One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

reply to post by Manhater


I love how one spoken phrase was quoted as coming directly from the mouths of "millions" of people. Shows how much weight the story really has. Forget getting a few actual opinions, let's just get a single quote and pretend that everybody else feels the same way.

Cheers,
Strype

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
I don't really get why people dislike gay people? I mean who cares who she has sex with or falls in love with?

How does that make a person bad?

And to all the bible thumpers, all sins are equal in your God's eyes and all humans sin, so thats not even a valid excuse to hate someone.

Mostly it's fear of gayness.
Fear of catching gayness or being targeted by gays, like being gay means you are a sexual predator and will have sex with everybody and everything.
So fear and ignorance...
Those people have no idea what God is, they only know their version of God.

did you see the family guy bit where she talked all over her guests? fire her for that.

reply to post by deepankarm




The above says it all in my opinion.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

it's a lame point you're trying to make my friend - it's about civil rights - equality and fairness - for everyone, not just for some people. And not just for people I like and approve of

Homosexuals don't have any less rights than anyone else. The 'rights' that are being fought for are nothing more than special privilege. If homosexuality itself is so valid, then why must it be touted as 'equal' to heterosexuality? I personally don't care if people are homosexual, but to shove it down people's throats with methods such as forcing homosexual propaganda into schools is not acceptable. Before you say something ridiculous like, 'heterosexual propaganda has been in schools for years', keep in mind that the kids have both a mother and a father and wouldn't exist without the both of them. Their mere existence is a product of heterosexuality. Our public schools are already a major failure. We don't need silly non-sense about homosexuals taking the place of actually gaining knowledge and learning skills. Schools are for teaching, not preaching....and not for brainwashing or political agendas of sexually abnormal adults or anyone else.

Oh, dear, and I thought I was done with this thread...

reply to post by Annee

I see much hate in that post Annee... do you hate the restaurant owner who denied her access?

I wouldn't blame you if you said yes... but I do want to point out that, if you harbor any (well-deserved) hate toward those who mistreated your mother, you might want to be careful tossing around the concept of "hate speech"... you're then practicing it.

Just sayin'...


reply to post by blupblup

See I don't know a lot about this company or the incident being talked about, but just googling and looking on wikipedia, shows that this company are pretty ant-gay.

That's a fair opinion.

There is nothing pro gay about hiring Ellen.... nothing,... she is a celebrity, a famous person... a personality. She has a hugely successful show and the company obviously thought she could help them make money.

Then why is this entire thread about 'protecting' Ellen from the "anti-gay" Million Moms?

See, this is the real problem... when confronted with as issue where there is an indication a company may have done something which might adversely affect a homosexual cause, it is all about discrimination against homosexuals to you. But when someone takes an action that others see as a "homosexual issue", you dismiss it.

That is intellectual dishonesty, and as long as it continues there will be no real progress on the true discrimination issues.

Incidentally, I think Ms. Degeneres was a good choice, myself. She is popular, respected, and charismatic.

And people who say things like "The gay agenda" have issues...

More intellectual dishonesty. What words would you prefer me to use today to describe my views or to make my point? Can we poor unenlightened straight people get a memo so we know what word is appropriate this week?

People can boycott whatever they like, more power to 'em....

But...

No buts. You were completely correct until that little word. People can boycott whomever they wish... period!

People can also hate whoever they wish, like whoever they wish, do business with whoever they wish, associate with whoever they wish... and there is nothing... nothing that anyone can do to change that. If that is your goal, you have a long hard futile road ahead of you.

But who am I to tell you about human nature? You already know how to make friends and influence people... just ridicule, shame, and dismiss them.


reply to post by Annee

Here is contact info for AFA: www.afa.net...

They have sponsors at the bottom of their website.Sponsors are always a good place to go - - if you're blocked from any connection access to the website.

Do I have to spell out the hyporicy here?

"How dare you boycott JC Penney! Oh, by the way, if you want to boycott someone I don't like, here's how to do it."

TheRedneck

reply to post by autowrench

Thank you good sir! Both for the compliment and for the chance to say this:

I do not respect homosexuals. I do not respect heterosexuals. I respect people... human beings with their own unique quirks and differences and talents and abilities. If someone wants me to respect them, all they have to do is show me respect in return. Sexual preference is not an issue.

