Honda Pilot - Honda Pilot Forums banner

Is this a Discriminatory Statement

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • No

    Votes: 23 71.9%

Is this a Discriminatory Statement

7K views 48 replies 14 participants last post by  Red_N_Jay 
#1 ·
Do you think that this post made by jdeanski here in this forum is discriminatory?

----------------------------------------------------------
Gays, like any other minority should not be discriminated because of their sexual preference, however marriage is a tradition between a man and a women as old as time itself. I see no problems with extending the legal protections of a committed couple to a pair of gays, just make it a legal agreement but don't call it marriage.

Being gay is contrary to the laws of nature, it should be considered as a disability, but it does happen through no fault of their own.

---------------------------------------------------------
 
#27 ·
Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

gauchobass said:

Pick up a psychology book my friend, dont be so scared.
I have. But you better be careful about the year. The definition of "normal" is always in flux, and what today is not considered a deviation from normal, was so in that past, and only the future will know the next definition.

gauchobass said:

By the way
Being white trash is a disability?
Ooops, being biased, prejudiced and judgemental again.

Do your liberal friends know you are so closed minded?
 
#28 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

gauchobass said:
I am starting to believe there are a lot of similarities between you and N_Jay.
You don't read well? Do you?

I find more differences than similarities.

Fo course, I do pride myself in being 'discriminating'. (Remember when that was a positive trait?)

gauchobass said:
Is there something that we don't know? I mean you guys are just like eachother and support eachother in this forum very much.

To me that is a Gay oriented relationship.
Please confess to us and to your imaginary friend god.
I always find it "interesting" when someone professing a liberal point of view, supporting gay rights and freedoms, uses the acquisitions (or subtle references) as in insult.

It is like the "Not that there is anything wrong with that" line people tag on to the end.

It rings like the old "Sure I have black friends" line.

But, I guess that type of thinking is acceptable from the left (just not by the left when from the right).
 
#29 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

gauchobass said:
. . . .
It doesn't matter how aggressive you want to appear here, you are definitely showing your Gay side here. If you would have a minimum knowledge about Psychology you would understand what I am talking about. By the way, Its nothing to be embarresed (sic) about.
There you go again.

How can you be so prejudiced?

But don't worry, "Its nothing to be embarrassed about".

LOL, just like I said, the old "Not that there is anything wrong with it" line!:4:
 
#32 ·
Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

quote:Originally posted by gauchobass

Pick up a psychology book my friend, dont be so scared.


N_Jay said:

I have. But you better be careful about the year. The definition of "normal" is always in flux, and what today is not considered a deviation from normal, was so in that past, and only the future will know the next definition.

N_Jay,

I was asking JD to pick up a P. book.
See how you assume that it is for you too.
You are making my theory about you two stronger
 
#33 ·
gauchobass said:
N_jay:

You are having a full chat with yourself!! Are you bored?
Wow, like 10 posts in a row!
WOW, you also don't seem to count well either.

It was 6 posts in response to 6 of yours.
Two of those you quote me or mention me.
and one is just a note to all about an interesting view on the subject.

(Not that I'm keeping score, as you are the one who brought up the issue).
 
#34 ·
N_Jay said:
(and yes, for those who wish to say that I edit the definitions; this IS the complete "quick definition" from Onelook.com)
Hi, N_Jay. Whatever happened to that Oscar Wilde discussion? Did someone delete the thread? If you're referring to that discussion, I think you misunderstood, but it's no biggie.
 
#35 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

gauchobass said:
N_Jay,

I was asking JD to pick up a P. book.
See how you assume that it is for you too.
You are making my theory about you two stronger [/B]
Sorry if this breaks your view of the world, but a forum is a "group" discussion, not a personal conversation. Anyone may respond to any comment. There is a PM feature if you care to ask someone a direct question and you do not want others to comment.

As for your "theory", you have obviously collected very little data, so I would call it a childish wild guess, more than a theory. :rolleyes:
 
#36 ·
gauchobass said:
Do you think that this post made by jdeanski here in this forum is discriminatory?
Is this poll in response to my statement that jdeanski's view was misrepresented? If so, I was referring to the statement that jdeanski supposedly didn't care about over 600,000 Iraqis killed. With respect to jdeanski's views on homosexuality, or his relationship with N_Jay, or the existence of God, and Chosen People ... well, I'm not sure how to contribute to another thread that has already gone South rather quickly.
 
#37 ·
robrecht said:
Hi, N_Jay. Whatever happened to that Oscar Wilde discussion? Did someone delete the thread? If you're referring to that discussion, I think you misunderstood, but it's no biggie.
I'm not sure, take look at the Missing Posts thread.

http://www.piloteers.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16811

Do you remember who started that thread, as they are the most likely one to delete it.

I would think an admin or moderator would have said something, and a database error usually leave errors all over not just in one thread.
 
#38 ·
Re: Re: Is this a Discriminatory Statement

robrecht said:
Is this poll in response to my statement that jdeanski's view was misrepresented? If so, I was referring to the statement that jdeanski supposedly didn't care about over 600,000 Iraqis killed. With respect to jdeanski's views on homosexuality, or his relationship with N_Jay, or the existence of God, and Chosen People ... well, I'm not sure how to contribute to another thread that has already gone South rather quickly.
I think the poll is GB's response to JD's comment.

It seemed to trigger him into "Gay Defender" mode, and he has brought out all the cliche answers (to all the cliche issues).
 
