Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Canadian Gay Couple Barred From U.S.

LGBT Canadian couple Barred from US

  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#181 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 12:52 AM

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor LOM!
Posted Image

#182 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 12:59 AM

Lady of Mystery, on Sep 21 2003, 09:48 PM, said:

Quote

Obviously I disagree with you, on several points, but I throughly enjoyed your honesty  Each side usually has at least some people making assumptions about the other side, and tries to label eachother as extremists, usually leading to little or no discussion in the end 

Yes, here we do agree, and understand equally.  :)

The major conflicts that arise with (I'm not too comfortable with these terms, but they seem to be the most concise  :( ) whether one is pro-gay, or anti-gay, or a semi in between  :blink:  for me is---

There is not a 'clear' 'absolute' as to whether same-sex desire is innate, or a behaviour that is learned.  So for me until there is concrete indisputable defination, then I don't think the conflicts will cease.

I accept your view, because that is what you believe.  :)
The other major conflict is the disagreement, if the person believes in god, in which they think gods whole opinion is on all this ;) It actually hardly matters to me if it is innate or not, I just believe its innate. If it isn't, its there choice who they love, who they make love to. They aren't hurting any one (im my not so humble opinion of course ;) ). And I assume you really don't mean you accept my view ;) you accept it *is* my view. That is is an important word. I know what you mean though :) You accept it like you might accept homosexuals, but you still dissagree.

Quote

Main Entry: ac·cept
1 a : to receive willingly <accept a gift> b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>
2 : to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>
3 a : to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted> c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE <refused to accept the explanation>
4 a : to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially
intransitive senses : to receive favorably something offered -- usually used with of

3a might make sense, in certain lights, but thats about it  :D

Oh and your cute story, LOL :D

I'm the kind of person to usually escort spiders out of my house ;) Though if an insect catches me by surprise, or is on me, bets are usually off ;)

Edited by sierraleone, 22 September 2003 - 01:07 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#183 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 01:16 AM

sierraleone, on Sep 22 2003, 12:59 AM, said:

And I assume you really don't mean you accept my view ;) you accept it *is* my view. That is is an important word. I know what you mean though :) You accept it like you accept homosexuals, but you still dissagree.
Let's just say to eliminate an argument that tho I don't agree, I do understand your point of view. Better? :)

Quote

I'm the kind of person to usually escort spiders out of my house ;) Though if an insect catches me by surprise, or is on me, bets are usually off ;)

Unless they are spiders or mosquitoes they don't bother me. But--(engaging in silly mode here) Spiders are evil did you know that?  :eek2:

L

#184 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 12:31 PM

sierraleone, on Sep 21 2003, 10:30 PM, said:

back to HubcapDave -

Quote

As to who are they hurting: Mainly themselves.

First of all, the act of anal sex can be extremely damaging physically. Secondly, by being a homosexual, a person is cutting themself off from what I consider to be an important part of their survival, having children.

Anal sex is not only performed amoung male homosexuals. Certainly its one of the few venues for them, there beind only two in male-male sex. I don't know all the details about this, though. We let people damage themselves by being physically inactive, or overly eating, or starving/dieting and over-exercising, smoking, or cracking their knuckles, or drinking to excess, or being a carpet layer for 40 years. Until I know more it doesn't sound that much worse or better than any of those. An important part of their survival? Do you mean to take care of them when they are old, or do you mean to pass on their genes? Maybe they don't care about passing on their genes. And some gay people have kids, or are great uncles/aunts. Their plans for old age are their concern. I don't plan on having children. I'm not gay. So I don't see it neccessarily a bad/horrible/hurting thing, you can imagine ;)

Some people say they should just stay abstinent if they can't, won't or are not inclined to make love to the opposite sex. Either of these ways, they won't be having kids.

Lady of Mystery

Obviously I disagree with you, on several points, but I throughly enjoyed your honesty :) Each side usually has at least some people making assumptions about the other side, and tries to label eachother as extremists, usually leading to little or no discussion in the end ;)
I'm always mystified by people who use the "homosexuals don't have children" argument. It seems to me that we ought to be grateful to couples of either sex who *don't* procreate. They help to make up for all those folks who, in spite of the evidence that our planet is overcrowded, insist on having 3 or 4 or 5 or more children.  I figure it's nature's way of achieving a balance.

Perhaps if nobody had more than 2 children *ever*, then it might lend some substance to that particular argument. Until then, my only answer is: SO WHAT?
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#185 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 03:04 PM

Quote

I'm always mystified by people who use the "homosexuals don't have children" argument. It seems to me that we ought to be grateful to couples of either sex who *don't* procreate. They help to make up for all those folks who, in spite of the evidence that our planet is overcrowded, insist on having 3 or 4 or 5 or more children. I figure it's nature's way of achieving a balance.