Which makes me wonder why so many people who claim to want exactly that get so angry when they get it...

(I know that was what you said as well; I just wanted the chance to say it too.)


reply to post by Annee

Sin only applies to those who have that belief.

We disagree so often Annee, I am just happy to be able to agree with you on this.

TheRedneck

I used the wrong word sorry.
I'm not for nor against it.
They have right just like you and I to live how they want to.
Last I checked, they were Americans too that pay their taxes just like you and I.
They are people too and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
More intellectual dishonesty. What words would you prefer me to use today to describe my views or to make my point? Can we poor unenlightened straight people get a memo so we know what word is appropriate this week?

This is just the usual semantics (which oddly enough is what everyone is arguing) but a good few of the persons who are debating with you are actually heterosexual.

It's bit off topic, but does drive me nuts when people draw this line like there is some massive divide between gay and straight which is instantly recognisable. Also the implication that there's some sort of gay persons weekly meeting people aren't invited to. I realise this probably isn't the intention though?

To be honest, I think an issue like this requires more writing than can be reproduced in a web forum. Regarding traditional values, and all the rest of it ... Yes, I can see a point that traditionalists believe a 'face' of a company should be perfect for their audience. I disagree with bringing bed room habits into it though honestly. I'd also disagree with bringing religion into it also. IE ... I'd frown the same way if some group of people boycotted Mel Gibson for being Catholic (unless he was raising money for some horrifying cause)

The irony here is a group is boycotting a store because they feel marginalised, so they're going to marginalise a whole other group of people to justify themselves. I just don't buy into the whole embattled religious right, and I don't buy marginalising large groups of people when they're just working for a living.

Yes, you can not support homosexuality. Yes, you can not support organised religion. Do we really have to start using it as criteria for who we employ and who represents a *clothing* line. It's just how I feel.

I also generally get the idea everyone that gets sucked into debates like this is just watching two very loud neighbours screaming over a thin fence and getting involved. Just because people make entire organisations based around stopping people turning gay/religious doesn't mean we should join in.

And honestly it's usually the same 'two neighbours' with the same fence.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by deepankarm

 

The above says it all in my opinion.

that was perfect for this thread, thank you!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, dear, and I thought I was done with this thread...

reply to post by Annee

I see much hate in that post Annee... do you hate the restaurant owner who denied her access?

I'm sorry if you interpreted it as hate - - - and that you think maybe its eaten away on me.

That is not the case. I was raised in a metaphysical environment (long before the New Age fad). All experiences are to learn from.

I am simply stating fact as experienced. Making my point that I am indeed focused on the Equal Rights aspect of this subject.

Humans often tend to be ignorant of what they don't know or have not experienced. The restaurant owner protected what was his. Same way the Marriage Rights people think they are protecting an ideology.

Don't think I don't understand the perspective from both sides -- because I do.

However - - forcing an ideology on those who don't want it - - - to deny Equal Rights is unacceptable.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Annee - - They have sponsors at the bottom of their website. Sponsors are always a good place to go - - if you're blocked from any connection access to the website.

Do I have to spell out the hypocrisy here?

I was responding to another post that said there was no contact info on the One Million Mom's website.

Am I aware of what I said? Yes I am.

We already agreed the constitution gives everyone the right of protest. So?

reply to post by Pinke

This is just the usual semantics (which oddly enough is what everyone is arguing) but a good few of the persons who are debating with you are actually heterosexual.

It's bit off topic, but does drive me nuts when people draw this line like there is some massive divide between gay and straight which is instantly recognizable. Also the implication that there's some sort of gay persons weekly meeting people aren't invited to. I realize this probably isn't the intention though?

Yes, it is indeed semantics, which is the point of my post.

It seems to me that every time I try to discuss this issue in a rational manner, my opinions are dismissed by those who claim that my opinions are not valid because I do not sympathize with them. As 'proof' of this unsympathetic attitude, certain phrases I use (such as "gay agenda") are denounced.

I am not gay. I cannot understand someone who is. I do not know which phrases or words they find objectionable, and this is especially true when those "inappropriate" phrases or words seem to change constantly. There can be no dialogue, no solution, no equality, when such semantics are used. Without a dialogue, there can be no end to the hatred and mistrust that has arisen between two factions of society.

