Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post



    I'm sure all of those polls make you feel like you're in the majority but public vote after public vote simply does not lie.

    PS. Polls actually can lie.
    All that means is that the anti gay crowd was more politically motivated to vote than the equal rights crowd, and more money was put into the anti gay campaigns. Just look at California where the mormons put MILLIONS into prop 8 and still it barely passed. One or two polls may lie... but every single one?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

      Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
      Normal functioning body of one gender and a brain that makes them attracted to the very same gender therefor going against normal biological functions. What characteristics of homosexuality indicate that it's not a mental disorder?

      Please be very specific.
      I'm sorry, that's not particularly indicative of a mental disorder.

      Is liking blowjobs a 'mental disorder'?

      If not, why not?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

        Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
        You have it in reverse. It was political and social pressure that ever had it called a mental disorder to begin with. It was only after gay people courageously began coming out of the closet, despite all of the things that could have happened to them at that time, that the pressure to keep it a mental disorder began to diminish. The evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that there are indeed biological factors involved in sexual orientation. Study after study is now showing that androgen levels during gestation affect sexual orientation. This you can even see with your own eyes. Get 20 women together... ten of them straight and ten of them lesbian. Have them hold out their hands, with their fingers together. What you will see is that for the majority of straight women, the index finger will be longer than the ring finger. For the majority of the lesbians, the ring finger will be longer than the index finger. Simple reason being is that androgen levels also affect finger length. If you look at all men... the ring finger will be longer than the index finger. Try it out for yourself... if you actually know any lesbians that you could ask to help with your experiment.
        Well, it seems to me that you have the history of the matter mixed up. The APA classified it as a mental condition as a matter of course. There were no groups out there railing against the APA to make them label it such. It's just how it was. Now, there is documented facts of protests and political pressures that cause them to remove the mental disorder classification.

        Now, to the rest of your post. That very well might be the case, I do not dispute a single thing that you posted though they are only theories so far. I don't think that changes a thing. Hormone and chemical imbalances are the cause of any number mental disorders yet you are trying to make an exception for homosexuality. Why? What makes anything and everything that involves sexuality an exception? To me it's all about politics and political correctness.

        I hope you do not confuse this with me hating homosexuals or having really any personal issues with it. I just see it as a simple 1+1=2 type of thing and to go against that seems to take a whole lot of dancing around the issue to come to the point where you could disagree with my assertion.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

          Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
          All that means is that the anti gay crowd was more politically motivated to vote than the equal rights crowd, and more money was put into the anti gay campaigns. Just look at California where the mormons put MILLIONS into prop 8 and still it barely passed. One or two polls may lie... but every single one?
          Well, conversely, I could say that California is one of the most gay friendly states in the union and it still passed. I also find it a little disingenuous to say that the anti-gay crowd is more politically motivated. I mean, look at the Prop 8 situation. You had tons of people out in the streets from the pro-gay crowd. You had people losing their jobs for supporting Prop 8 because of the political pressure put on them. You had businesses boycotted and harassed for supporting it. You had newspapers publishing the information of everyone who supported it so they could be attacked. To me, the reality doesn't match what you're saying.

          - - - Updated - - -

          I wonder if Mr. Crumbles! will answer w/o some kind of appeal to authority.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

            Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
            Well, it seems to me that you have the history of the matter mixed up. The APA classified it as a mental condition as a matter of course. There were no groups out there railing against the APA to make them label it such. It's just how it was. Now, there is documented facts of protests and political pressures that cause them to remove the mental disorder classification.

            Now, to the rest of your post. That very well might be the case, I do not dispute a single thing that you posted though they are only theories so far. I don't think that changes a thing. Hormone and chemical imbalances are the cause of any number mental disorders yet you are trying to make an exception for homosexuality. Why? What makes anything and everything that involves sexuality an exception? To me it's all about politics and political correctness.

            I hope you do not confuse this with me hating homosexuals or having really any personal issues with it. I just see it as a simple 1+1=2 type of thing and to go against that seems to take a whole lot of dancing around the issue to come to the point where you could disagree with my assertion.
            Let's not pretend even for a second that the attitudes of society play no bearing whatsoever on the "scientific knowledge" of the times. During the days of slavery... do you think it would have been difficult to find members of the scientific community who would attest with the full backing of their "scientific educations" that black people were not as smart, or that they were lazier? Do you think it would have been easy to find one that wouldn't say those things?

