Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 04-11-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto

You're wrong. If you check my responses, I have consistently argued the courts make people bigots by enacting social legislation from the bench. Gay culture speaks for gay communities to expound values that promulgate corporate greed, child prostitution, promiscuous anal sex and pornography, not me.

dk · 04-11-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harumi
That has got to be the most sick and twisted thing I have yet to read on this thread.

Thank you for making me sick.

It seems that it will be impossible to discuss anything more with you. I will now leave the discussion to more skilled debaters.

You may not like it , but my liberty ends where your freedom begins, and visa versa. In a free society the price is non-negotiable. In a free society the price of liberty is self control, and the price of freedom is truth.

pleasant_darktwist · 04-11-2003, 02:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk
[B]You fail to grasp the nature of my response. From the 1st day the Constitution was ratified, to today, the US Federal Government has discriminated against people on the basis of national origins, race, sex, religion and age. This is an historical fact, not something that can be argued. To say the states or the federal government can�t discriminate against some group is a misnomer. You personally may think the government should protect gays with the institution of marriage, and protect gays by calling anal sex private, but now you�ve got to support your position. That�s a hard pill to swallow when anal sex spreads MDR microbes, hiv/aids, causes cancer, and many other chronic, incurable and deadly illnesses. Gays need to clean up their act.

DARKTWIST Well, I seem to be the only one willing to continue this discussion with you, but this is the last. And remember, an argument is not won when all you do is alienate the debators. You have not won the argument, just lost the conversation. Here goes.

First off, you assume that because I disagree with you about this issue that you named in an earlier post as 'states rights,' that somehow I support sodomy, homosexuality, gay marriage. You are WAY OFF BASE. Stick to contradicting what I say, not what you might infer by it.

Second, bigots do not need social institutions to legitamize there opinions. There have been cases of organized bigotry, from the Christian Church to the German Nazis. However, much of bigotry is individual, and tend to draw like minded people.

What you argue is bigotry because it is an attempt to abridge the rights of others. You answer this in several ways.
You say in the past people have been discriminated against, this is true. However, much of that has been corrected at the federal and constitutional level. In the past there was slavery (ended by Defeat and Reconstruction) then there was voting rights (in the constitution this is addressed), then civil rights (1960's), The Americans with Disabilities act, Family Medical Leave Act, etc.

Law is not perfect, it is fluid, based on culture, morality, norms, condition of the nation, etc. Again, you appeal to the past. Just because the constitution did not protect groups from discrimination and persecution (and prosecution) does not mean that that legitimizes your argument. Again, appeal to tradition. Then, when that argument falls you try to introduce this as a public health issue. People who involve themselves in this type of behavior know that it is dangerous. And I don't understand one thing, if you are so strongly opposed to the 'encroachment' of homosexual culture, why are you concerned if they kill each other off with sex. That would seem to reach the ends you are advocating.

dk: I have no idea where you�re coming from. You appear to believe the government to be an all powerful benefactor. That�s simply not the case in a free country. People make their own associations, enterprises, contracts, judgments and beds and then they sleep in them. The US Constitution doesn�t mention education, sex, family, or marriage if you want to get technical. What the constitution says is that powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and people. What you have to do is figure out how the Federal Government became so powerful, and then reflect upon what it means. That�s another discussion.

DARKTWIST Decide, is it a public health issue, a moral issue or a states' rights issue, I'll argue which ever you prefer.
Basic Civics: While the fed. government is not an all-powerful benefactor, it has set itself up as a moderator and arbitrator of interstatial and international disagreements. Kind of enforcing a certain continuity from state to state. Also it is the supreme defender of the individuals. It's a check and balance system. As to what powers are ascribed to states, the confederacy argued during the civil war that slavery was a states' rights issue. It was not and is not.

While the constitution may not specifically name education, sex, marriage, saftey, etc., it was designed to be a general guide. The chief interpreters of the constitution are the Supreme Court, nine different voices. In years past, the court has fluxuated in the amount of control it exercises through the constitution. Basically the Constitution says, 'follow this general rule to develop specific rules.' But where the constitution falls down (or does not ascribe power to the federal government) federal laws and statutes, backed by the constitution, fill in those blanks. And basic Political Science rule: if a state law contridicts a federal law or statute, the federal government wins.

