What makes a minority?

[darin]

I see frequently Homosexuals listed as Minorities and equated with racial minorities. When does a specific behavior or preference for a behaviour, of a group of people make them eligible for protection as a 'minority'? How many folk have to have the same draw to a behavior to make it valid? How is that number determined? SHOULD any group, based on their desire or behaviour be eligible for legal protections up to and including special rights - laws written just for them excluding others?

[gabosaurus]

If you don't know what a "minority" is, you need a dictionary.

[Nukeman]

If you don't know what a "minority" is, you need a dictionary.
Please gabbs enlighten us poor dumb fools what your definition is.........

[Des]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Naturally, people have the desire for partnership, and with certain types of partnerships comes sexual exchanges. Meaning, it wouldn't be realistic for a homosexual person to marry a straight person of the opposite gender, because they would be sexually incompatible. Because homosexuals seek the right to legally recognize their relationships the same way heterosexual couples can, with legal benefits included, and they cannot based on their sexual preference or orientation, it's called discrimination. When referring to sexual relationships/partnerships, homosexuals are in the minority.

A minority is "a group differing...from the majority of the population", or "A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.... A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society." (American heritage dictionary)

[gabosaurus]

A minority is the opposite of a majority. If you are within a group that is, say, 25 percent of the whole, you are a minority.
When I was in high school, Anglos were the minority. We were 30 percent of the student population.

[MtnBiker]

Please gabbs enlighten us poor dumb fools what your definition is.........

better yet, what minorities should be recognized and should have special rights

[gabosaurus]

Some minorities do not deserve special rights. Like Republicans.

[Des]

better yet, what minorities should be recognized and should have special rights

It's not about special rights. It's about the SAME rights.

[Nukeman]

Some minorities do not deserve special rights. Like Republicans.

Umm by your definition republicans would be a Majority... :poke:

[darin]

It's not about special rights. It's about the SAME rights.

Can you name one group - one minority - which does not have the same legal
rights as any other?

[Des]

Can you name one group - one minority - which does not have the same legal
rights as any other?

People haven't always recognized certain groups as minorities until those minorities were granted the same rights as the majority. At one time, women did not have the right to case a ballot. Men did. That was a difference in legal rights, and an amendment was made to address this. Homosexuals do not have the legal right to a union, heterosexuals do.

[darin]

Homosexuals do not have the legal right to a union, heterosexuals do.

I pulled out the only part of your reply on-topic.

That's patenly false. Folks who prefer homosexual activity can obtain a legal union to a member of the opposite sex; just like normal people. Same-same.

Can you name a right the Majority has, but a minority group does not have?

[Des]

I pulled out the only part of your reply on-topic.

That's patenly false. Folks who prefer homosexual activity can obtain a legal union to a member of the opposite sex; just like normal people. Same-same.

Can you name a right the Majority has, but a minority group does not have?

People who perfer homosexual activity cannot obtain a legal union to a person according to their sexual perference for a consenting adult of the same sex. No, they do not have the same legal rights. Homosexuals prefer partners of the same sex. People naturally want a partnership, and in the case of a homosexual partnership...it would be with someone of the same sex. They couldn't have a fufilling marriage/union/sexual partnership with someone of the opposite sex.

[Yurt]

I pulled out the only part of your reply on-topic.

That's patenly false. Folks who prefer homosexual activity can obtain a legal union to a member of the opposite sex; just like normal people. Same-same.

Can you name a right the Majority has, but a minority group does not have?

federal social benefits and other fed benefits for starters, have to be "married"

in california there are also insurance laws that only benefit those "married" and a civil union is not the same.

[darin]

People who perfer homosexual activity cannot obtain a legal union to a person according to their sexual perference for a consenting adult of the same sex. No, they do not have the same legal rights. Homosexuals prefer partners of the same sex. People naturally want a partnership, and in the case of a homosexual partnership...it would be with someone of the same sex. They couldn't have a fufilling marriage/union/sexual partnership with someone of the opposite sex.

That's not true of Heterosexual couples, too. That is to say, no Heterosexual man can marry another Hetero (or even Homo) sexual man.

You're talking about things the Laws do NOT dictate "Loving, Fulfilling" whatever - all those are irrelevant to the facts of law and rights.



And you're limiting the capabilities and stereotyping homosexuals by your last line. Perhaps a Homosexual person could absolutely have a fulfilling loving union/sexual partnership with a heterosexual? Perhaps the Homosexual decideds he/she likes heterosexuality best?

The only thing you're talking about is the sexual preferences of the couple wanting to be married. Those change like the wind, at times, or can. Marriage for the sake of sex? really? Back to the question:

Can you name a group of people who do not enjoy the same rights as another group of people?

[Des]

That's not true of Heterosexual couples, too. That is to say, no Heterosexual man can marry another Hetero (or even Homo) sexual man.

You're talking about things the Laws do NOT dictate "Loving, Fulfilling" whatever - all those are irrelevant to the facts of law and rights.



And you're limiting the capabilities and stereotyping homosexuals by your last line. Perhaps a Homosexual person could absolutely have a fulfilling loving union/sexual partnership with a heterosexual? Perhaps the Homosexual decideds he/she likes heterosexuality best?

The only thing you're talking about is the sexual preferences of the couple wanting to be married. Those change like the wind, at times, or can. Marriage for the sake of sex? really? Back to the question:

Can you name a group of people who do not enjoy the same rights as another group of people?


