If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JoBlo)   Michael Moore's next movie will be so ghey   (joblo.com) divider line 282
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8258 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Jul 2007 at 5:54 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



282 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-07-12 01:13:56 PM
JohnJacobJingleheimerSchmidt: Hideously Gigantic Smurf
"Let's see... Society is continuing to support laws and policy that deny me basic human liberties and legal rights."

"What to do?"

"I know! I'll HIDE so people don't have to acknowledge the fact that I exist!"

But those types of displays are counterproductive.

Making an idiotic spectacle of yourself isn't going to help get anybody take you, or your message, seriously.

And it only promotes gay stereotypes.

/absolutly NOT a homophobe
//hates the Christian right.
///just calling 'em like I see 'em.


you make a valid point. but even the pride parades aren't all that "display"-ful. They take place in gay barrios, for one thing.

For another, out of 275 entrants to the Chicago pride parade a couple weekends ago. Exactly 8 of them were of the sequins and spandex style. The rest were things like the National Association of Women in the Trades, BP, local radio stations, political groups, WGN/NBC, The Lotto, and a tremendous number of churches/other religious orgs.
 
2007-07-12 01:15:27 PM
peterquince: Exactly 8 of them were of the sequins and spandex style.

Isn't it wonderful that the media decides to focus on this minority again and again?

/angry at the sequins and the chaps
 
2007-07-12 01:16:19 PM
My comment hasn't been addressed. So I will pose it as a question.

If homosexuals should be permitted to be married, why can't biological siblings?

/honest question
 
2007-07-12 01:16:51 PM
Chester Fields: Uncle Sam likes couples to reproduce and bring up children in a healthy environment. Therefore, he has created legislation to facilitate this behavior. Like most legislation, it is not perfect.

Getting closer. Now. Prove, with a peer-reviewed study, in a non-partisan journal (say, the APA for instance) that gays can't raise kids in a healthy environment.

Go.

/oooooh! girl, i'm so excited.
//you know ah loves me some shiathead trahin to make himself look look.
///let's see what he finds...
 
2007-07-12 01:17:23 PM
JonnyJustice: why can't biological siblings?

because they will have retarded kids?
 
2007-07-12 01:18:08 PM
God Hates Figs

It says so right in the bible. God said it, and you can't argue with God.

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he was hungry.
"And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
"And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon has the fig tree withered away!"

--Matthew 21:18-20

"The next day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
"And Jesus answered and said to it, No man eat fruit of you hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it.

--Mark 11:12-14

"He destroyed their vines with hail and their sycamore-figs with sleet."
--Psalm 78:47

"Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten."
--Jeremiah 29:17

images.wikia.com
 
2007-07-12 01:20:41 PM
JonnyJustice: My comment hasn't been addressed. So I will pose it as a question.

If homosexuals should be permitted to be married, why can't biological siblings?

/honest question


Cause my god says not to. (sorry, just being biatchy.)

One might argue it's because we've discovered that biological siblings getting married didn't work out so well for the heads of old-timey nations. See: Henry VI.

A more realistic reason might be that siblings wanting to marry haven't made any noise about it. I don't know how many of them there are, but if there are many, they haven't voiced anything.
 
2007-07-12 01:24:16 PM
PS for Chesterfields:

From the APA (American Psychological Association) at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html:

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

/going to lunch now. back in 45.
//ciao
 
2007-07-12 01:24:48 PM
Headso: because they will have retarded kids?

But marriage isn't about sex or offspring. Thats what I keep hearing from the gay marriage supporters.

/and the retarded kids will have retarded parents
 
2007-07-12 01:25:21 PM
peterquince: ...... I don't suggest for a second that all Christians are attacking us.
That said, ALL protesters that I've ever seen were Christian. This makes it reasonable for Moore to single out Christians as being the ones against the gheys in this country. You simply don't see Islamists or Bhuddists fighting us.


Dude, Muslims only make up about 0.6% of the USA pop.
(Buddhists 0.4%).
So even assuming you could tell they're Muslims by sight, they'd sorta blend in with the other 99+ out of a hundred in the average mixed crowd.....
But as to your last sentence in that para - are you INSANE?

Modern Christians - at worst - if you're doing the ghey you're sinning, & disapprove.
Whaaaah!
Modern Muslims - if you're doing the ghey - you're up for a death sentence.
Whooooh!


Hang On Voltaire(?) : I know this is amazing but you can be against gay marriage and not hate homosexuals.

peterquince: No. You can't.
Because being against gay marriage suggests we are less than human.
Period.
End of discussion.


Sorry, not.
You're trying to equate same-sex here as identical with inter-racial.
Common error. Flawed choice of example.

