NationStates

Especially Dirty Hippies wrote:I just love the premise that there is a class of Anti-Gay Groups that are called "Tops". It raises the question, who bottoms?

I picture an really militant gay bashing group breaking into a gay couples home, trashing the place, but then in the bathroom they find some medication for Lupus, and one of the skinheads has a sister with Lupus and now everybody feels bad and they fix everything and leave some muffins and a Hallmark "Sorry You Have Lupus" (tm) greeting card that plays a badly digitized snippet from Journey or something.

And they realize, they aren't going to be the TOP Anti-Gay Group.

Not this year.

I can't believe they did that...

Arcadonisia wrote:I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them?

They aren't performing an action that directly threatens the "civil rights of countless LBGT [sic] citizens", but are meeting with senators to talk about it. Calling for the removal of their right to speak about what they believe in, while advocating for equality in marriage, is contradictory and, frankly, hypocritical.

Especially Dirty Hippies wrote:I just love the premise that there is a class of Anti-Gay Groups that are called "Tops". It raises the question, who bottoms?

I picture an really militant gay bashing group breaking into a gay couples home, trashing the place, but then in the bathroom they find some medication for Lupus, and one of the skinheads has a sister with Lupus and now everybody feels bad and they fix everything and leave some muffins and a Hallmark "Sorry You Have Lupus" (tm) greeting card that plays a badly digitized snippet from Journey or something.

And they realize, they aren't going to be the TOP Anti-Gay Group.

Not this year.

You... You my good sir/lady just won the internet.

The Treorai wrote:You... You my good sir/lady just won the internet.

You have DI in your sig, so I know you've got good taste. You're too kind.

Especially Dirty Hippies wrote:I just love the premise that there is a class of Anti-Gay Groups that are called "Tops". It raises the question, who bottoms?

I picture an really militant gay bashing group breaking into a gay couples home, trashing the place, but then in the bathroom they find some medication for Lupus, and one of the skinheads has a sister with Lupus and now everybody feels bad and they fix everything and leave some muffins and a Hallmark "Sorry You Have Lupus" (tm) greeting card that plays a badly digitized snippet from Journey or something.

And they realize, they aren't going to be the TOP Anti-Gay Group.

Not this year.

you're going in my Signature for that one.

Edit, sig is full, sorry.

Then let them hold meetings, just means we have to work harder to drag those types kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

The Tundra wrote:

Especially Dirty Hippies wrote:I just love the premise that there is a class of Anti-Gay Groups that are called "Tops". It raises the question, who bottoms?

I picture an really militant gay bashing group breaking into a gay couples home, trashing the place, but then in the bathroom they find some medication for Lupus, and one of the skinheads has a sister with Lupus and now everybody feels bad and they fix everything and leave some muffins and a Hallmark "Sorry You Have Lupus" (tm) greeting card that plays a badly digitized snippet from Journey or something.

And they realize, they aren't going to be the TOP Anti-Gay Group.

Not this year.

you're going in my Signature for that one.

Edit, sig is full, sorry.

It was a bit long anyway. And its an honor just to be nominated.

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:Sure, it's an excuse. An excuse that's also a cop-out to having to question one's own beliefs. Basically, saying "that's how I was raised" is saying you have no interest in learning new things, which is why it's a shitty excuse.

When you're talking about religion gut reactions and tradition there's really nothing to question, no logical line of evidence based inquiry leads to "gays are alright in my book" without believing something fundamentally different. It's not about failing to learn new things it's about failing to believe what you believe.

If true, then religion is a crime agenst humanity that should be excised.

ALMF wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
When you're talking about religion gut reactions and tradition there's really nothing to question, no logical line of evidence based inquiry leads to "gays are alright in my book" without believing something fundamentally different. It's not about failing to learn new things it's about failing to believe what you believe.

If true, then religion is a crime agenst humanity that should be excised.

I wouldn't say religion is a crime against humanity..just the people who abuse it for their own agenda are.

Arcadonisia wrote:

ALMF wrote:If true, then religion is a crime agenst humanity that should be excised.

I wouldn't say religion is a crime against humanity..just the people who abuse it for their own agenda are.

There are many facets of religion who are pro homosexual unions.

Menassa wrote:

Arcadonisia wrote:
I wouldn't say religion is a crime against humanity..just the people who abuse it for their own agenda are.

There are many facets of religion who are pro homosexual unions.

Exactly.

The Tovian Way wrote:Your character attacks aside, this is simply a group of people exercising their right to free association.
You should do nothing to stop them, and should not be legally able to do anything to stop them from exercising this right.
If you find you disagree with another's opinion, you should attempt to either dissuade them of it or persuade others of your own.

There is no such thing as the "right" to associate for the express purpose of doing harm to others. This is why the Mafia is illegal.

The Tovian Way wrote:

Ragnarum wrote:I'd just remove them.

If free speech defends these people, then fuck it.

Surely you're not advocating denying people their free speech protections

They don't apply when the speech itself causes harm to others--which is why it's illegal to make threats.

Virana wrote:

Arcadonisia wrote:I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them?

They aren't performing an action that directly threatens the "civil rights of countless LBGT [sic] citizens", but are meeting with senators to talk about it.

Not every conspiracy to do harm to others goes past the planning stages. It's still not something you get to do.

Calling for the removal of their right to speak about what they believe in, while advocating for equality in marriage, is contradictory and, frankly, hypocritical.

