Boycott Mountain Bike Action and other Hi-Torque publications
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
Why the hell would anyone read that magazine to begin with? Their outside interests should be the least of the valid reasons not to give them money.
I do oppose gay marriage, but if that WERE a magazine I did read I would stop simply for the audacity of spending that kind of money on some stupid special interest ****. Moto magazines are generally pretty redneck but I'd stop buying those in an instant if I found out they were supporting either of those sides with large sums of cash, or anything else with religious affiliation.
FYI, do not confuse an opinion with a phobia. The natural order of things is for men and women to attract and that is what a marriage celebrates. If they want a civil union of some kind so they can adopt/get insurance/set up their will, then fine.
I don't plan on getting married because the government now has far too much involvement in marriage and it leaves the massive opportunity to lose about everything (especially for a man), so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I think before anything else happens we need to put a ban on divorces. People will start taking the whole thing a lot more seriously, gays included - you never know, they may not even want it anymore!
I do oppose gay marriage, but if that WERE a magazine I did read I would stop simply for the audacity of spending that kind of money on some stupid special interest ****. Moto magazines are generally pretty redneck but I'd stop buying those in an instant if I found out they were supporting either of those sides with large sums of cash, or anything else with religious affiliation.
FYI, do not confuse an opinion with a phobia. The natural order of things is for men and women to attract and that is what a marriage celebrates. If they want a civil union of some kind so they can adopt/get insurance/set up their will, then fine.
I don't plan on getting married because the government now has far too much involvement in marriage and it leaves the massive opportunity to lose about everything (especially for a man), so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I think before anything else happens we need to put a ban on divorces. People will start taking the whole thing a lot more seriously, gays included - you never know, they may not even want it anymore!
A not totally true. Do some looking into the animal kingdom and you will find MANY 'natural' species that do not follow this 'order'...from gender changing, to self fertilizing/hermaphroditic species, to homosexual, incestual and orgy engaging primates.........
THe idea of a single male and single female forming a lasting pair is quite an oddity in 'nature'.
Marrage is a religious idea that has absolutely nothing to do with nature. Celebrating a one night stand, or creating the most offsrping with the most mates would be a much more 'natural' celebration.
Last edited:
cush tastic.....
I assume you have the same opinion I would if no one in my family was gay:
Who cares if gays want to get married? Give them the same opportunity to ruin their lives as much as straights.
A big piece of the right wing argument is that gay marriage threatens "traditional" marriage. That is why they calling the bills the "defense of marriage" bills when they try to pass them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052000862.html
This whole "religion versus gay marriage" thing here is cracking me up! They don't have to be mutually exclusive, you know. There are some churches that are working FOR gay marriage and rights. That's walking the talk!
Don't you know that gay marriage is the first sign of the incoming apocalypse and If it was allowed the nazis on dinosaurs would return? Then only magical mormon underpants would guard us from evil...
So I've heard!
What really both simulteanously cracks me up and makes me think the apocalypse is coming is just good old hypocrisy, such as married Republican "religious" Senators hooking up with man sex in various airport restrooms!
Nice, a summary with such the ironic touch. If you truly hate gays you will afford them their right to purchase the noose.
As far as the notion of homosexuality being a choice, then that by default means you have to choose to become heterosexual. That just doesn't jibe with me because i get a chub when i think of smooth skin, boobs, curves and vag, but however hard i could try i don't think i can ever get myself to be worked up over beard, muscle, spooge, cock and balls.... But in order for Stinky's premise to be true, then it is quite possible for me to warm up to this notion? Just not true, and if it were, then how does a church explain Hermaphodites and the other sexual curveballs that happen to people from birth.
i do think there are other issues that Sanjuro brings up that are pretty important to this topic. You say you don't mind if people hate to themselves. In your view has not that very ignorance contributed to this point, and now has resulted in an unfavorable law in your view. And what does this speak of to the democratic process.
It's an interesting and historic precedent for this to occur than in the State of California of all places.
The interesting question to me is defining the institution of marriage itself and how does this impact how churches must adapt to conform to the law. It really doesn't since gays can still get married in a gay church, but this law would just make it legally invalid. So to me it's churches using government to undermine another church's ceremony which again is ironic, but not surprising.