The basis of my argument is that a homosexual person would prefer a relationship with someone of the same sex and the legal benefits that come with being married. Ignoring that just goes around in circles.

No, by definition, someone who is homosexual is attracted to someone of the same sex. Bisexuality is a person who is attracted to both sexes. It's not stereotyping, it's arguing according to the definition. A bisexual person might be able to have a fufilling sexual relationship either way, but a homosexual person will naturally prefer a partner of the same sex. Someone who is homosexual is not just going to decide they prefer a woman or man. And yes, sex is important in a marriage.

Laws and rights most defineltly do deal with happiness and fufillment...especially when it comes to a minority not having the same rights as the majority. You cannot decide anothers sexual preferences for them. You can grant two consenting adults the right to marry who they choose to marry.

Sometimes civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage.

[Yurt]

federal social benefits and other fed benefits for starters, have to be "married"

in california there are also insurance laws that only benefit those "married" and a civil union is not the same.


That's not true of Heterosexual couples, too. That is to say, no Heterosexual man can marry another Hetero (or even Homo) sexual man.

You're talking about things the Laws do NOT dictate "Loving, Fulfilling" whatever - all those are irrelevant to the facts of law and rights.



And you're limiting the capabilities and stereotyping homosexuals by your last line. Perhaps a Homosexual person could absolutely have a fulfilling loving union/sexual partnership with a heterosexual? Perhaps the Homosexual decideds he/she likes heterosexuality best?

The only thing you're talking about is the sexual preferences of the couple wanting to be married. Those change like the wind, at times, or can. Marriage for the sake of sex? really? Back to the question:

Can you name a group of people who do not enjoy the same rights as another group of people?

see above

[retiredman]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????

[manu1959]

It's not about special rights. It's about the SAME rights.

with respect to marrying someone of the same sex......no on can....thus everyone has the same rights.....

[manu1959]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????

are you arguing that you were born a jerk......because no one would choose to be as big a jerk as you.....:poke:

[darin]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????


You believe things that aren't proven? Or even things which have no evidence - no credible evidence? That's weird...and telling.


Your question is a nasty ugly logical fallacy and it's honestly stupid to the point I'm having trouble controlling my physical laughter.

[avatar4321]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????

You're kidding right? homosexuality is the latest celebrity fad.

Besides, people dont make rational choices. If they did the whole world would be conservative

[Kathianne]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Naturally, people have the desire for partnership, and with certain types of partnerships comes sexual exchanges. Meaning, it wouldn't be realistic for a homosexual person to marry a straight person of the opposite gender, because they would be sexually incompatible. Because homosexuals seek the right to legally recognize their relationships the same way heterosexual couples can, with legal benefits included, and they cannot based on their sexual preference or orientation, it's called discrimination. When referring to sexual relationships/partnerships, homosexuals are in the minority.

A minority is "a group differing...from the majority of the population", or "A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.... A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society." (American heritage dictionary)

Actually I've never jumped in much to these conversations, but you seem reasonable and not over the top. In reality, they want to redefine an institution, marriage. They have all the rights of 'marriage', yet they just feel compelled to turn it into no meaning.

In actuality, in an anthropological meaning, they want to undermine our society. Perhaps in the 'name' of what they consider more correct, but it is attacking the fiber of child rearing, monogomy, etc.

[Des]

with respect to marrying someone of the same sex......no on can....thus everyone has the same rights.....

You are ignoring that people who have a same-sex orientation would not wish to marry someone of the opposite sex. Per the "traditional" description of marriage, the issue of gender set aside.

[Des]

Actually I've never jumped in much to these conversations, but you seem reasonable and not over the top. In reality, they want to redefine an institution, marriage. They have all the rights of 'marriage', yet they just feel compelled to turn it into no meaning.

In actuality, in an anthropological meaning, they want to undermine our society. Perhaps in the 'name' of what they consider more correct, but it is attacking the fiber of child rearing, monogomy, etc.

I don't understand. Marriage is not just a Christian institution. Even if it were, only granting it to Christians based on Christian principles alone (what is a sin, what is not a sin) is blantant discrimination.

I also don't understand the "child rearing and monogamy"...are you saying that homosexual couples or even single people are incapable of monogamy? Or raising children?

[Kathianne]

I don't understand. Marriage is not just a Christian institution. Even if it were, only granting it to Christians based on Christian principles alone (what is a sin, what is not a sin) is blantant discrimination.

I also don't understand the "child rearing and monogamy"...are you saying that homosexual couples or even single people are incapable of monogamy? Or raising children?

Hell's bells, I was NOT speaking from a Christian viewpoint, truth is I haven't a problem with the state giving full rights to civil unions. Way back in 70's I thought any significant other should be allowed medical knowledge, input, and right to inherit.

Don't jack the thread about monogomy or child rearing. It's the 'stamp of marriage' that does that, not stable couples.

[darin]

So - seems we've decided a person or group of people's BEHAVIOUR is enough to qaulify them to get our Government to adjust laws to grant them permissions the rest of the population does not have.

We happen to see that currently with homosexual partners who get benefits HETEROSEUXAL Partners do not. (http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4194941.html) Yet - homos want MORE.

Instead of giving them benefits that encourage their illness, the Gov't should get them the therapy they desperately need.