Examples of this would be: Equal Employment Opportunity, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Voting Rights Act, etc.

Now the first thing you'll do here, is say 'AH-HA, see, no laws applying specifically to gays or sodomy!' However, the fourteenth amendment forbids the making of laws designed to abridge the rights of individuals, and prevent the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I quoted it earlier. No federal law contradicts this when it comes to homosexuality.

I have never argued against sodomy laws, just discriminatory laws. That has nothing to do with any "purple invasion" or "Left Wing design/Conspiracy" to destroy America from within. There are a lot worse things out there that can be sighted as causing this 'decay' you fear. So again, a sodomy law that applied to everyone, ie man on man or man on woman, is legal. If the sodomy law said only men and women could not commit sodomy, the law would be equally in violation.

Darktwist: Thus, you open the door with the texas law, that any group can be targeted (negative 'special treatment' by a state and that the federal justice system is helpless to rectify a clear violation of the constitution.
dk: It is not me that opened the door, and not the Commerce Clause. Something happened after WW II that changed the nature of the Federal Government granting them expansive powers. Most of FDR�s New Deal got axed by the Supreme Courts as unconstitutional, then after WW II suddenly the government got all kinds of power. Something happened, and what could it be?

DARKTWISTWhere you are coming from, I have no idea, so I'll just through this up to "queer dogma."

DARKTWIST: Sodomy laws are not violations of the constitution. Laws that make sodomy illegal for one group and no other is a violation.
dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about, the Federal government has never passed a sodomy law. hint: what are blue laws?

DARKTWIST See above, Fed doesn't have to make a law regarding sodomy to prohibit laws that discriminate. Again sodomy laws for everyone, or no one, no half-measures are legal.

And, BTW, if you are so worried about the public health side of sodomy, why would you not want the law to cover men and women as well as men with men? Your concern for the health of the 'homosexual community' appears to be hollow.

dk: How do I know your not gay?. For that matter how do I even know I�m not gay?
DARKTWIST dk, if you do not know whether or not your are a homosexual, I firmly believe that you are posting on the wrong board...putting the cart before the horse :0
dk: Nobody can say whether I�m gay or anyone else, not the best equipped doctor, shrink, geneticist, lawyer or government bureaucrat.

DARKTWIST If this is so, then how come you are busy fighting a group you may belong to. I should think you would want to protect their rights, and the rights of everyone. I don't personally agree with homosexuality, I, personally am homophobic. However, this is america and "even if I do not agree with you, I will defend to the death your right to do it," to paraphrase a famous person. If that doesn't work for you, take this classic quote from a pastor in Nazi Germany:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niem�ller

That is why I will defend against laws that discriminate. Cause something I do may be next.

I hope you will truly listen to what I have said, as it will be my last comment on the matter.

Peace.

DarkTwist, Signing off.

Kimpatsu · 04-11-2003, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Gay culture speaks for gay communities to expound values that promulgate corporate greed, child prostitution, promiscuous anal sex and pornography, not me.

This is terrible homophobia. Why so anti-gay? Got a few gay tendencies yourself, have you?

dk · 04-11-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
This is terrible homophobia. Why so anti-gay? Got a few gay tendencies yourself, have you?

If I catch your drift then wouldn't homophobia be a disease gay people inherit?

Kimpatsu · 04-11-2003, 04:13 PM

I never said anything of the sort. You, however, indicate that gay people are corrupt, greedy, promiscuous and (typical erroneous homophobic sterotype) paedophiles. You might want to try actually learning about the gay lifestyle vefore attacking this strawman, but that of course would entail setting aside your prejudices long enough to do some research...

dk · 04-11-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I never said anything of the sort. You, however, indicate that gay people are corrupt, greedy, promiscuous and (typical erroneous homophobic sterotype) paedophiles. You might want to try actually learning about the gay lifestyle vefore attacking this strawman, but that of course would entail setting aside your prejudices long enough to do some research...

You certainly did, and I quote...