            - - - Updated - - -

            Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
            Well, conversely, I could say that California is one of the most gay friendly states in the union and it still passed. I also find it a little disingenuous to say that the anti-gay crowd is more politically motivated. I mean, look at the Prop 8 situation. You had tons of people out in the streets from the pro-gay crowd. You had people losing their jobs for supporting Prop 8 because of the political pressure put on them. You had businesses boycotted and harassed for supporting it. You had newspapers publishing the information of everyone who supported it so they could be attacked. To me, the reality doesn't match what you're saying.

            - - - Updated - - -

            I wonder if Mr. Crumbles! will answer w/o some kind of appeal to authority.
            I tell you what... meet me back here in 20-30 years and we'll just see who was right.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

              Originally posted by Mr. Crumbles! View Post
              I'm sorry, that's not particularly indicative of a mental disorder.

              Is liking blowjobs a 'mental disorder'?

              If not, why not?
              No, but we aren't talking about blowjobs. What a piss-poor answer, though. Until you can actually put something of real substance, that isn't a red herring, to answer my question you will not get any more answers to your questions from me.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                No, but we aren't talking about blowjobs. What a piss-poor answer, though. Until you can actually put something of real substance, that isn't a red herring, to answer my question you will not get any more answers to your questions from me.
                Huh. Not only do you seem to have trouble understanding what a mental disorder is, you don't seem to know terms of formal logic or how they're applied.

                It wasn't a red herring in the least. You specifically stated, "Normal functioning body of one gender and a brain that makes them attracted to the very same gender therefor going against normal biological functions"

                Blowjobs go against this very same 'normal biological functions' claim you've made, and yet instead of addressing this, you simply run away in a huff and pout.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                  Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
                  Let's not pretend even for a second that the attitudes of society play no bearing whatsoever on the "scientific knowledge" of the times. During the days of slavery... do you think it would have been difficult to find members of the scientific community who would attest with the full backing of their "scientific educations" that black people were not as smart, or that they were lazier? Do you think it would have been easy to find one that wouldn't say those things?
                  So you admit that this is a political battle of terminology and not a scientific one. Scientifically speaking on this issue, favors my side, I believe. Did you have anything to say about why homosexuality is an exception regardless of chemical imbalances? I believe there are a large number of mental disorders or illness based on chemical imbalances, why is it that the ones involving sexuality are so confusing to everyone and calls for exceptions?

                  Chemical imbalance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  Chemical imbalance is one hypothesis about the cause of mental illness. Other causes that are debated include psychological and social causes.
                  The basic concept is that neurotransmitter imbalances within the brain are the main causes of psychiatric conditions and that these conditions can be improved with medication which corrects these imbalances. The phrase originated from the scientific study of brain chemistry. In the 1950s the monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants were accidentally discovered to be effective in the treatment of depression.[1]
                  These findings and other supporting evidence led scientist Joseph J. Schildkraut (1934-2006) to publish his paper called "The Catecholamine Hypothesis of Affective Disorders" in 1965.[2][3] Schildkraut associated low levels of neurotransmitters with depression.
                  Research into other mental illnesses such as schizophrenia also found that too much activity of certain neurotransmitters such as dopamine was correlated to these disorders. In the scientific community this hypothesis has been referred to as the "Monoamine hypothesis". This hypothesis has been a major focus of research in the fields pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy for over 25 years[4] and led to the development of new classes of drugs such as SSRIs (selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors).[5]

                  I tell you what... meet me back here in 20-30 years and we'll just see who was right.
                  Ummm...we aren't talking about "20-30 years" from now. We are talking about "now" now. In 20-30 years you very well might be right on this account and I don't really dispute the assertion. But, just a few short years ago, popular vote decided against homosexual marriage in what might be the most homosexual friendly state in the US.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                    The fact is, until recently in history, homosexual activity was considered a perversion. If we accept a change in that belief, why should we not accept changes in other beliefs concerning perversions such as pedophilia or bestiality. There are groups out there professing this very change now.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                      Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                      So you admit that this is a political battle of terminology and not a scientific one. Scientifically speaking on this issue, favors my side, I believe. Did you have anything to say about why homosexuality is an exception regardless of chemical imbalances? I believe there are a large number of mental disorders or illness based on chemical imbalances, why is it that the ones involving sexuality are so confusing to everyone and calls for exceptions?