[Kathianne]

So - seems we've decided a person or group of people's BEHAVIOUR is enough to qaulify them to get our Government to adjust laws to grant them permissions the rest of the population does not have.

We happen to see that currently with homosexual partners who get benefits HETEROSEUXAL Partners do not. (http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4194941.html) Yet - homos want MORE.

Instead of giving them benefits that encourage their illness, the Gov't should get them the therapy they desperately need.

My point exactly. They are not looking for 'rights' but 'extraordinary rights.'

[Abbey Marie]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Naturally, people have the desire for partnership, and with certain types of partnerships comes sexual exchanges. Meaning, it wouldn't be realistic for a homosexual person to marry a straight person of the opposite gender, because they would be sexually incompatible.
...


How would they be sexually incompatible? It seems to me that gay couples strive primarily to simulate the process of hetero sex anyway. They just accomplish it with slightly different body parts/gadgets.

[5stringJeff]

A minority is the opposite of a majority. If you are within a group that is, say, 25 percent of the whole, you are a minority.
When I was in high school, Anglos were the minority. We were 30 percent of the student population.

As a Southerner, I am a minority in America. I deserve a Constitutional Amendment, laws, and regulations to protect my freedoms. I deserve programs to ensure that I'm hired before other, more qualified non-Southereners, and that every company everywhere, even outside the South, hires a sufficient quantity of Southerners. Finally, any time anyone says anything remotely bad about Southerners, I deserve to have that speech punished by special "hate-crime" legislation.

Discuss.

[Abbey Marie]

With a tested high IQ, I am a very small minority. Help.

[crin63]

I'm a minority.
I'm a 3rd generation white male of Italian descent born in California. I should get free pizza every time I want pizza to eat. I should get free Italian suits and shoes.

[darin]

...and Puppets who want to be Real Boys!

(that'd go over BIG at Neverland Ranch AND the Bay Area!)

[Kathianne]

With a tested high IQ, I am a very small minority. Help.

Not so much around these parts. Gotta find lower IQ hang outs. ;)

[Des]

How would they be sexually incompatible? It seems to me that gay couples strive primarily to simulate the process of hetero sex anyway. They just accomplish it with slightly different body parts/gadgets.

Let me explain.

A gay man wants a man to have sex with.

A gay woman wants a woman to have sex with.

[Abbey Marie]

Let me explain.

A gay man wants a man to have sex with.

A gay woman wants a woman to have sex with.

Condescend much?

How about addressing my point, btw.

[Immanuel]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????

They're masochists?

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Not so much around these parts. Gotta find lower IQ hang outs. ;)

True that.

[darin]

Condescend much?

How about addressing my point, btw.

Liberal SOP, Abbey - you shouldn't be surprised.

[Kathianne]

Condescend much?

How about addressing my point, btw.

He stepped right up in the middle of our conversation to prove the exception. ;)

[AlbumAddict]

and folks on the right seem to feel as if it is a proven fact that homosexuality is a choice people make versus an inborn attraction. The jury is still out on that, and, from my perspective...why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to take on all the grief and hassle and censure and discrimination that comes with being gay? If it really was a choice, why would anyone choose that?????

The same reason there are people who choose to be Christian in Muslim countries. They love someone enough to make it worth it? Just a thought....

[Des]

Condescend much?

How about addressing my point, btw.

I don't know how else to try to explain my point of view.

Sexuality is not just about sexual function or body parts. A homosexual has a different orientation than a heterosexual. They could derive pleasure the same way a straight person would, but that doesn't mean anything, because a straight person could derive pleasure the same way a gay person would, too. No? Why? Because they prefer someone of the opposite sex? Why is it so wrong to assume the same mindset is normal for a homosexual person, just flipped around. Sex, as it pertains to a relationship, isn't about being physical, and if you've been in one...you know that.

[avatar4321]

I don't know how else to try to explain my point of view.

Sexuality is not just about sexual function or body parts. A homosexual has a different orientation than a heterosexual. They could derive pleasure the same way a straight person would, but that doesn't mean anything, because a straight person could derive pleasure the same way a gay person would, too. No? Why? Because they prefer someone of the opposite sex? Why is it so wrong to assume the same mindset is normal for a homosexual person, just flipped around. Sex, as it pertains to a relationship, isn't about being physical, and if you've been in one...you know that.

Thanks for reaffirming what we've been saying in that it's a choice.

BTW you an have whatever viewpoint you want. That doesnt mean it's ever going to be right.

[darin]

BTW you an have whatever viewpoint you want. That doesnt mean it's ever going to be right.

Absolutely. All the good-intention in the world never turned a falsehood into a truth.

:cheers2:

[Des]

Thanks for reaffirming what we've been saying in that it's a choice.

BTW you an have whatever viewpoint you want. That doesnt mean it's ever going to be right.

I haven't reaffirmed anything, you have by bolding a single word in an argument you still refuse to address.

[crin63]

I haven't reaffirmed anything, you have by bolding a single word in an argument you still refuse to address.

Slice it, dice it, spin it around and stand it on its head and still going to be wrong, unnatural and not deserving of acceptance because you want it to be.

[Des]

Slice it, dice it, spin it around and stand it on its head and still going to be wrong, unnatural and not deserving of acceptance because you want it to be.