"This is terrible homophobia. Why so anti-gay? Got a few gay tndencies yourself, have you?"

Its clear you believe homophobia is a gay disease. I hate to admit it, but that makes you a bigot.

By the way you also misquoted me. I said gay culture was laden with promiscuous and pornographic values, a claim easily verified. Greedy corporations profit on gay culture by catering to promiscuous and pornographic gay values. Pedophilia is a disease not a crime. The number 1 incidence of exposure for hiv/aids is MSM, says the CDC. Gay teens (especially minorities) are being ravaged by aids/hiv, says the CDC.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

dk · 04-11-2003, 05:23 PM

Darktwist: Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I enjoyed your discussion.

Dr Rick · 04-11-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
You certainly did, and I quote..."This is terrible homophobia. Why so anti-gay? Got a few gay tendencies yourself, have you?"

Its clear you believe homophobia is a gay disease.

Nothing of the sort is clear or may be infered from what Kimpatsu posted.

Kimpatsu · 04-12-2003, 07:04 AM

Homphobia is a disease of the right-wing mind.
See, it's all up there.
The more space you have in your head, the more it can be filled with prejudiced nonsense.

04-11-2003, 02:19 PM	#143
pleasant_darktwist Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 18	OK, one more time... [QUOTE]Originally posted by dk [B]You fail to grasp the nature of my response. From the 1st day the Constitution was ratified, to today, the US Federal Government has discriminated against people on the basis of national origins, race, sex, religion and age. This is an historical fact, not something that can be argued. To say the states or the federal government can�t discriminate against some group is a misnomer. You personally may think the government should protect gays with the institution of marriage, and protect gays by calling anal sex private, but now you�ve got to support your position. That�s a hard pill to swallow when anal sex spreads MDR microbes, hiv/aids, causes cancer, and many other chronic, incurable and deadly illnesses. Gays need to clean up their act. DARKTWIST Well, I seem to be the only one willing to continue this discussion with you, but this is the last. And remember, an argument is not won when all you do is alienate the debators. You have not won the argument, just lost the conversation. Here goes. First off, you assume that because I disagree with you about this issue that you named in an earlier post as 'states rights,' that somehow I support sodomy, homosexuality, gay marriage. You are WAY OFF BASE. Stick to contradicting what I say, not what you might infer by it. Second, bigots do not need social institutions to legitamize there opinions. There have been cases of organized bigotry, from the Christian Church to the German Nazis. However, much of bigotry is individual, and tend to draw like minded people. What you argue is bigotry because it is an attempt to abridge the rights of others. You answer this in several ways. You say in the past people have been discriminated against, this is true. However, much of that has been corrected at the federal and constitutional level. In the past there was slavery (ended by Defeat and Reconstruction) then there was voting rights (in the constitution this is addressed), then civil rights (1960's), The Americans with Disabilities act, Family Medical Leave Act, etc. Law is not perfect, it is fluid, based on culture, morality, norms, condition of the nation, etc. Again, you appeal to the past. Just because the constitution did not protect groups from discrimination and persecution (and prosecution) does not mean that that legitimizes your argument. Again, appeal to tradition. Then, when that argument falls you try to introduce this as a public health issue. People who involve themselves in this type of behavior know that it is dangerous. And I don't understand one thing, if you are so strongly opposed to the 'encroachment' of homosexual culture, why are you concerned if they kill each other off with sex. That would seem to reach the ends you are advocating. dk: I have no idea where you�re coming from. You appear to believe the government to be an all powerful benefactor. That�s simply not the case in a free country. People make their own associations, enterprises, contracts, judgments and beds and then they sleep in them. The US Constitution doesn�t mention education, sex, family, or marriage if you want to get technical. What the constitution says is that powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and people. What you have to do is figure out how the Federal Government became so powerful, and then reflect upon what it means. That�s another discussion. DARKTWIST Decide, is it a public health issue, a moral issue or a states' rights issue, I'll argue which ever you prefer. Basic Civics: While the fed. government is not an all-powerful benefactor, it has set itself up as a moderator and arbitrator of interstatial and international disagreements. Kind of enforcing a certain continuity from state to state. Also it is the supreme defender of the individuals. It's a check and balance system. As to what powers