Most states restrict cousin marriages.
(All states prohibit sibling or parent/child marriages. Except Arkansas?)
Are 1st or 2nd cousins "less than human", then?
 
2007-07-12 01:26:09 PM
JonnyJustice: Headso: because they will have retarded kids?

But marriage isn't about sex or offspring. Thats what I keep hearing from the gay marriage supporters.

/and the retarded kids will have retarded parents


I know you posted this at basically the same time i did, but you'll look like a douche if you ignore the second half of my post...

/just trying to be helpful
 
2007-07-12 01:26:50 PM
JonnyJustice: But marriage isn't about sex or offspring. Thats what I keep hearing from the gay marriage supporters.

And it's true. IMHO, there isn't anything to stop them if the only requirement is that they be consenting adults. Same goes for polygamy and polyandry.
 
2007-07-12 01:27:09 PM
peterquince: Getting closer. Now. Prove, with a peer-reviewed study, in a non-partisan journal (say, the APA for instance) that gays can't raise kids in a healthy environment.

I'm not trying to change the law, you are. Go.
 
2007-07-12 01:29:30 PM
Basically you have to open the door to any co-habitants or frankly any two people, to get married if they are truly in love.
Whats more is...now whats so wrong with polygamy.

You can call it slippery slope if you want, but really. By redefining marriage once, there is no reason to stop there.
 
2007-07-12 01:29:58 PM
bmasso: You're trying to equate same-sex here as identical with inter-racial.
Common error. Flawed choice of example.


Nobody is trying to equate a same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage. They are trying to equate the arguments against them. The bigotry towards races is pretty much the same thing as bigotry towards those who belong to particular religions, bigotry towards specific genders or sexual orientations.
 
2007-07-12 01:30:24 PM
Marriage is of a historically religious lineage, therefore the federal government should have nothing to do with whom gets married to whom in the first place, as it endorses those religions to whom marriage is a sacrament, thus violating the Constitution.

The fed has no powers here, begone!

only if it were so
 
2007-07-12 01:30:29 PM
peterquince: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html:

Your link doesn't work. Your going to need a lot more than one study to convince people too btw.
 
2007-07-12 01:31:03 PM
bmasso: peterquince: ...... I don't suggest for a second that all Christians are attacking us.
That said, ALL protesters that I've ever seen were Christian. This makes it reasonable for Moore to single out Christians as being the ones against the gheys in this country. You simply don't see Islamists or Bhuddists fighting us.

Dude, Muslims only make up about 0.6% of the USA pop.
(Buddhists 0.4%).
So even assuming you could tell they're Muslims by sight, they'd sorta blend in with the other 99+ out of a hundred in the average mixed crowd.....
But as to your last sentence in that para - are you INSANE?

Modern Christians - at worst - if you're doing the ghey you're sinning, & disapprove.
Whaaaah!
Modern Muslims - if you're doing the ghey - you're up for a death sentence.
Whooooh!


Hang On Voltaire(?) : I know this is amazing but you can be against gay marriage and not hate homosexuals.

peterquince: No. You can't.
Because being against gay marriage suggests we are less than human.
Period.
End of discussion.

Sorry, not.
You're trying to equate same-sex here as identical with inter-racial.
Common error. Flawed choice of example.

Most states restrict cousin marriages.
(All states prohibit sibling or parent/child marriages. Except Arkansas?)
Are 1st or 2nd cousins "less than human", then?


Damn it. I can't go eat now, can I?

Point 1:

In this country (not world), the islamists aren't attacking us visibly. They're not standing at pride parades quoting allah. The signs quote Luke. And John. And some other dudes. You're right that muslims are less visible because there are less of them. But that's the point. If four people are quietly hating us, it doesn't warrant a movie. 60 billion preaching about us on television, might. Again. Visibility. In this Country. There is no islamic death sentence for gays in chicago. Not that I've heard of at least.

Point 2:

Actually, I don't get point two. I didn't bring up inter-racial marriage, I don't think. If I did, point it out, and I'll address it.
 
2007-07-12 01:31:06 PM
*'re
 
2007-07-12 01:34:45 PM
www.somethingpositive.net
 
2007-07-12 01:34:45 PM
Chester Fields: peterquince: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html:

Your link doesn't work. Your going to need a lot more than one study to convince people too btw.


Best detective work you've done so far. It wasn't a link. That's why it wasn't blue. Unless you mean the url wasn't right. But it works for me. Why don't you just google "APA gay parenting"?

PS - It's not a study. It's a statement piece pointing out the position of the top psychological organization in the country, as based on EVERY STUDY EVER DONE.