I don't think intolerance to the point some people will go on the subject of homosexuality is deserving of acceptance or right, either. I also don't take such opinons personally...after all, this is an internet chat forum. Most people don't talk as passionately or feel as deeply about these things in "real life", which is a good reason to come here. For intelligent discussion and conversation. I deal with my opinions in life enough not to be agressive about them online and ignore the fact that something good can come out of two people debating an issue.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Perceiving something as wrong does not make it so. Don't ignore or belittle Christianity;s historical tendency to put its foot in its mouth.

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. All human sexual behaviors are natural. Homosexuality is in an arena of it's own, and not tied in with other harmful sexual behaviors. Homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom, as well as asexuality and other "unnatural" things that couldn't possibly influenced by men. I have a friend who lives in California, she said her children didn't even know what the words "gay marriage" meant until they saw the anti-gay marriage commercials there. Interesting.

Homosexuals don't deserve acceptance. No one does. They deserve tolerance and equality, the same thing we want as people who live, work, and sometimes fight for this country.

[crin63]

I don't think intolerance to the point some people will go on the subject of homosexuality is deserving of acceptance or right, either. I also don't take such opinons personally...after all, this is an internet chat forum. Most people don't talk as passionately or feel as deeply about these things in "real life", which is a good reason to come here. For intelligent discussion and conversation. I deal with my opinions in life enough not to be agressive about them online and ignore the fact that something good can come out of two people debating an issue.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Perceiving something as wrong does not make it so. Don't ignore or belittle Christianity;s historical tendency to put its foot in its mouth.

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. All human sexual behaviors are natural. Homosexuality is in an arena of it's own, and not tied in with other harmful sexual behaviors. Homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom, as well as asexuality and other "unnatural" things that couldn't possibly influenced by men. I have a friend who lives in California, she said her children didn't even know what the words "gay marriage" meant until they saw the anti-gay marriage commercials there. Interesting.

Homosexuals don't deserve acceptance. No one does. They deserve tolerance and equality, the same thing we want as people who live, work, and sometimes fight for this country.

I actually talk more passionately about things in real life than I do here most of the time. Mostly what you get from me here is what you get from me in person.

Yes all homosexuality is wrong, its a sin just as any other sexual sin except that it can never be right even if marriage were allowed by the people and it is an unnatural act. I wont tolerate it or treat it as equal. Thats not going to happen now or ever.

Christianity has never put its foot in its mouth so I have no idea where you came up with that. Christians fail from time to time but Christianity has never failed. Christ cannot fail.

[darin]

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.


Sexually transmitted diseases are without a doubt the most serious consequence of homosexual behavior. Practicing homosexuals as a group account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and syphilis (Mireya Navarro, "Federal Officials See Sharp Rise of Hepatitis Among Gay Men," The New York Times, March 6, 1992). According to the American Medical Association, homosexual youth are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals (American Adolescents: How Healthy Are They?, American Medical Association, 1990, p.31).

Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, and four times as likely to have scabies (New England Journal of Medicine 317:973,1987).

A recent study of Massachusetts teenagers, published in the American Journal of Public Health (Anne H. Faulkner and Kevin Cranston, "Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students," February 1998, p. 264) discovered that self-identified gays were:

nine times more likely to have reported using alcohol on a daily basis;
six times more likely to report having recently used cocaine than their heterosexual counterparts;
nineteen times more likely to report having used cocaine on ten or more occasions per month;
five times more likely to report having used other illegal drugs, including cocaine, twenty or more times in their lives;
nearly seven times more likely to report ever having injected an illegal drug;
fifty percent more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have considered committing suicide.
The average homosexual of any age is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992).

Life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS is about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual (Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, The Homosexual Lifespan, Family Research Institute, Feb 14, 1992). Surprisingly, AIDS has only a modest effect on the average life expectancy of a homosexual male. The average age of men dying from AIDS is 39. The average age of homosexuals dying from all other causes is even more revealing: 41. Only one percent die of old age. In study after study, less than three percent of all homosexuals surveyed are over the age of 55.

Why is homosexuality such a dangerous lifestyle? Part of the reason is the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals. Homosexualities (1978, page 308) an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous" (defined as 10 or fewer lifetime partners). Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.
http://www.new-life.net/hmsxl01.htm





There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality.


Nor is there anything unnatural about Snake venom. Rape, Murder, and Lying.



All human sexual behaviors are natural.

Pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, too?



Homosexuality is in an arena of it's own, and not tied in with other harmful sexual behaviors.



Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005

The medical dangers of homosexuality are also underemphasized.
Its devotees show much higher rates of sexually
transmitted disease, substance abuse, and mental illness. While
they comprise only about 2 percent of the population, homosexuals
represented 21 percent of hepatitisBcases in 1988, and 44 percent
of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cases between 2000
and 2003. They contract syphilis at a rate three to four times higher
than nonhomosexuals. Anal intercourse causes hemorrhoids, anal
fissures, anorectal trauma, and retained foreign bodies, and creates
high risk for anal cancer. Among male homosexuals engaging in
oral-to-anal contact, an extremely high rate of parasitic and other
intestinal infections exists.
Homosexuality is also associated with higher mortality.Amajor
Canadian medical center found the life expectancy at age 20 years
for gay and bisexual men was 8 to 20 years less than that for all men.
It further estimated that nearly half of today's gay and bisexual 20-
year-olds would not reach their 65th birthday




Homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom,

Humans are not 'animals'. Humans don't eat their young. Human females don't eat their mates after mating. Using the argument "Animals do it!" is lame because Humans are BETTER than animals.