Nobody has any real answers but one thing is for certain. This thread is teh ghey!!!!:biggrin:
No you are like retards, and no you can't help it. But that's beside the point.
Using different analogies is really unfair, but let's run with something we have in common. We are both alcoholics. i choose to lead a sober lifestyle, you choose not to. But we are still both alcoholics and we never chose to be.
Steve, I don't think your point is valid. Just because someone voted "Yes" on prop 8 doesn't mean he hates gays. The majority of the time, the ultra conservative religious bible thumping whack jobs just are more concerned with the term "Marriage", and want to keep "marriage" between man & woman. Most don't care if they spend the rest of their lives together, and receive the same benefits as a traditional married couple, again it's the "marriage" word that bothers them. I personally voted "No" on prop 8, because it really has no bearing on my life and if they are happy, that's all that matters with me. Basically you're hating because they don't share the same views as you, that's not right.
Gay marriage does threaten conventional marriage.
Just ask Ted Haggard...
Now, if you're a religious closet case, I can understand why you don't want gay marriage legal. You're trying so hard to pretend that your wife's vagina is something else, why have another temptation in you life? You're best of just sucking on a drug dealing gay prostitute. That's what real Christians do.
Just ask Ted Haggard...
Now, if you're a religious closet case, I can understand why you don't want gay marriage legal. You're trying so hard to pretend that your wife's vagina is something else, why have another temptation in you life? You're best of just sucking on a drug dealing gay prostitute. That's what real Christians do.
Some folks are just pissed that society has prevented them from marrying multiple wives and openly beating them like their religion promised them. Just sharing the oppression.
Huh, I've always thought the biggest threat to marriage is a vindictive mother-in-law...
Someone sent me an email with words rearranged the other day. My favorite is:
MOTHER-IN-LAW:
When you rearrange the letters:
WOMAN HITLER
When you rearrange the letters:
WOMAN HITLER
Yup yup yup
If you play around with the words from Mountain Bike Action
you get...
man on butt cake
But there is 3 i's an O and an N left over, so it's kinda cheatin....
you get...
man on butt cake
But there is 3 i's an O and an N left over, so it's kinda cheatin....
One thing is I never discuss the "cause" of homosexuality. I personally find it offensive but my logical reason is that the only reason for discussing the "cause" is to find a "cure".
There is no "cure", despite what Ted Haggard has done, because there is nothing wrong with being gay.
And California was the battleground for the entire US, which is why so much out-of-state money poured in from both sides.
Brian,
Before the election, I really didn't care much about the Prop 8 issue. I was going to vote against it, as was every other person within a 10 mile radius of my home in SF, but I assume Prop 8 would be defeated.
When Prop 8 passed by the slimmest of margins, then I knew there would be a fight, which, of course, got me real interested!
I have friends who voted for Prop 8. We obviously agree to disagree but I also know their viewpoints on gays and if I thought they were prejudiced, we would not be friends.
However, I cannot support businesses which support Prop 8, and given the feedback of many RMers, obviously they feel the same way.
When it comes to MBA, most RMers hate the magazine anyway, so this is just another reason to avoid it.
Was voting yes on Prop 8 taking away rights of gays? Or simply voicing an opinion in support of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?
Personally, I didn't vote on Prop 8. I couldn't do it. I don't believe that Jesus would have voted on it. His teachings were more focused on condemning those who were in the church and their hypocrisy than pointing a finger at those outside the church. In fact, there are even passages that would lead one to believe that those who do not have faith in Christ are not under the same laws and expectations that Christians are under. Jesus never condoned the lives of sinners (tax collectors, murderers, prostitutes, etc.), but he certainly knew that they were the ones who needed love, and that's what he did. He loved them, and showed them a better way.
I'm appalled that there are people out there who call themselves Christians, or "believers" who live in such a way that goes against the way that I see Jesus living his life in the Bible. Makes me sick to my stomach being lumped in with those people, just as it would make a gay person who is lumped in with pedophiles sick to their stomachs. We're not always looked at as individuals... but as a whole community. You simply cannot do that.