Well, first of all, homosexuality has been around much longer than "overcrowding" problem.

Second of all, I see having children as a part of an individual's survival, even if for only putting a part of themselves into the future.


Now, on to the use of the term homophobia. It is a grossly misused and overused term. It's root meaning is fear of homosexuals, but it has been rediefined by some to mean "disagrees that homosexuality is natural". The subtitle of this thread is a shining example. A Canadian hoimosexual couple has a paperwork snafu over their status as a "family", Vapor Trail calls it "Homophobia rears its ugly head!". It's a paperwork problem over a legal definition!

Now, this is not to say that there isn't such a thing as homophobia. There is, as per the correct definition! Someone who feels they have to assault or kill homosexuals certainly qualifies for the homophobia label. But someone, like myself, who has a principled objection, is certainly not. "Anti-Gay bias" is closer but is still a bit pejorative. If I were to go with the trend of making all sides of an argument seem warm, fuzzy, and for something, I would say use the term "Pro-Hetero".

Well, that's my two bits.

#186 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 03:10 PM

Quote

Second of all, I see having children as a part of an individual's survival, even if for only putting a part of themselves into the future.

*shrug* Not every person would make a good parent. In fact, I can think of several people who would have been better off without kids at all. My survival is my art and my existence and what I mean to other people. I don't need to have children to propagate who I am.

Quote

If I were to go with the trend of making all sides of an argument seem warm, fuzzy, and for something, I would say use the term "Pro-Hetero".

That's pretty funny stuff. The gay people I know have no problems with heterosexuals until they start waving their self-righteous flags around. Anti-gay is more accurate, methinks.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#187 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 03:18 PM

Yup, Anti Gay is definitely more accurate.

In my experience (which is fairly extensive) homosexuals have nothing against non gays or against heterosexual sex (even if it's not their thing).  So "pro hetero" simply doesn't cover negativity/disapproval of/discomfort with/hatred or fear of homosexuality or homesexual sex.

Further I agree a million percent with Rhea and Josh about children.

In case no one had noticed, this world is over populated.  We're already putting a tremendous strain on our resources.

Or, to go cliche, the mere fact that one "can" do a thing (in this case, procreate) does not mean that one "should" do that thing.

We're not all (raises hand) parent material.  

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 22 September 2003 - 03:20 PM.

Posted Image

#188 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 03:28 PM

Actually if we placed everyone on earth in a cental location (assuming that resources were spread evenly.) they would occupy a City the size of the state of Texas if not the South Central part of the US. now that would be at NYC population density.  So we are not over populated just that resources are not as utilized as best as they could be.

But that is a topic for another tread.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#189 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 03:33 PM

^

Unfortunately, the scenario you present isn't even remotely realistic or likely to happen.  In the reality we live in today, we are over populated.

Lil
Posted Image

#190 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 04:36 PM

So if we have homophobic do we also have Christianophobic? :D :D

#191 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 04:51 PM

Lover of Purple, on Sep 22 2003, 02:36 PM, said:

So if we have homophobic do we also have Christianophobic? :D :D
^

I think Churchophobic or OrganizedReligionaphobic might be more accurate...

;)

And {{{{{{LOP}}}}}}}

For De Halibut!

:angel:
Posted Image

#192 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 05:00 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 22 2003, 02:51 PM, said:

Lover of Purple, on Sep 22 2003, 02:36 PM, said:

So if we have homophobic do we also have Christianophobic? :D :D
^

OrganizedReligionaphobic


Now, that's a mouthfull! :D

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Lil}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Back at ya!!

#193 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 05:20 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 22 2003, 02:51 PM, said:

Lover of Purple, on Sep 22 2003, 02:36 PM, said:

So if we have homophobic do we also have Christianophobic? :D :D
^

I think Churchophobic or OrganizedReligionaphobic might be more accurate...
A mouthful - but an accurate mouthful.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#194 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 05:59 PM

Quote

*shrug* Not every person would make a good parent. In fact, I can think of several people who would have been better off without kids at all. My survival is my art and my existence and what I mean to other people. I don't need to have children to propagate who I am.

I can understand that sentiment. I also know people who weren't up to being good parents (usually, they were teenage parents and were single parent families). Being a bit of an artist myself, I understand and agree with what you say about that. But a person's survival has many different aspects to it. And one of them *is* through our progeny.