Plus, if you were a dolphin, could you REALLY tell the difference between a male and female dolphin? I couldn't. :)


The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows: - Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.

- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,

It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and

Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

...
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality: Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:j6iG58TtVpIJ:www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html+Does+homosexuality+REALLY+happen+i n+the+animal+kingdom%3F&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1






I have a friend who lives in California, she said her children didn't even know what the words "gay marriage" meant until they saw the anti-gay marriage commercials there. Interesting.


That's a neat story. [austin powers voice =on] What's your point, Vanessa?[/voice]




Homosexuals don't deserve acceptance. No one does. They deserve tolerance and equality, the same thing we want as people who live, work, and sometimes fight for this country.

You don't want tolerance. Nor do most the more-vocal homosexuals. They want people to buy-in to their lifestyle being GOOD. They want a clear conscious. They want to be able to feel better about their abhorrent lifestyle.

[Des]

I actually talk more passionately about things in real life than I do here most of the time. Mostly what you get from me here is what you get from me in person.

Yes all homosexuality is wrong, its a sin just as any other sexual sin except that it can never be right even if marriage were allowed by the people and it is an unnatural act. I wont tolerate it or treat it as equal. Thats not going to happen now or ever.

Christianity has never put its foot in its mouth so I have no idea where you came up with that. Christians fail from time to time but Christianity has never failed. Christ cannot fail.


Homosexuality occurs naturally in humans and animals, especially when populations have increased, at similar rates. It is natural. Comparing homosexuality to beastiality makes absolutely no sense. An animal cannot consent to sex with a human. A child cannot consent to sex with an adult.

Explain to me how some basic Christian beliefs, like the earth being flat, scientests being evil, women or men identified by their peers as witches, women being unequal to men, slaverly being acceptable and encouraged...have not changed and even reversed. It's easy to say in hindsight something was a bad idea, especially when one equates their own personal spirituality with something they see as perfect. You're very right, people do fail, and they have historically in the name of their religion...only to forget what really happened and claim that they have it "right" this time.

Marriage is not unique to Christians, why should they hold a monopoloy over how others choose to marry or not marry? Because they have some sort of idea that their basic beliefs NOW are somehow more correct than the same sorts of beliefs they've had in the past that they currently denounce? Because marriage in this country has remained exactly the same even over the last 100 years?

[darin]

You obviously didn't read the learning material I posted for you. Read that again, then come back and edit your comments to CR? :)



Explain to me how some basic Christian beliefs, like the earth being flat, scientests being evil, women or men identified by their peers as witches, women being unequal to men, slaverly being acceptable and encouraged...have not changed and even reversed.

Hey Hero....CHRISTIANS weren't the ones mandating the earth was FLAT...it was the Secular Sceintists of the day. :)

Christians did NOT propegate Slavery OR unequal rights. Look - are you daft? I mean that in the most sincere way. You are obviously uneducated on history - you are welcome to your GUESS as to how it went down...but your opinions on the matter are based in pure ignorance.

[Des]

You obviously didn't read the learning material I posted for you. Read that again, then come back and edit your comments to CR? :)

I did read it, it's an article that didn't factor in things like modern healthcare. If homosexual behavior is natural, it would be treatable, the same way the offspring of some animal could be treated for the disease its parent would do away with it for.


You obviously didn't read the learning material I posted for you. Read that again, then come back and edit your comments to CR? :)



Hey Hero....CHRISTIANS weren't the ones mandating the earth was FLAT...it was the Secular Sceintists of the day. :)

Christians did NOT propegate Slavery OR unequal rights. Look - are you daft? I mean that in the most sincere way. You are obviously uneducated on history - you are welcome to your GUESS as to how it went down...but your opinions on the matter are based in pure ignorance.

Christians didn't? Yes, they did. Christians most certainly did propogate slavery and the belief that the earth was flat. The fact that modern Christians don't identify with those beliefs only proves that basic beliefs have made way for social change over the years.

[avatar4321]

Christians didn't? Yes, they did. Christians most certainly did propogate slavery and the belief that the earth was flat. The fact that modern Christians don't identify with those beliefs only proves that basic beliefs have made way for social change over the years.

Wow... talk about delusional....

You should probably do some research into the abolitionist movement.

[darin]

I did read it, it's an article that didn't factor in things like modern healthcare. If homosexual behavior is natural, it would be treatable, the same way the offspring of some animal could be treated for the disease its parent would do away with it for.


Look - you didn't read it OR you think YOU are smarter than the scientists who studied and reported their findings. Are you a liar or egomaniac? Healthcare is not relevant to the facts of the case - Homos are diagnosed (that means they GET) more VD, etc, than others in our society not suffering from that particular mental affliction. It's pretty simple, really.



Christians didn't? Yes, they did. Christians most certainly did propogate slavery and the belief that the earth was flat. The fact that modern Christians don't identify with those beliefs only proves that basic beliefs have made way for social change over the years.

You are a nutjob - that answers it. You REFUSE to learn. You're the worst kind of liberal - one who confuses 'free thinking' with 'block headed'. PLEASE show me an instance of Christianity PROPAGATING Slavery.