So you're convinced now, right?
 
2007-07-12 01:36:07 PM
Why do people always bring up the "can't have children" point? There's already too many people on this planet, we don't need any more. Especially since the people who seem to reproduce the most are the same idiots who want to keep gay people from marrying.
 
2007-07-12 01:37:51 PM
JonnyJustice: But marriage isn't about sex or offspring. Thats what I keep hearing from the gay marriage supporters.

Offspring for gays is not why they want to get married, it is about equality. If two close relatives want to get married you would have a victim when they had children.
 
2007-07-12 01:38:27 PM
JonnyJustice: now whats so wrong with polygamy.

nothing?
 
2007-07-12 01:40:28 PM
peterquince

You are right. I wasn't ignoring it. It is probably safe to assume the gay population outweighs the inscestual population. Its also a matter of what is currently socially acceptable. I reckon there weren't too many gay pride parades 50 years ago.

Its a situational dilemma, and arguably (or certainly) a slippery slope argument as I have admitted. But an alarming number of homosexuals I have talked to are against inscestual marriage or would say "Its not right." Or they reluctantly say, "I would be okay with it" in order to not defeat their own stance. I got to know;
Who are they to make the rules about marriage?
In fact, who are any of us?
 
2007-07-12 01:42:09 PM
The more gays, the fewer abortions
The more abortions, the fewer gays

Either PICK one or SHUT THE HELL UP!
 
2007-07-12 01:42:44 PM
Marriage vs Civil Unions, really shouldn't be a vs there. Really the concept and standing tradition of marriage should be upheld in practice and title. In the same right though, gays should get their unions as well, just call it that, a civil union and give every single entire right given to a 'marriage' to a civil union and I'm happy with the setup.

I don't believe the defition of marriage seen here should be screwed with. Contractual (and also for those types religious) agreement between one man and one woman to join in life together. It should stay that way, but in the same light, the definitions laid down in the link should be planted for a 'civil union' as well both in defition and legal practice, just keep the 'title' seperate is all I wish.

TO the religious wackos just being hateful, suck it, be practical and fair. Though I do wonder, do you think us straight types should start having 'straight pride' parades, events, and other crap, and make it VERY announced on days and locations to flaunt it? Of course not, then those assclown one sided idiots at the ACLU and then the gay rights leagues, etc will all sue our asses for the very discrimination they pull doing their flair laiden events. :)
 
2007-07-12 01:43:39 PM
peterquince:
Best detective work you've done so far. It wasn't a link. That's why it wasn't blue. Unless you mean the url wasn't right.


You nerd.



So you're convinced now, right?


No. Still not convinced that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships.

Keep going. Go.
 
2007-07-12 01:47:01 PM
Headso: Offspring for gays is not why they want to get married, it is about equality. If two close relatives want to get married you would have a victim when they had children.

Then don't have children. Simple as that. There are heterosexual couples that have medical issues that make pregnancy a risk to the child. They don't have kids.

I know this is really hot-button, but it has been argued that adopted children of same sex parents are victims.
Not saying I agree so don't lynch me. Just making a point.
 
2007-07-12 01:47:26 PM
Midways Defender: just keep the 'title' seperate is all I wish.

Just out of curiosity, why? Do you feel that your relationship with your spouse is better or more important than my relationship with my partner? If not, then why does it need to be separate?

I would be willing to accept civil unions if that was all the state recognized. If marriage is religious, then allow specific churches to determine whether or not they will perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

/still don't believe that marriage is the exclusive domain of the church
 
2007-07-12 01:47:30 PM
People who opposed gay marriage polygamy, bestiality, incest, drug use, infanticide, human sacrifice, man/boy love, thought control, the mark, in the early 21st century will be remembered exactly like the people who opposed desegregation and the "race-mixing" of interracial couples.

You were on the wrong side of morality and ethics then, and you are now. History will always record your bigotry, although just like racists of times past, you'll pretend you "got better" once society starts rejecting your once-mainstream views in light of a better world.

It will happen.
 
2007-07-12 01:48:10 PM
jplane2005: People who opposed gay marriage polygamy, bestiality, incest, drug use, infanticide, human sacrifice, man/boy love, thought control, the mark, in the early 21st century will be remembered exactly like the people who opposed desegregation and the "race-mixing" of interracial couples.

Google "informed consent" and get back to us.
 
2007-07-12 01:50:00 PM
JonnyJustice: peterquince

You are right. I wasn't ignoring it. It is probably safe to assume the gay population outweighs the inscestual population. Its also a matter of what is currently socially acceptable. I reckon there weren't too many gay pride parades 50 years ago.

