Melissa Etheridge to Stop Paying Taxes Due to Prop 8

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Mecha Cow

Homosexuality is not the same thing as or comparable to incest, or polygamy, or bestiality, or whatever the f*ck else you want to throw around. This is not a matter of opinion, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is wrong. These are just more excuses to try and justify a bigoted, antiquated train of thought. Enough.

And just because the government says something does not make it right, or true. For the longest time the government said black people couldn't vote either. This isn't even an argument; we know it's not legal, that's the whole point of the issue. And no, civil unions are not the same thing, and homosexuals should not have to 'settle' for them. 'Seperate but equal' is not equal.


In California it was, before they had themselves a little do-over and had Prop. 8 'eliminate' that right.

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.

[Hannah]

You are a disgusting person. You're comparing the right to marry who you love to castration and murder?

[Mecha Cow]

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.

I am not going to dignify this by arguing it. You are a piece of sh*t, you are wrong now and forever, and you will lose this battle. Go away and never post again.

[Jo Dawn]

This thread is going to get locked. Start respecting other people's opinions even if you don't like them.

Any bad things to say, take it to PM and be adults for goodness sake.

[Mecha Cow]

I hope you're not honestly expecting people to 'respect' filth like that. We all knew there was no way to have this debate without toes being stepped on, let's not back out now that the first stone's been cast.

[Anarky]

Of course there's a way to have this thread without insults. Just... you know, don't use insults. Disagreeing and arguing, sure things, but insults... really?

If you ask me, Chi Ha does have his standards a bit oddly set, which would need a bit of explanation for me to understand. But once we understand, we can debate it.

[Jo Dawn]

From what I see, he gave a slight history lesson and then stated his opinion. I didnt say to agree with him, but to respect that he has a different opinion than you, and debate like adults. Don't question me.

EDIT - Taking into consideration the Forum Rules...

Please respect other members. Attacking or harassing other members on the forums is not allowed. This includes trolling (posting with the intention of upsetting people and/or starting arguments). If you get into an argument with another member, please take it to email/PM/IM and keep it off the forums.

Consider this a verbal warning for Hannah and Mecha Cow. Sorry. Rules gotta be enforced somewhere. Also, as per the RULES, any questions can be submitted via PM, but I know we're all smart enough here to know what's right and what's wrong here. Let's just take this as a lesson.

[Sewer Bull]

Originally Posted by Jo Dawn

From what I see, he gave a slight history lesson and then stated his opinion.

You must be ****ing kidding about the "slight history lesson" part.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Mecha Cow

I am not going to dignify this by arguing it. You are a piece of sh*t, you are wrong now and forever, and you will lose this battle. Go away and never post again.

Knowing you, I hope nobody would be too close to you if you were to stub your toe. Your screaming would be deafening.

[愛]

Okay, let's stop the e-peen showoff contest and get back on topic, shall we?

[poiuytre]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

I'll be honest that I would have used your exact same example as an argument against your position. To paraphrase Cow, just because the law says something doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.

This is what I meant earlier. I disagree with the line of thinking, but I understand it. It's why it isn't an issue of just "rights".

[Sewer Bull]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either.

Yes, they are not the same.

... they are two sides of the same coin

Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

... I think my head has just exploded.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc.

... hello, there were times when homosexuality was punished with death, like, everywhere in the Western world - and even in the XXth century, it was illegal and punished *just* with imprisonment. Ever heard of KL Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps? Homosexual people were there as well.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Mino

Yes, they are not the same.

... they are two sides of the same coin

Deal with it.



... I think my head has just exploded.



... hello, there were times when homosexuality was punished with death, like, everywhere in the Western world - and even in the XXth century, it was illegal and punished *just* with imprisonment. Ever heard of KL Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps? Homosexual people were there as well.

So were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Communists, anyone who didn't bow down to Hitler, etc.

As far as punishment for homosexuality is concerned, I suspect the cases resulting in execution and other punishment were not those between consenting adults. King Richard the Lion-Hearted was supposed to have been homosexual. If homosexuality was so repressed, would he have been able to keep his throne for long? (A rival could easily have used that as a pretext to destroy him.) And I have heard of no instances where homosexuals were persecuted or otherwise penalized in the US, certainly not on any significant scale.

No, they are not two sides of the same coin. They are two sides of a many-sided die. Other types of sexuality (multiple spouses, etc.) certainly do compare to the others. There are lots of examples of people with multiple wives in Asian and African cultures, even today.

[Sewer Bull]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

So were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Communists, anyone who didn't bow down to Hitler, etc.

Yes. You're proving my point. Homosexuals were repressed along with other social/national groups destined for damnation.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

As far as punishment for homosexuality is concerned, I suspect the cases resulting in execution and other punishment were not those between consenting adults. King Richard the Lion-Hearted was supposed to have been homosexual. If homosexuality was so repressed, would he have been able to keep his throne for long? (A rival could easily have used that as a pretext to destroy him.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...s_of_the_world
And speaking of English kings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England

And yeah, I know it's Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

No, they are not two sides of the same coin. They are two sides of a many-sided die. Other types of sexuality (multiple spouses, etc.) certainly do compare to the others. There are lots of examples of people with multiple wives in Asian and African cultures, even today.

Having multiple spouses is not a type of sexual orientation, it's just a sexual activity. Polygamy has been allowed on these regions for cultural, historical and practical reasons (men died on the wars, there was a surplus of womanfolk etc.) - but it's not a sexual orientation that's someone is attracted to more than one woman. It's still heterosexuality.