The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape.

Luckily for White there were then, as there are now, a few fringe writers who could be counted upon to support any point of view no matter how wild. Cosmas Indicopleustes was one such man. He was a merchant traveller who retired to become a monk in the Egyptian desert where he wrote a treatise on Christian Topology that included his flat Earth cosmology. It was widely ignored at the time and Christian scholars like John Philoponus derided it as the work of an uneducated fool. So it was and it was soon forgotten. Because it was written in Greek, it was unavailable and unknown in the Latin West where, contrary to White's insinuations, it had no influence at all. First published with a Latin translation only in 1776, the book has since gained far wider recognition that it ever had in its day.

Lactantius was another church father who did seem sure the earth was flat but no one paid much attention to him either. Other early Christians may well have simply been using common language that we still use today. Saying "to the ends of the earth", "the four corners of the world" or "the sun sank into the sea" does not make you a flat Earther and we should treat ancient people with the same generosity. What can be stated categorically was that a flat Earth was at no time ever an element of Christian doctrine and that no one was ever persecuted or pressurised into believing it. This is interesting because the Bible itself implies the Earth is flat (for example at Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles) and most of its writers (certainly those of the Old Testament) probably thought so. Clearly, belief in the complete scientific accuracy of the scriptures against known facts was not upheld by the early or medieval church who were happy to accept a figurative interpretation. You can read a full analysis of the different writers who have mentioned the shape of the earth in the e-book The Flat Earth by 'Ethical Atheist'.

Anti-clerical history of science writers have promulgated the myth so that even today, in his book The Discoverers, Daniel Boorstin manages to produce a totally misleading account (although he eventually gets Columbus right). His bias shows badly when he castigates Christians for thinking the world was flat when they did not and then praises the erudition of Chinese geographers who actually did believe it. The myth is so prevalent that the blurb on the back cover of the UK version of Umberto Eco's Serendipities, the editor repeats the myth even though within the book itself, Eco devotes a good deal of attention to debunking it!

The doyen of historians of Medieval Science, Edward Grant, covers the issue in his new book, God and Reason in the Middle Ages where he finds all educated people in the Middle Ages were well aware the Earth was a sphere. Perhaps today we can at last dispense with this patronising belief about the Christian Middle Ages. (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm)


Now - after reading that - still sticking to your uneducated opinions? Still fighting to maintain your ego?

[Des]

Wow... talk about delusional....

You should probably do some research into the abolitionist movement.

Intead of insulting me, maybe you could present me with all the information I apparantly don't have so I can debate it?

During the Inquisition, torture devices were engraved with Christian symbols so "blasphemers" would know who they were suffering for. There is a similar process in which most Christian denominations shift in the areas of tolerance for the things I "don't know" about...slavery being one of them. The abolitionist movement is a perfect example of this. Christianity was pretty divided over slavery. That still doesn't mean the people who once believed it was acceptable weren't Christian, it means they adopted their beliefs to social change. Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

[darin]

I Can lead a horse to water....

You are hard headed. I've provided what you claim - now stop playing the victim and either admit you REFUSE to engage in honest debate or START engaging. Your hard-headedness is NOT a positive attribute in this instance, kiddo.

Christianity NEVER propagated slavery.

[Des]

Look - you didn't read it OR you think YOU are smarter than the scientists who studied and reported their findings. Are you a liar or egomaniac? Healthcare is not relevant to the facts of the case - Homos are diagnosed (that means they GET) more VD, etc, than others in our society not suffering from that particular mental affliction. It's pretty simple, really.



You are a nutjob - that answers it. You REFUSE to learn. You're the worst kind of liberal - one who confuses 'free thinking' with 'block headed'. PLEASE show me an instance of Christianity PROPAGATING Slavery.



Now - after reading that - still sticking to your uneducated opinions? Still fighting to maintain your ego?

The history Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church is a shining example of how logic has overcome the literal translation of Bibical scripture. He was one of the first to change their views according to what they saw, and that included denouncing the belief that the earth was the center of our solar system. The Roman Catholic Church also promoted the belief that the earth was flat, based on literal scripture. Unless the Roman Catholic Church has no ties to Christianity or influence over it, there is nothing "block headed" about my opinion.


I Can lead a horse to water....

You are hard headed. I've provided what you claim - now stop playing the victim and either admit you REFUSE to engage in honest debate or START engaging. Your hard-headedness is NOT a positive attribute in this instance, kiddo.

Christianity NEVER propagated slavery.

Yes, it did. The situation was wracked with conflict (what if the slaves became Christian...would it be morally right to hold another Christian in servitude?), but there WERE Christians and churches that propagated slavery. Otherwise, the movement to end slavery wouldn't have been neccesary...religious beliefs catch up with the times. Just as the Bible supposedly states that homosexuality is a sin, it states that the buying and selling of other humans is acceptable. Individual Christians owned slaves, churches owned slaves. Because a group of people stood up (standing up against SOMETHING) and spoke out against slavery does not mean at the time, Christianity agreed.

[darin]

That not a christian propagation of slavery. That's the realities of the day unto which Christians were forced. Did you know being a 'slave' back then wasn't like what you may think of slavery today?

Doctors, for instance, and other folk who tended to the physical needs of others might be slaves - and live VERY well.