Its a situational dilemma, and arguably (or certainly) a slippery slope argument as I have admitted. But an alarming number of homosexuals I have talked to are against inscestual marriage or would say "Its not right." Or they reluctantly say, "I would be okay with it" in order to not defeat their own stance. I got to know;
Who are they to make the rules about marriage?
In fact, who are any of us?


I guess it's a fact of life that there have to be rules about marriage. Child abuse and whatnot...you understand.

And someone has to make those rules.

The point of having the gov't, at least in our great nation...well, hypothetically...is to give people rights and freedoms unless the nation has a "vested interest" in taking those freedoms away.

A person can't claim rights on another person's behalf. I can't sue for women's suffrage because I'm not a woman. And I mean that in a literal sense. In a moral sense, the people who have to begin a campaign for incest marriage rights are the incestuous one.

Gays have been fighting this fight since, I believe, 1929. When a publisher of muscle magazines successfully sued the postmaster general for refusing to mail his magazines, calling them smut.

When there is a huge group with a strong interest in incest rights, fighting for 80 years, then we'll have this conversation.

/hope that didn't make me sound like a jerk. you actually made me think about this pretty hard.
 
2007-07-12 01:51:58 PM
Midways Defender: just keep the 'title' seperate is all I wish.

Separate But Equal doesn't work.

Why does the government need to recognize the religious sacrament of marriage? Why can't we have one universal label for a union between consenting adults, and give the label for the religious sacrament back to the churches? let them marry who they wish based on their religious beliefs.

This way, the definition of "marriage" doesn't change, and everyone has equal protection under the law.
 
2007-07-12 01:52:32 PM
Midways Defender: Marriage vs Civil Unions, really shouldn't be a vs there. Really the concept and standing tradition of marriage should be upheld in practice and title. In the same right though, gays should get their unions as well, just call it that, a civil union and give every single entire right given to a 'marriage' to a civil union and I'm happy with the setup.

I don't believe the defition of marriage seen here should be screwed with. Contractual (and also for those types religious) agreement between one man and one woman to join in life together. It should stay that way, but in the same light, the definitions laid down in the link should be planted for a 'civil union' as well both in defition and legal practice, just keep the 'title' seperate is all I wish.

TO the religious wackos just being hateful, suck it, be practical and fair. Though I do wonder, do you think us straight types should start having 'straight pride' parades, events, and other crap, and make it VERY announced on days and locations to flaunt it? Of course not, then those assclown one sided idiots at the ACLU and then the gay rights leagues, etc will all sue our asses for the very discrimination they pull doing their flair laiden events. :)


Your argument is self-defeating. Since it denies the right to the word "marriage," a civil union can, by definition, not "give every single entire right given to a 'marriage.'"
 
2007-07-12 01:53:43 PM
Chester Fields: peterquince:
Best detective work you've done so far. It wasn't a link. That's why it wasn't blue. Unless you mean the url wasn't right.

You nerd.



So you're convinced now, right?

No. Still not convinced that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships.

Keep going. Go.


No one's arguing they're the same. The issue is marriage. Not relationships. And if you have no shred of evidence or argument backing you up. You lose.
 
2007-07-12 01:55:27 PM
JonnyJustice: Then don't have children. Simple as that.

so forced sterilization for brothers and sisters who want to get married? I think the law prohibiting them from marrying in the first place is less intrusive...

but it has been argued that adopted children of same sex parents are victims.

only because of the vagaries of their potential psychological impact...inbreeding on the other hand has been scientifically proven to cause many health problems in, as far as I know, all species of mammals. comparing the two is really reaching and grasping at straws.
 
2007-07-12 01:55:59 PM
peterquince: hope that didn't make me sound like a jerk

Not in the slightest, just as I don't wish to come across as anti-homosexual, or a sister loving freak.
You seem entirely reasonable to me.


I just think it should all be open for discussion.

/equal doesn't mean the same
 
2007-07-12 01:56:21 PM
JonnyJustice: Headso: Offspring for gays is not why they want to get married, it is about equality. If two close relatives want to get married you would have a victim when they had children.

Then don't have children. Simple as that. There are heterosexual couples that have medical issues that make pregnancy a risk to the child. They don't have kids.

I know this is really hot-button, but it has been argued that adopted children of same sex parents are victims.
Not saying I agree so don't lynch me. Just making a point.


Please see the article I posted above. The "adopted children as victims" argument doesn't isn't viable.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html
 
2007-07-12 01:57:45 PM
Chester Fields: Still not convinced that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships.

