Expect a rush to the courthouse in Cali.  Check Hades' whereabouts.

Discuss.

no idea what u r talking about

T RAV29 wrote: no idea what u r talking about

smhow i m not surprsd tht u dont no

ok then

Reb Cpl wrote:   I just don't care for the way they choose to depict the national symbol.

How does this make you feel:

Da Hui wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: I honestly find that bastardization of our national symbol offensive.  As do I. This is just further demonstrating the suck that is california. Marriage = Man + Women

Wow, I thought you were about to break out the Adam and Steve adage. Who cares what they did to the flag, like Clark pointed out, I'd rather have that then some guy wearing the flag as a pair of boxer shorts.

Maybe I'll just salute this one instead:

That's not gonna last long.

impulse! wrote:  I'm trying to get guested.

Fixed.

Reb Cpl wrote: II am smart enough to recognize when I'm offended by something, and find it amusing when I'm picked at for not accepting others by people willing to accept every opinion, outlook, and philosophy....as long as its in alignment with their own.....to tread in other waters makes me homophobic, closed minded, and less intelligent than you.

I'm making up stuff as I go along here, but...

It seems to me that part of the issue is the extent to which a morality is developed and considered, as opposed to merely reflexive.

For instance, "gays r bad cuz it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is "closed-minded" in my book, because this person is (let's presume for my example) merely regurgitating what he has been taught, and has put no thought into why he feels this way, beyond "eww".

On the other hand, "gays are a negative influence on society because they hasten a departure from traditional gender roles and traditional family structures, and these structures are central to the success of our current form of society" is lucid and considered.  I may disagree with the conclusion, but I will not judge somebody as closed-minded based on their conclusion - it is the process that is the concern.

Same goes for flag desecration and everything else, including disdain for people that disagree.  If your position is based on a thoughtful process, then - almost by definition - you are not closed-minded, and it would be closed-minded to call you so.  And there is not doubt in my mind that people can be very closed-minded about open-mindedness.

But if your main argument for flying the confederate battle flag is "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" then I may have an issue.

Da Hui wrote: What 636 did to the flag I find highly offensive. California does suck. And marriage is between a man and women. I don't give a damn what any of you hipster indie kids come back with. The alternative lifestyles argument is rubbish.

Please do elaborate, on all three points.

Please.

Reb Cpl wrote: You've been around long enough that you ought to know my reasons for flying a confederate battle flag are NOT "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" based.

Indeed, which is why I chose that example...  :)

The battle flag issue is a great example of something that has very legitimate arguments pro and con, but also suffers from an abundance of fools on both sides, whose positions and beliefs bear no relation at all to those fine arguments.

And I love how the gay thread turned into a flag desecration thread.  Go figure.

Da Hui wrote: .636 was mocking my Flag. I find that offensive for quite obvious reasons. There is a reason California has also been referred to as commiefornia. I am sure someone as smart as you can figure out why.

"Obvious" is not a reason, nor is "you can figure it out."  I'm going to need you to be more specific.

If you want to live the "alternative lifestyle" of being a homosexual, why go after an heterosexual institution? Why not create a different form union for Homosexuals where they receive the same benefits of marriage?

Because homosexuals don't want to be treated differently?

Lots of little girls dream of their wedding day.  No little girls dream about their "civil partnership commitment ceremony day".

Civil unions are available to hetero couples as well as homo couples.  Yet very, very few hetero couples choose civil unions instead of marriage.  Why do you suppose that is, if a civil union is "just as good"?

Homosexuals want "marriage" for exactly the same reasons you don't want to share - because "marriage" is special, and anything less just won't do.

Da Hui wrote: If you want to live the "alternative lifestyle" of being a homosexual, why go after an heterosexual institution? Why not create a different form union for Homosexuals where they receive the same benefits of marriage?

I'm interested in further elaboration of this point. "An [sic] heterosexual institution[.]" Could you explain why marriage is strictly heterosexual, or what any negatives of a homosexual marriage would be? From what I quoted, you basically said, "Them dern gay-osexuals shouldn't marry. BECAUSE!!!"

jmac3 wrote: Burning flags=/=offensive. Maybe a meaning to the people burning it, but noone else should care.

I'll bet the beer money that if I stood in a public place and torched a rainbowed version of the American Flag, I'd be arrested.

Maybe I'd be burning it strictly because I don't like the symbol, not because I have anything against homosexuals, but it wouldn't matter would it? The initial view of what I'd be doing is enough to qualify as a hate crime, and I'd be next in line for prison tattoos and getting my exercise by dodging rapists in the yard.

Torch a non-altered flag and its freedom of expression.

Boss_DJ wrote: To tamper with the flag is an action of rebellion against the country's ideals.

I was going along with your logic up until this point.  This is a vast and unwarranted generalization on your part.

Why would you assume that a rainbow stars 'n stripes is an act of rebellion?  A political statement maybe, but perhaps not even that.

By that theory, are flag t-shirts an act of rebellion, since they are an "altered" flag?  My theory on flag t-shirts is that those folk like the flag so much they want to wear it.  I would suggest the same for the rainbow stripes people - those folk like this country and the flag so much that they want to incorporate the flag into their personal symbol.

The stars and stripes is a powerful symbol, and many different versions of it get used for a variety of purposes.  Often times mere hints of the flag are used for symbology, like the vaguely star/stripey background used by many news shows.

I read the rainbow flags as a simple reminder, to gays and straights alike, that gays are also Americans.

If those rainbow flags are automatically statements of "rebellion", then so are flag pins, bumper stickers and stars 'n stripes bras.  Americans are forever incorporating the flag into other uses.  The only time people get upset is when they don't like the particular use, and then suddenly it's all about preserving the flag.

And after they are complaining, they will wipe ketchup off their mouth with a stars 'n stripes napkin.

Reb Cpl wrote: I'll bet the beer money that if I stood in a public place and torched a rainbowed version of the American Flag, I'd be arrested.

I'll take that bet.

It's possible some silly cop would arrest you, but you would shortly be released with apologies.

(Arrests for disturbing the peace, arson, public endangerment and so forth are excluded from the terms of this wager.  Other conditions may apply.)

Dune wrote: Da Hui wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: I honestly find that bastardization of our national symbol offensive.  As do I. This is just further demonstrating the suck that is california. Marriage = Man + Women Wow, I thought you were about to break out the Adam and Steve adage. Who cares what they did to the flag, like Clark pointed out, I'd rather have that then some guy wearing the flag as a pair of boxer shorts.   Maybe I'll just salute this one instead:

LOL