Show me please, where you get the idea the bible says it's 'acceptable' to buy and sell slaves? I have a feeling you don't understand what you're talking about.;)

[Des]

That not a christian propagation of slavery. That's the realities of the day unto which Christians were forced. Did you know being a 'slave' back then wasn't like what you may think of slavery today?

Doctors, for instance, and other folk who tended to the physical needs of others might be slaves - and live VERY well.


Show me please, where you get the idea the bible says it's 'acceptable' to buy and sell slaves? I have a feeling you don't understand what you're talking about.;)

No one forced Christians to own slaves. Not only did individual Christians owned slaves, churches owned them as well. Frederick Douglas (sp?) wrote about a particular slave "holding area" being kept next to a church. If you do not believe that Christians and their churches alike propogated slavery at any time, read up on people like Jefferson Davis. There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery.

All NT:
Ephesians 6:5-9
Colossians 4:1
1 Timothy 6:1-3

[darin]

No one forced Christians to own slaves. Not only did individual Christians owned slaves, churches owned them as well. Frederick Douglas (sp?) wrote about a particular slave "holding area" being kept next to a church. If you do not believe that Christians and their churches alike propogated slavery at any time, read up on people like Jefferson Davis. There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery.

All NT:
Ephesians 6:5-9
Colossians 4:1
1 Timothy 6:1-3


Eph. 6:5-9 -
Slaves and Masters
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

How is that propagating slavery? That's instructions to be humble, and obedient if you're a slave, and if you own slaves to treat them well, because you are no better than they, in the big picture. That was teaching for the rules SOCIETY placed upon it's membership. That was NOT a biblical-endorsement of slavery as a 'good' thing - and to be honest, what THEY called slaves, we'd likely call 'butlers' today.

Colossians 4:1
1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven

Again - the word slave or servant is interchangeable and NOT relflecting anything but a teaching how to cope with the place we happen to be.

1 Timothy 6:1-3
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.


Righto - BE RESPECTFUL TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF YOU. Be Humble.


You are really clueless as to what stuff MEANS...You are only concerned about cherry picking on a surface-level those out of context lines which SEEM to support your hard-headedness. What you are reading as 'slavery' is MORE akin to 'Indentured Survant' than the Kidnapping of Africans BY Africans, who in turn brought them to these shores and sold at auction into forced labor.



“It need hardly be said that we abhor the injustice, cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade. It is justly condemned by the public law of Christendom. . . . It is condemned by the law of God. Moses placed this among the judicial statutes of the Jews: ‘And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.’”2 There is no indication that Exodus 21:16 only has Israelites in mind. If it does, then verse 12 would also only apply to Israelites since its language is similar to that of verse 16:

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death” (21:12).
“And he who kidnaps a man whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (21:16).
James B. Jordan offers a good summary of the issues involved: “The Bible punishes all man-stealing with a mandatory death penalty. In Deuteronomy 24:7, the kidnapping of covenant members is particularly forbidden, but in Exodus 21:16, all man-stealing is prohibited. It might be maintained that if we read v. 16 in context of v. 2, it is only Hebrews who are protected and avenged by this law. The text simply says ‘man,’ however, and there is no indication in the immediate context (vv. 12, 14) that ‘man’ is restricted to covenant members.”3

http://laiglesforum.com/2006/04/29/does-the-bible-support-slavery-part-1-the-first-shall-be-last/



Israel was warned by GOD to NOT forget their time as Slaves in Egypt under a Liberal Pharroh (okay, so I made the Liberal Part up). The Romans instituted/supported slavery. As Romans came to know Christ, they were taught to deal with their SERVANTS kindly and humanely.

[hjmick]

It seems to me that all too often people seeking to put down religion, fail to look to the times in which scripture of all faiths was writen. Two words: historical context.

[retiredman]

Slaves are still "owned". Slaves are still "under the yoke of slavery".

[Hull]

Let me explain.

A gay man wants a man to have sex with.

A gay woman wants a woman to have sex with.

That's called incompatibility, not compatable. Don't you know what sexual parts were made to use with what?

[darin]

Slaves are still "owned". Slaves are still "under the yoke of slavery".

Yet they go there -under that yoke, WILLINGLY.


Obama 08!


:(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(I kid)...

I really meant 'KeepingUpWithTheJoneses' and 'Looking to material accumulation to provide what's lacking in their heart - a relationship with their Creator"

:)

[retiredman]

It seems to me that all too often people seeking to put down religion, fail to look to the times in which scripture of all faiths was writen. Two words: historical context.

I am not seeking to put down religion and I agree with you concerning historical context. Slavery was an approved practice back then in a prior historical context. Not today. Interracial marriage was outlawed in American "back then" in a prior historical context. not today. Gay marriage is outlawed in today's historical context. Tomorrow will have another historical context all its own.

[Des]

That's called incompatibility, not compatable. Don't you know what sexual parts were made to use with what?

For what, conception? Or pleasure? For the latter, all sexual parts can fit just as well with the others.


Eph. 6:5-9 -
Slaves and Masters
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

How is that propagating slavery? That's instructions to be humble, and obedient if you're a slave, and if you own slaves to treat them well, because you are no better than they, in the big picture. That was teaching for the rules SOCIETY placed upon it's membership. That was NOT a biblical-endorsement of slavery as a 'good' thing - and to be honest, what THEY called slaves, we'd likely call 'butlers' today.