That's not something that you or the government should be able to decide for someone else. If you don't agree with homosexual relationships for whatever reason...then don't have one. But if two consenting adults want to enter into a legally binding arrangement to be afforded the same protection under the law as other consenting adults who want to enter into a legally binding arrangement - who are you to tell them that they can't?

How does that affect you at all?
 
2007-07-12 01:58:00 PM
jplane2005: polygamy, bestiality, incest, drug use, infanticide, human sacrifice, man/boy love, thought control, the mark

you seem to have trouble distinguishing victimless life choices with crimes including murder, how do you function in society with that problem?
 
2007-07-12 01:58:01 PM
/now i'm really going for lunch
//haven't slashed for a while.
 
2007-07-12 01:58:38 PM
Chester Fields: Still not convinced that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships.

Technically, one heterosexual relationship is not the same as another, but in the eyes of the law, they are considered to have the same value.

I believe there is no difference between the value of your relationship to your spouse and the value of my relationship to my partner.

That is what I am trying to equate.
 
2007-07-12 02:00:35 PM
Rip on my idea if you want, but from my stand it is sound, and also entirely not founded in idiotic religion since I am part of none of that business.

I guess I'm just a historical traditionalist and don't want the traditional meaning of the word screwed with, simple as that. That is why I said give 100% of the rights, short of the title itself, and go with the 'civil union' title. And why tie the word marriage to a religious sacrament, because it as a whole is on a much larger level than that. It's just that it's usually the religious cranks that pull that card out into play which is in itself quite aggravating. So I am on the same page that marriage should never be exclusively the domain of the church.
 
2007-07-12 02:02:23 PM
Headso: so forced sterilization for brothers and sisters who want to get married?

So you have to be married to inbred? or marriage always results in children?

Or both?

Not grasping at straws at all, or just let gay brothers, or best friends get married for government support. Its already happened in Toronto, two straight buddies got married simply for tax purposes.

Que the new Adam Sandler movie.

All I am saying is ANY two people should be permitted to get married. Why stop it anywhere? College roommates...mothers sons...brothers.

Equality for EVERYONE.
 
2007-07-12 02:03:34 PM
Midways Defender: Rip on my idea if you want, but from my stand it is sound, and also entirely not founded in idiotic religion since I am part of none of that business.

I guess I'm just a historical traditionalist and don't want the traditional meaning of the word screwed with, simple as that. That is why I said give 100% of the rights, short of the title itself, and go with the 'civil union' title. And why tie the word marriage to a religious sacrament, because it as a whole is on a much larger level than that. It's just that it's usually the religious cranks that pull that card out into play which is in itself quite aggravating. So I am on the same page that marriage should never be exclusively the domain of the church.



I'm a historical traditionalist too, I think we should attempt to kick all the Italians out of America. In fact, I find them nasty and I don't think they should be allowed to marry also. I hear they bathe their children in Ragu.

Look, I'm old fashioned, I believe in marriage. I also don't see how gay people getting hitched is going to ruin that.
 
2007-07-12 02:08:41 PM
I knew from my Boobies some would agree, some wouldn't... but as the downs kid olympics image says it is retarded to argue as it will get nowhere so I'm not going to keep going in circles as I laid out my thoughts in the few posts I did.

Sadly it seems I have to allied myself with the religious tards when those state amendments come up. I will keep voting down gay 'marriage' but when a bill pops up that ok's a 'civil union' with equal protection under the rights 'marriage' has I'll be there to check that YES box. Easy as that.
 
2007-07-12 02:13:04 PM
Midways Defender: I knew from my Boobies some would agree, some wouldn't... but as the downs kid olympics image says it is retarded to argue as it will get nowhere so I'm not going to keep going in circles as I laid out my thoughts in the few posts I did.

Sadly it seems I have to allied myself with the religious tards when those state amendments come up. I will keep voting down gay 'marriage' but when a bill pops up that ok's a 'civil union' with equal protection under the rights 'marriage' has I'll be there to check that YES box. Easy as that.


I fully support you in that. Understand, though, that it's only going to prolong the fight. Eventually full marriage is going to happen.

And no, you haven't allied yourself with the religious tards. Cause there were no personal attacks. I 100% support your right to disagree with me.
 
2007-07-12 02:13:13 PM
JonnyJustice: All I am saying is ANY two people should be permitted to get married.

I would say that is fine, I would also say let any number of people get married, plural marriage shouldn't be illegal either, but siblings are a different story because there is a potential victim there and you're instituting it if you allow them to marry.
 
2007-07-12 02:13:47 PM
Midways Defender: I knew from my Boobies some would agree, some wouldn't...

Fark filter FTW
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report