
parent, or both. Look, i'm not trying to be racist -- i'm trying to make a point. Don't let a bunch
of retards ruin a good thing -- theres no reason someone of any ethnicity can't be a functioning
member of society -- just like theres no reason someone of any sexual orientation can't be a
functioning member of society.
And, as a functioning member of society, we should all receive the EXACT same laws, benefits,
rights and responsibilities.
Thats the bottom line. There is no reason for the anti-gay movement. NONE. You are only so up
in arms because of what you have been taught...gay is the devil. Re-educate yourself, then we can
talk.
> > "And since homosexuality is a mental disorder, I don't have to explain any further from there."
And sorry for hijacking your thread Fokker .
"
Thats the bottom line. There is no reason for the anti-gay movement. NONE. You are only so up
in arms because of what you have been taught...gay is the devil. Re-educate yourself, then we can
talk."
thats bullshit. you guys dont ask for equal rights, because you already have equal rights in most countries. you ask for more rights. you ask for special treatment and there is no reason to give it to you. straight people have to fillt he same requirments that gay people do inorder to get married. Straight people are held to the same standards as gay for adoption. the only discrimination present is discrimination against straight people.
well why can't I marry my DD paladin? YOU say no, but who are YOU to deny me equal rights? YOUR concepts of personhood and marriage are purely subjective and based on medieval superstition.
> well why can't I marry my DD paladin? YOU say no, but who are YOU to deny me equal
> rights? YOUR concepts of personhood and marriage are purely subjective and based on
> medieval superstition.
Whats a DD paladin? My concept of marriage is a union between two people that receives
government incentives and benefits.
> you ask for more rights.
What 'more rights' ??
Imperial Forum → Politics → Black People Click Here
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.