Colossians 4:1
1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven

Again - the word slave or servant is interchangeable and NOT relflecting anything but a teaching how to cope with the place we happen to be.

1 Timothy 6:1-3
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.


Righto - BE RESPECTFUL TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF YOU. Be Humble.


You are really clueless as to what stuff MEANS...You are only concerned about cherry picking on a surface-level those out of context lines which SEEM to support your hard-headedness. What you are reading as 'slavery' is MORE akin to 'Indentured Survant' than the Kidnapping of Africans BY Africans, who in turn brought them to these shores and sold at auction into forced labor.




Israel was warned by GOD to NOT forget their time as Slaves in Egypt under a Liberal Pharroh (okay, so I made the Liberal Part up). The Romans instituted/supported slavery. As Romans came to know Christ, they were taught to deal with their SERVANTS kindly and humanely.

I hardly think "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear" can be applied in the context you are trying to apply it in. It is illegal to own somebody, regardless of the way they are treated. THAT'S slavery. The Bible is providing rules according to the times it was addressing. How would any other passage hold any water if this one has changed so much in meaning? Do you really think the so-called "servants" of the Roman era you are speaking of could have "servants" today, even if they were treated humanely? Slavery is the ownership of another human being, regardless of how they are treated.

Many slaves in Bibical times were captors of war, or born into slavery. How is this different than Africans being shipped to the US?

Slave and servant became interchangeable in the Bible after slavery was abolished, not before.

[-Cp]

There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery.

So are you saying that everyone who works at a job for someone else is a slave to them?

[Des]

So are you saying that everyone who works at a job for someone else is a slave to them?

No, if you read what was written....

[The ClayTaurus]

So - seems we've decided a person or group of people's BEHAVIOUR is enough to qaulify them to get our Government to adjust laws to grant them permissions the rest of the population does not have.If homosexuals were allowed to marry, exactly what permisisons would they be getting that no one else would have?

[darin]

...the right to marry somebody of the same sex. Right now - NOBODY is allowed to do so. They want the law changed to reflect their behaviour. (a destructive behaviour to themselves and drain on society, too).

Miss ya Clay.

[Yurt]

isn't that legislating morality?

[The ClayTaurus]

...the right to marry somebody of the same sex. Right now - NOBODY is allowed to do so. They want the law changed to reflect their behaviour. (a destructive behaviour to themselves and drain on society, too).

Miss ya Clay.That doesn't grant them any special permission. Just as they are currently able to marry someone of the opposite gender, you'd be able to marry someone of the same gender under the proposed change.

This line of logic always slays me: Homos have the same rights as heteros currently, but allowing same-sex marriage would somehow grant special homo-only rights.

Can't have it both ways.

My 2 cents (not that anyone specifically asked): Government should get out of the marriage business entirely and into the civil union business. The religious houses can dictate what is and is not a marriage. Seems most people are ok with same sex couples getting equal benefits. Most people against it just don't want the word marriage "sullied." IMO

[The ClayTaurus]

isn't that legislating morality?Isn't what legislating morality?

[Yurt]

Isn't what legislating morality?

saying homos can't marry

[retiredman]

That doesn't grant them any special permission. Just as they are currently able to marry someone of the opposite gender, you'd be able to marry someone of the same gender under the proposed change.

This line of logic always slays me: Homos have the same rights as heteros currently, but allowing same-sex marriage would somehow grant special homo-only rights.

Can't have it both ways.

My 2 cents (not that anyone specifically asked): Government should get out of the marriage business entirely and into the civil union business. The religious houses can dictate what is and is not a marriage. Seems most people are ok with same sex couples getting equal benefits. Most people against it just don't want the word marriage "sullied." IMO

very well said. And I agree completely. The church should stay out of the legal business of civil unions and the state should stay out of the religious business of holy matrimony.

[The ClayTaurus]

very well said. And I agree completely. The church should stay out of the legal business of civil unions and the state should stay out of the religious business of holy matrimony.Well now you've just blacklisted my opinion as "Absolutely Wrong" :p

[retiredman]

Well now you've just blacklisted my opinion as "Absolutely Wrong" :p

sorry...maybe I should swear at you and get you back in everyone's good graces ;)

[Immanuel]

Well now you've just blacklisted my opinion as "Absolutely Wrong" :p

That is okay, mine too. Not that anyone listens to me anyway.

Immie

[Yurt]

sorry...maybe I should swear at you and get you back in everyone's good graces ;)

as if it is only your swearing :rolleyes:

[Yurt]

as if I could ever give a FUCK what a stalking creepy loser ambulance chasing PI failed attorney would ever think about ME!:lol:

go fuck yourself yurt. you have had PLENTY of opportunity toi end this thing but have passed on every one of them. I wouldn't piss on your sorry ass if you were on fire.

thank you for proving my point....

you have the power to end this, and you informed me yesterday you would, then you went on a rampage

[crin63]

That is okay, mine too. Not that anyone listens to me anyway.

Immie

Did you say something Immie? :coffee:

[Yurt]

does anyone know other countries that have special minority rights?

[The ClayTaurus]

Fucking stop it.

[Yurt]

Fucking stop it.

hey, do you know of any countries that have minority rights?

[The ClayTaurus]

hey, do you know of any countries that have minority rights?No, but I'm hardly an expert. I'm sure there probably are.