In the end, I've talked to people I attend church with, as well as those who I'm friends with who adamantly oppose my faith and what I believe. And we all seem to agree that we believe rights belong to everyone. What I've found is that the focus is simply that Christians feel that something that is designed to be a life-long union between a man and a woman is being broken down and reconstructed in a way they disagree with.
I see everything wrong with denying certain people their rights. I see nothing wrong with upholding what someone believes is the sanctity of marriage. Because of this, if I for either side of this argument, I'd have voted against the other side. Many people say that by not voting I might as well have voted for Prop 8, and others have told me that I might as well have voted against it. That's their opinion. I'm entitled to mine.
On a side note, I hate MBA anyway, so this has no affect on me.
Personally, I didn't vote on Prop 8. I couldn't do it. I don't believe that Jesus would have voted on it. His teachings were more focused on condemning those who were in the church and their hypocrisy than pointing a finger at those outside the church. In fact, there are even passages that would lead one to believe that those who do not have faith in Christ are not under the same laws and expectations that Christians are under. Jesus never condoned the lives of sinners (tax collectors, murderers, prostitutes, etc.), but he certainly knew that they were the ones who needed love, and that's what he did. He loved them, and showed them a better way.
I'm appalled that there are people out there who call themselves Christians, or "believers" who live in such a way that goes against the way that I see Jesus living his life in the Bible. Makes me sick to my stomach being lumped in with those people, just as it would make a gay person who is lumped in with pedophiles sick to their stomachs. We're not always looked at as individuals... but as a whole community. You simply cannot do that.
In the end, I've talked to people I attend church with, as well as those who I'm friends with who adamantly oppose my faith and what I believe. And we all seem to agree that we believe rights belong to everyone. What I've found is that the focus is simply that Christians feel that something that is designed to be a life-long union between a man and a woman is being broken down and reconstructed in a way they disagree with.
I see everything wrong with denying certain people their rights. I see nothing wrong with upholding what someone believes is the sanctity of marriage. Because of this, if I for either side of this argument, I'd have voted against the other side. Many people say that by not voting I might as well have voted for Prop 8, and others have told me that I might as well have voted against it. That's their opinion. I'm entitled to mine.
On a side note, I hate MBA anyway, so this has no affect on me.
Last edited:
Except its wrong because the Mormon, your, or any other religious organization has no business in telling other churches what they can and cannot do. CA has no right or role in dictating religion practices no matter what the largest faction of churches/members say.
Personally, I think that if two people, regardless of sexual orientation, are fortunate enough to find happiness in each other, good for them.
From a business and economic stand point, banning gay marriage is shooting yourself in the foot. The amount of money that gays could be contributing to the marriage industry must be a lot. To deny them the right to legally marry, is to, by default take food off of your table. The number of business related directly and indirectly to the wedding industry is vast to say the least. All goods and services that are available to hetro couples should be allowed to solicit to gay couples.
Just a few businesses off the top of my head :
Jewelry ( wedding bands )
Wedding planners
Special event venues
Florists
Formal wear rental
Caterers
Food service
Graphic designers
Limo rentals
Health Insurance
Accountants
Web designers
Photographers
Travel agents
Airlines
Hotels
Alcohol distributers
and every other business that supplies goods and services to above list.
The economic short-sightedness of banning gay marriage just baffles me.
From a business and economic stand point, banning gay marriage is shooting yourself in the foot. The amount of money that gays could be contributing to the marriage industry must be a lot. To deny them the right to legally marry, is to, by default take food off of your table. The number of business related directly and indirectly to the wedding industry is vast to say the least. All goods and services that are available to hetro couples should be allowed to solicit to gay couples.
Just a few businesses off the top of my head :
Jewelry ( wedding bands )
Wedding planners
Special event venues
Florists
Formal wear rental
Caterers
Food service
Graphic designers
Limo rentals
Health Insurance
Accountants
Web designers
Photographers
Travel agents
Airlines
Hotels
Alcohol distributers
and every other business that supplies goods and services to above list.
The economic short-sightedness of banning gay marriage just baffles me.
Your argument makes little-to-no sense to me. But I'll interpret it the best that I can.