What I can do is listen to the concerns, voice my own, and try to reach a compromise... not a compromise on rights, but on how to achieve those rights. No one over the age of five truly believes that others are somehow obligated to simply give them what they want because they asked for it... do they?

I continue to post in these threads because I do see some inequalities toward homosexuals. I draw the line, however, when attempts to right these wrongs become wrongs in themselves. Reason dictates that those who support a group's position would be embraced in order to further support among others to accomplish goals; yet this is not done when it comes to matters of discrimination. Those who support an end to discrimination are dismissed over semantics.

In this case, much ado is being made about nothing. And in the process of making all the fuss over such a minor issue, major problems with the solutions sought are being exposed. Does the "gay community" (meaning those who aggressively pursue goals for all homosexuals) not want the support of others? Are they so unwilling to listen to the views of others that they will denigrate even those who would fight for them?

Yes.

As I watch these fiascos play out, I wonder sometimes if the gays and the intolerant "churches" they hate so much are not on the same side... since it appears both are intent on alienating the majority of people.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee

I'm sorry if you interpreted it as hate - - - and that you think maybe its eaten away on me.

I do think so.

I also think you are in denial over it. That is not an insult; it would actually be normal human behavior.

Humans often tend to be ignorant of what they don't know or have not experienced. The restaurant owner protected what was his. Same way the Marriage Rights people think they are protecting an ideology.

They are protecting an ideology... one that happens to disagree with your point of view. Thus my bolding of the word "think" in the quote above.

As soon as people realize that the very concept of "rights" involves by definition the rights of others, and realize that not everyone understands the intricacies of the problem and must therefore be informed (as opposed to dictated), you will see things change. Until such happens, you will see no such change. Legal force is a double-edged sword... too often legal force without a real dialogue causes a backlash of violence (witness the Civil War and the recent OWS fiasco that is still developing). I do not want to see more violence against people based on their sexual preference... but I do fear that is coming.

Don't think I don't understand the perspective from both sides -- because I do.

Then I must say, you hide that very well.

However - - forcing an ideology on those who don't want it - - - to deny Equal Rights is unacceptable.

Forcing an ideology on those who don't want it - - - PERIOD - - - is unacceptable.

Force is not the answer.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee

I was responding to another post that said there was no contact info on the One Million Mom's website.

Again, it seems OK for you to do a thing that you denigrate others for doing. Yes, you can protest, go to sponsors, boycott... but so can others. That's equality.

We already agreed the constitution gives everyone the right of protest.

I was not aware you had agreed with that concept.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

I see much hate in that post Annee... do you hate the restaurant owner who denied her access?

I wouldn't blame you if you said yes... but I do want to point out that, if you harbor any (well-deserved) hate toward those who mistreated your mother, you might want to be careful tossing around the concept of "hate speech"... you're then practicing it.

Just sayin'...

OK - this is starting to border on harassment

you're not disagreeing with her - you're picking on her

enough is enough - come up with something legitimate - or let it go

you're a mod - you should know better

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

I'm sorry if you interpreted it as hate - - - and that you think maybe its eaten away on me.

I do think so.

I also think you are in denial over it. That is not an insult; it would actually be normal human behavior.

Trust me I'm not.

I've been through a lot in life and I am now totally at peace with myself.

Its one reason my posts are so basic. I've removed all the clutter.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I see much hate in that post Annee... do you hate the restaurant owner who denied her access?

I wouldn't blame you if you said yes... but I do want to point out that, if you harbor any (well-deserved) hate toward those who mistreated your mother, you might want to be careful tossing around the concept of "hate speech"... you're then practicing it.

Just sayin'...

OK - this is starting to border on harassment

you're not disagreeing with her - you're picking on her

enough is enough - come up with something legitimate - or let it go

you're a mod - you should know better

I couldn't agree more...there is a line that is fast being approached. It should never be crossed by someone who represents ATS.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

They are protecting an ideology... one that happens to disagree with your point of view. Thus my bolding of the word "think" in the quote above.

It has nothing to do with my point of view.

It has everything to do with Equal Rights of a minority.

The southern white south was protecting an ideology too.

(No that is not a slam on the south. Its just factually where the major issue was geographically located)