#39 ·
As a Centrist, I think I should respond to this thread, even though it is mostly made up of childish and poorly thought out posts.

For background, I have voted Democratic recently, so no Neo-Con responses, please. I am not a fan of GWB, but I am also no Nancy Pelosi disciple.

Here is my view. The concept of marriage is Biblical, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Whether Old Testament (Torah), New Testabment, Koran, etc. It is a biblical concept that became a religious concept. Why in the world would a secular group like the homosexuals in the US want to embrace a biblical concept? Civil Unions make sense for homosexuals, marriage does not. I actually wish that my wife and I could have received a civil union contract instead of a marriage license from our state government.

Also, there is a requirement for a man and a woman to make a baby, even if you borrow someone else's semen and inseminate someone else. That seems basic, but it also gets overlooked in these arguments. It is NATURAL for a man to have intercourse with a woman to make a baby. Whether that was created or evolved, that is the process. People that believe in evolution should be against insemination and other ALTERNATIVE forms of conception because if reproduction is important, humans will evolve and not need separate genders anymore.
 
#40 ·
I believe Hindus (and members of other non-biblical religions) get married and some derive the word "marriage" from Sanskrit or earlier Indo-European origins. On the other hand, members of various "biblical" relgions differ substantially on the nature of marriage, with some liberal Jews and Christians (not sure about liberal Muslims) readily accepting gay marriage.

Here's a definition by George Bernard Shaw:

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part."
 
#41 ·
mattchalmers said:
As a Centrist, I think I should respond to this thread, even though it is mostly made up of childish and poorly thought out posts.

For background, I have voted Democratic recently, so no Neo-Con responses, please. I am not a fan of GWB, but I am also no Nancy Pelosi disciple.

Here is my view. The concept of marriage is Biblical, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Whether Old Testament (Torah), New Testabment, Koran, etc. It is a biblical concept that became a religious concept. Why in the world would a secular group like the homosexuals in the US want to embrace a biblical concept? Civil Unions make sense for homosexuals, marriage does not. I actually wish that my wife and I could have received a civil union contract instead of a marriage license from our state government.

Also, there is a requirement for a man and a woman to make a baby, even if you borrow someone else's semen and inseminate someone else. That seems basic, but it also gets overlooked in these arguments. It is NATURAL for a man to have intercourse with a woman to make a baby. Whether that was created or evolved, that is the process. People that believe in evolution should be against insemination and other ALTERNATIVE forms of conception because if reproduction is important, humans will evolve and not need separate genders anymore.
I mostly agree (Except for the last sentence, as I can not quite figure out what you are saying)
 
#42 ·
N_Jay said:


I mostly agree (Except for the last sentence, as I can not quite figure out what you are saying)
Point of the last statement was to say that the only way to create human life is with one man and one woman. Artificial insemination still requires a man to donate sperm. For those that believe homosexuality is "natural" they should not support artificial insemination since that tacitly admits that homosexuality is not normal. They should instead wait for themselves to "evolve" so they do not need formerly known as "normal" help to procreate. The women would wait until they evolved into a-sexuality and the men would wait until one of them grew a uterus.
 
#43 ·
It's a law of NATURE that the Bible quotes.
Its not just the Bible, but the Quran and the Torah. All three agree that homosexuality is wrong. This is truely why one of the many reasons why Muslims do not want democracy in the Middle East. With democracy comes homosexuality, pornography, pre marital relations, etc. I have gay friends (who doesnt in California), but I disagree with their lifestyles.
 
#44 ·
Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

gauchobass said:


Well. you dont seem to accept that there are a lot of people who dont believe neither in god and the bible.
Gauch and Bubbles pardon me for asking you these questions so directly but after reading some of you comments, do you accept the teachings of the Bible? How about this more broad question? Do either of you believe in God?
 
#45 ·
Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

jdeanski said:


Gauch and Bubbles pardon me for asking you these questions so directly but after reading some of you comments, do you accept the teachings of the Bible? How about this more broad question? Do either of you believe in God?
You never replied in another thread. But if you believe we won the war in Nam and are winning in Iraq you must believe in the tooth fairy.
 
#46 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

Preludetundra said:


... But if you believe we won the war in Nam and are winning in Iraq you must believe in the tooth fairy.
Funny post, PT

--Moe
 
#47 ·
Every time I see this thread . . . .

I think how our language has been twisted by PC concepts.

Of course a statement is discriminatory!

If it were not, it would be worthless.

The ability to discriminate is critical to rational thought.

Can you imagine a statement that did not have a meaning any different than any other statement? :rolleyes:

:2: :2: :2:
 
#48 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: jdeanski Speaks, listen and learn

Preludetundra said:


You never replied in another thread. But if you believe we won the war in Nam and are winning in Iraq you must believe in the tooth fairy.
I believe in the bravery of our young men and women in the military and how they have prevailed time and time again.............

I've answered your question in the origional thread. I'm very tired tonight and it wasn't my most elequent post but I hope you get my meanings.
 
#49 ·
Re: Every time I see this thread . . . .

N_Jay said:
I think how our language has been twisted by PC concepts.

Of course a statement is discriminatory!

If it were not, it would be worthless.

The ability to discriminate is critical to rational thought.

Can you imagine a statement that did not have a meaning any different than any other statement? :rolleyes:

:2: :2: :2:
Exactly! Exactly!!!!
Outstanding!

:2: :2: :2:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top