are ascribed to states, the confederacy argued during the civil war that slavery was a states' rights issue. It was not and is not. While the constitution may not specifically name education, sex, marriage, saftey, etc., it was designed to be a general guide. The chief interpreters of the constitution are the Supreme Court, nine different voices. In years past, the court has fluxuated in the amount of control it exercises through the constitution. Basically the Constitution says, 'follow this general rule to develop specific rules.' But where the constitution falls down (or does not ascribe power to the federal government) federal laws and statutes, backed by the constitution, fill in those blanks. And basic Political Science rule: if a state law contridicts a federal law or statute, the federal government wins. Examples of this would be: Equal Employment Opportunity, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Voting Rights Act, etc. Now the first thing you'll do here, is say 'AH-HA, see, no laws applying specifically to gays or sodomy!' However, the fourteenth amendment forbids the making of laws designed to abridge the rights of individuals, and prevent the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I quoted it earlier. No federal law contradicts this when it comes to homosexuality. I have never argued against sodomy laws, just discriminatory laws. That has nothing to do with any "purple invasion" or "Left Wing design/Conspiracy" to destroy America from within. There are a lot worse things out there that can be sighted as causing this 'decay' you fear. So again, a sodomy law that applied to everyone, ie man on man or man on woman, is legal. If the sodomy law said only men and women could not commit sodomy, the law would be equally in violation. Darktwist: Thus, you open the door with the texas law, that any group can be targeted (negative 'special treatment' by a state and that the federal justice system is helpless to rectify a clear violation of the constitution. dk: It is not me that opened the door, and not the Commerce Clause. Something happened after WW II that changed the nature of the Federal Government granting them expansive powers. Most of FDR�s New Deal got axed by the Supreme Courts as unconstitutional, then after WW II suddenly the government got all kinds of power. Something happened, and what could it be? DARKTWISTWhere you are coming from, I have no idea, so I'll just through this up to "queer dogma." DARKTWIST: Sodomy laws are not violations of the constitution. Laws that make sodomy illegal for one group and no other is a violation. dk: I have no idea what you�re talking about, the Federal government has never passed a sodomy law. hint: what are blue laws? DARKTWIST See above, Fed doesn't have to make a law regarding sodomy to prohibit laws that discriminate. Again sodomy laws for everyone, or no one, no half-measures are legal. And, BTW, if you are so worried about the public health side of sodomy, why would you not want the law to cover men and women as well as men with men? Your concern for the health of the 'homosexual community' appears to be hollow. dk: How do I know your not gay?. For that matter how do I even know I�m not gay? DARKTWIST dk, if you do not know whether or not your are a homosexual, I firmly believe that you are posting on the wrong board...putting the cart before the horse :0 dk: Nobody can say whether I�m gay or anyone else, not the best equipped doctor, shrink, geneticist, lawyer or government bureaucrat. DARKTWIST If this is so, then how come you are busy fighting a group you may belong to. I should think you would want to protect their rights, and the rights of everyone. I don't personally agree with homosexuality, I, personally am homophobic. However, this is america and "even if I do not agree with you, I will defend to the death your right to do it," to paraphrase a famous person. If that doesn't work for you, take this classic quote from a pastor in Nazi Germany: "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." -Martin Niem�ller That is why I will defend against laws that discriminate. Cause something I do may be next. I hope you will truly listen to what I have said, as it will be my last comment on the matter. Peace. DarkTwist, Signing off.

04-11-2003, 05:23 PM	#148
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Re: OK, one more time... Darktwist: Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I enjoyed your discussion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2003, 04:13 PM	#146
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	I never said anything of the sort. You, however, indicate that gay people are corrupt, greedy, promiscuous and (typical erroneous homophobic sterotype) paedophiles. You might want to try actually learning about the gay lifestyle vefore attacking this strawman, but that of course would entail setting aside your prejudices long enough to do some research...

04-12-2003, 07:04 AM	#150
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	Homphobia is a disease of the right-wing mind. See, it's all up there. The more space you have in your head, the more it can be filled with prejudiced nonsense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.