There are plenty of churches who support gay marriage. I've watched documentaries on said churches, and I find their beliefs and understanding of the scripture to be contradictory at best. But I digress. If their root focus is on Christ as savior, then the rest is all details. The whole design of the Scripture in Jewish culture was to be debated. "Teachers" of the books of the Bible would spend more hours studying and debating the scripture and it's meaning/truth, than they ever did teaching it. Hence why it was so important for them to memorize the scripture by the ages of 12, 13, or 14 at the latest. As long as people disagree, and are willing to discuss it without shutting other people out, we are on the right track as far as I'm concerned. The problem lies in that people start lashing out, name calling, pulling the "I'm right, you're wrong, burn in hell" card into play, and then everything falls apart.
In no way does my opinion affect anyone other than myself. As I stated, people in my life who voted Yes on 8 think I was wrong for not voting yes. People in my life who voted No on 8 think I was wrong for not voting no.
But in making the decision to not vote, one that affects only myself, I took other people's perspectives, opinions, and feelings into account, and wondered how my vote either way WOULD, indeed, have an effect on their lives. In fact, if you read what I wrote you'd realize that, internally, I'm very conflicted on such a topic.
Focusing on religion obscures the issue.
Marriage is not a religious institution but rather a legal union that comes with rights and benefits that are not given to those in domestic partnerships. The fact that it can be shrouded in religion does not change that fundamental fact. Denying marriage to people because of orientation is wrong, in my opinion, in the same way it would be wrong to deny marriage to people based on race. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not clouds the issue a bit, but regardless it is an arbitrary distinction and frankly it should not be anyone's damn business.
There is a reason for the separation between church and state. Does no one remember the Inquisition?
Marriage is not a religious institution but rather a legal union that comes with rights and benefits that are not given to those in domestic partnerships. The fact that it can be shrouded in religion does not change that fundamental fact. Denying marriage to people because of orientation is wrong, in my opinion, in the same way it would be wrong to deny marriage to people based on race. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or not clouds the issue a bit, but regardless it is an arbitrary distinction and frankly it should not be anyone's damn business.
There is a reason for the separation between church and state. Does no one remember the Inquisition?
Not quite the same comparison.
Coke doesn't present any kind of threat to you, real or perceived.
Gay marriage scares the sh!t out of Tighty Whitey.
No, but it's that persons RIGHT to choose and vote one way or another, people assume hate or fear is the reason..You are making an assumption though as to why someone who would vote Yes is doing it.
I prefer coke, but I enacted a law to prevent you from drinking pepsi, that would be the equivalent to Prop 8.
I don't believe there are the feelings of hate akin to racism before the Civil Rights Movement. However, the results are similar, like banning interracial marriage, which is ok with me because there would be more Asian chicks for me.
How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I guess that pales in comparison? Remember when interracial marriage was banned? Was that a good policy?
edit: goddamn sanjuro beat me.
Boycott RM because Transcend hates me.
My point isn't one way or another, but how can you make these people who vote YES out to be be hate monger, bigots, etc..to the level of boycotting them for something they believe.
If they have a religious perspective(one that this country was founded on), that they believe in, how does that make them haters?
My point is not supporting something and HATING it are not the same..
Last edited:
I see the distinction, but it's sort of semantic isn't it? The end result groups you in with the real haters, even if it's a sweeping generalization. And it's hard to see why you wouldn't support gay marriage unless you felt some kind of ill will or hate toward the people who want to do it.
If you don't want to be a part of that group, then vote the other way.
Not supporting something is different from having your nose in other people's business - when you put your belief over on someone else, you are getting in their business.
Exactly, every gay man doesn't like being called a pedophile, or crazed sex addict lurking in public bath houses, yet they will generalize others?
Precisely. Thanks.
Weak. How does being gay = pedophile or another form of criminal? Your bias is showing loud and clear.
wow, stereotyping much?
Denying people civil rights & liberties due to one personality trait is indeed hate, plain and simple. It doesn't have anything to do with the definition of hate as in, you despise. Denying this is simply being ignorant, whether knowingly or not.
Hate speech for example:
Last edited:
You are proving my point..what is all the hate on people who voted YES doing, putting THEIR belief over the others.
Again, without saying which side is right, it is hypocritical for one side to ask for respect and an open mind, but be completely close-minded about the other side. Then to go to the point of asking others to boycott stores, sucky mags, etc b/c they have a different view is lame.