As for the "pro-Hetero" line, I was being mostly funny about that!

I also agree that it's not so much of an overpopulation problem as it is an effective use of our resources problem.

#195 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 22 September 2003 - 08:13 PM

Quote

Unfortunately, the scenario you present isn't even remotely realistic or likely to happen. In the reality we live in today, we are over populated.

Malthus may or may not eventually be correct, but the world is most certainly not overpopulated today in any sort of Malthusian sense.  What gives you that impression?  That there are people starving?  There have always been people starving.  If you look at most of the major incidences of starvation around the globe, they have nothing to do with inability for the land to support the people on it and everything to do with wars and people not making use of techniques for getting the most out of their land and resources.  Those starving Ethiopians and Somalians weren't starving because they weren't able to obtain or grow food, they were starving because their farms were ruined and all of the aid food rotted on the docks because the warlords *didn't want* food to get to the people they were fighting.  If you call that evidence of overpopulation, then a human population of a dozen people keeping food away from a half dozen would be overpopulation as well.

China has over a billion people, but it can feed a billion people.  That's how it got them to begin with.  Chinese diet and methods of agriculture are very effective at getting the most out of the least amount of available farmland.  

The idea that the world is overpopulated today is a myth based on the perhaps reasonable fear that it might someday become so and due to the images of starvation we come across more often these days.  However, improvements in technology and agriculture are a factor that makes simple calculations impossible and as I said before, starvation is hardly new and doesn't require overpopulation to achieve.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#196 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 12:37 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 22 2003, 03:18 PM, said:

In my experience (which is fairly extensive) homosexuals have nothing against non gays or against heterosexual sex (even if it's not their thing).  So "pro hetero" simply doesn't cover negativity/disapproval of/discomfort with/hatred or fear of homosexuality or homesexual sex.
From your experience---ok.

I don't believe that it is a pre-requisite  for someone who is "Pro-Hetero"  to automatically hate, fear, be uncomfortable with, be negative towards and so forth someone who wishes to 'show physical love' to someone of the same sex.

L

#197 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 12:40 AM

Lady of Mystery, on Sep 22 2003, 10:37 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 22 2003, 03:18 PM, said:


In my experience (which is fairly extensive) homosexuals have nothing against non gays or against heterosexual sex (even if it's not their thing).  So "pro hetero" simply doesn't cover negativity/disapproval of/discomfort with/hatred or fear of homosexuality or homesexual sex.
From your experience---ok.

I don't believe that it is a pre-requisite  for someone who is "Pro-Hetero"  to automatically hate, fear, be uncomfortable with, be negative towards and so forth someone who wishes to 'show physical love' to someone of the same sex.

L
PRECISELY.

Which is why I object to the use of the term as a substitute for "anti gay".

:)
Posted Image

#198 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 12:58 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Sep 23 2003, 12:40 AM, said:

PRECISELY.

Which is why I object to the use of the term as a substitute for "anti gay".

:)
Yes, I know.  :)

But I don't like the term "anti-gay" because it has bad connotation.  It implies that someone HATES homosexuals.

I may not approve, but I don't hate them Lil.  So I don't like that term either.

The only reason I used it earlier, was because it was a term you would accept.

Truth be known, I have known homosexuals that were rude, hateful, spiteful towards anyone who didn't approve of them.  Same with heterosexuals.

I have also known individuals who were 'practicing' homosexuals, that years later fell in love with a woman, married them and stayed married and never again 'practiced homosexual ways'.  And I have seen 'practicing heterosexuals'  who have later divorced and lived with a same sex partner and been blissfully happy.

And I have known homosexuals who were the kindest and most wonderful people. In fact, there was one gent I met in college that I fell truly in love with, but alas, he had no interest in me in a sexual manner.  But he was my 'best' friend in college.   :)  Just as I have known heterosexuals who are the same.

I don't have any concrete answers, but I think that it is far easier to judge someone who doesn't agree with you or agrees with me or whatever, which is why I don't like labels period.

But I guess there is nothing to be done about that.  It just is one of those quirks of life  ;)

L

#199 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2003 - 01:08 AM

Lady of Mystery, on Sep 22 2003, 10:58 PM, said:

Yes, I know.  :)

But I don't like the term "anti-gay" because it has bad connotation.  It implies that someone HATES homosexuals.
Yeah but you actually admitted to being "anti gay" and your explanation clearly indicated that your feelings don't fit into the meaning you are ascribing to the term now (i.e. you don't "hate" gays).

I mean all terminology has the potential for innacuracy but like you I really don't see the answer.

Lil
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Canadian couple, Barred from US

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users