It's no more "hypocritical" than is saying "It's perfectly okay for me to shoot at paper targets in my backyard out in BFE, but you don't get to go into the mall and shoot wildly into the air."

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

The Tovian Way wrote:Your character attacks aside, this is simply a group of people exercising their right to free association.
You should do nothing to stop them, and should not be legally able to do anything to stop them from exercising this right.
If you find you disagree with another's opinion, you should attempt to either dissuade them of it or persuade others of your own.

There is no such thing as the "right" to associate for the express purpose of doing harm to others. This is why the Mafia is illegal.

It is not a conspiracy to "do harm to others", but a meeting to discuss future legislation. They aren't asking the senators to legalize chopping the heads off homosexual people. While their premise—that being to prevent the lawful legalization of homosexual marriage—is stupid, it is their right to freely associate and meet with legislative officials requesting them to listen to their views. It's no different from calling your local representative and asking them to enact a certain piece of legislation that you like.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Calling for the removal of their right to speak about what they believe in, while advocating for equality in marriage, is contradictory and, frankly, hypocritical.

It's no more "hypocritical" than is saying "It's perfectly okay for me to shoot at paper targets in my backyard out in BFE, but you don't get to go into the mall and shoot wildly into the air."

More like "It's okay for me to express my views to officials, but not okay for them to do so because I don't agree with them and their opinion is stupid."

Virana wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
There is no such thing as the "right" to associate for the express purpose of doing harm to others. This is why the Mafia is illegal.

It is not a conspiracy to "do harm to others", but a meeting to discuss future legislation.

Legislation that will, of course, do harm to others.

They aren't asking the senators to legalize chopping the heads off homosexual people. While their premise—that being to prevent the lawful legalization of homosexual marriage—is stupid, it is their right to freely associate and meet with legislative officials requesting them to listen to their views.

Not when the mere expression of those views causes harm to others.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Calling for the removal of their right to speak about what they believe in, while advocating for equality in marriage, is contradictory and, frankly, hypocritical.

It's no more "hypocritical" than is saying "It's perfectly okay for me to shoot at paper targets in my backyard out in BFE, but you don't get to go into the mall and shoot wildly into the air."

More like "It's okay for me to express my views to officials, but not okay for them to do so because I don't agree with them and their opinion is stupid."[/quote]
No, it's not okay because their opinion directly causes harm to others.

This is not difficult.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:-snip-

Their opinion will not "directly harm others". At worst, it would introduce anti-LGBT legislation that would merely prevent LGBT people from being married (and most likely would be washed away by the acceleration of the pro-LGBT movement). There is no direct harm. As I said before, they are not asking for permission to kill anyone, hurt anyone, or even throw anyone in jail for that matter.

As you said, this is not difficult.

Condunum wrote:
No, a cop-out is something someone uses to get out of justifying their beliefs. Divine Command Theory is a cop-out that just happens to be the special little flower that gets to ignore the fact that it is a cop-out because it's a religious theory. There's nothing special about that which entitles it to be removed from scrutiny.

Cop out is purpose driven which implies you have evidence to support the claim that the reason for the divine command theory is to avoid justification.

Des-Bal wrote:

Condunum wrote:
No, a cop-out is something someone uses to get out of justifying their beliefs. Divine Command Theory is a cop-out that just happens to be the special little flower that gets to ignore the fact that it is a cop-out because it's a religious theory. There's nothing special about that which entitles it to be removed from scrutiny.

Cop out is purpose driven which implies you have evidence to support the claim that the reason for the divine command theory is to avoid justification.

If you can give me another reason, sure. But "Because that's how it is" is not a reason. A self justifying reason is not an acceptable answer.

didn't their meeting get cancelled?

These people are fools if they think this will work, Liberalism has already destroyed America, there's no going back now. We're doomed to be a nation of ignorance and chaos, a true anarchy if ever there was one. At least countries like Russia are still sensible and enlightened... for the moment.

Tsmida Eri wrote:These people are fools if they think this will work, Liberalism has already destroyed America, there's no going back now. We're doomed to be a nation of ignorance and chaos, a true anarchy if ever there was one. At least countries like Russia are still sensible and enlightened... for the moment.

By allowing homosexuals to have rights we will be doomed?

What's the math there?

Tsmida Eri wrote:These people are fools if they think this will work, Liberalism has already destroyed America, there's no going back now. We're doomed to be a nation of ignorance and chaos, a true anarchy if ever there was one. At least countries like Russia are still sensible and enlightened... for the moment.

America was founded on liberal ideas.

Menassa wrote:

Tsmida Eri wrote:These people are fools if they think this will work, Liberalism has already destroyed America, there's no going back now. We're doomed to be a nation of ignorance and chaos, a true anarchy if ever there was one. At least countries like Russia are still sensible and enlightened... for the moment.

By allowing homosexuals to have rights we will be doomed?

What's the math there?

There is no math there, because that's not math. You're not making any sense.

And yes, we will be doomed, doomed to be a cesspool of ignorance to how things are supposed to work, a breeding pit for sin, a nation for Satan.

Tsmida Eri wrote:These people are fools if they think this will work, Liberalism has already destroyed America, there's no going back now. We're doomed to be a nation of ignorance and chaos, a true anarchy if ever there was one. At least countries like Russia are still sensible and enlightened... for the moment.

What? How will allowing gays getting married lead to anarchy?