                      Chemical imbalance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






                      Ummm...we aren't talking about "20-30 years" from now. We are talking about "now" now. In 20-30 years you very well might be right on this account and I don't really dispute the assertion. But, just a few short years ago, popular vote decided against homosexual marriage in what might be the most homosexual friendly state in the US.
                      Chemical imbalances cause many things... not all of them mental illnesses. A mental illness is usually considered something that prevents a person from functioning normally in society and/or private relationships. If a person can maintain long term successful employment, and long term successful relationships.. there is no basis to say that they are mentally ill.

                      But hey... just for shits and giggles... let's just say that I am crazy as a loon, as you say I am, despite my very average Jane life of working every day for all of my adult life, paying my mortgage every month, having loving long term relationships with my family, friends and partner... etc. I'm just batshit crazy, as you say I am, because I love a woman instead of a man. In this country do we deny rights to people because of their mental illness if that illness does not cause them to be a danger to themselves and others?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        The fact is, until recently in history, homosexual activity was considered a perversion. If we accept a change in that belief, why should we not accept changes in other beliefs concerning perversions such as pedophilia or bestiality. There are groups out there professing this very change now.
                        Oh c'mon... I know you're much smarter than that. 1. Those practices cause harm to others, making them criminal offenses. 2. Children and animals can not provide the informed legal consent needed to enter into sexual relationships or legal contracts, making them criminal offenses.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                          Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
                          Oh c'mon... I know you're much smarter than that. 1. Those practices cause harm to others, making them criminal offenses. 2. Children and animals can not provide the informed legal consent needed to enter into sexual relationships or legal contracts, making them criminal offenses.
                          As was homosexual activity until late in the 20th century.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                            Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
                            You've been watching The Celluloid Closet haven't you? GREAT documentary! Who knew that there were so many gay people in the movies until the Hayes code of the 30's? Gotta love Lily Tomlin no matter who you are!
                            I haven't seen it, but based on your recommendation, I ordered it.

                            The thing is this is a media driven culture, and the media has decided that gay is OK, (probably due to the large number of gay people in the media), and they have turned it around in a way that is breathtaking in it's scope.
                            A guy like Harvey Milk worked for years to improve things, the movie Milk probably changed more opinions in it's first week than the actual Harvey Milk did in his entire life.
                            Will and Grace exposed people to gay characters who were witty and charming, and human, week after week, they became family members, and that made gay normal for tens of millions of people. And that's the kind of opinion change that is nearly impossible to reverse.
                            Up until very recently a person could speak against gay rights without risking any animus or stigma from the public, but that's not true anymore.
                            People are starting to see those who oppose gay rights in a negative light, not as bad as someone espousing racist views, but the tipping point has been reached, and what was "prevailing wisdom" has become "controversial" on it's way to becoming "stupid" and then "evil".

                            What amazes me, is that there are people who seem smart enough to understand the cultural shift that is happening, but still come down on the side of what will soon be stupid and then evil, as though they can make a difference, as though they can come up with an argument that will turn it all around, and then when their argument comes, it's remarkable for the complete lack of imagination or creativity. DO they believe that telling people "it's in the Bible" is going to work? DO they imagine that "But they can't have a baby" is going to stop marriage equality?
                            Do they realize that they are modeling the caricatures that will be ridiculed and scorned within their lifetimes?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              As was homosexual activity until late in the 20th century.
                              But it is not now because there was never a basis for it to be. It was only the primitive attitudes of society that ever made it so.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                                Originally posted by Unique POV View Post
                                But it is not now because there was never a basis for it to be. It was only the primitive attitudes of society that ever made it so.
                                And I am sure there are those out there who believe the same for pedophilia and bestiality.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X