Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By politicizing lifestyles, we've managed to make them "off limits" for discussion - and that's a shame.
As with anything else, there are things that should be discussed openly and without rancor - and that includes someones' personal beliefs and values. If I don't believe homosexuality is "right", I should have the RIGHT to express that opinion. If, by my actions or deeds I deny someone their constitutional RIGHTS to something, then I am in the wrong.
Much of this fight has been to "main-stream" what was considered immoral 30 years ago, to make it "wrong" to speak out against something. Well, I'm sorry - this fossil believes that the homosexual lifestyle goes against the natural process of life, and as such believe that it's wrong. Would I wish harm or hardship on those in that lifestyle? Of course not - but the detractors will attempt to shout me down and insist that I do, because it will further their cause.
Don't quote me the exceptions - let's talk about the overall reality of life.....2 creatures of the same sex can't procreate - and that is the natural way of life, to procreate and continue the species. Those that choose otherwise are free to do so - but don't expect me to actively support that, just as I won't actively work against those that choose that lifestyle.
Go ahead - flame suit is on, and besides - I need the laughs!
I'm on her email list, so I received Elisa Chan's official statement about the "incident," sent out last night.
Quote:
Dear District 9 Residents & Friends,
I know that many of you question my delay in responding to the recent incident, but my daughter's birthday was last Saturday, and we had a planed out of town trip to help celebrate the occasion. At the end of the day, family should always come first. So, I thank you for your patience.
My former staff member, James Stevens, secretly recorded a confidential and routine staff meeting back on May 21st. I say confidential, because like all of my staff members, James' employment contract has a confidentiality clause. And for reasons unknown to me, James held the recording for nearly 3 months and never once told me that he was uncomfortable with our staff meeting discussion. As a matter of fact, he requested to become a full-time employee which I agreed to.
In addition to discussing constituency concerns, my staff meetings also serve as brainstorming sessions where we can discuss a variety of issues with independent viewpoints. My expectation, as well as my staff, was that we would be safe and free to express our personal opinions and thoughts.
Part of the May 21st staff meeting was to address the City Council Request regarding the possible ordinance on non-discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. At that time, we did not have a draft ordinance, we were only speculating what direction the ordinance could go.
I know that many people find the comments made in the meeting offensive, but again it was a confidential meeting set in the privacy of my office where none of us are suppose to worry about what we say. These meetings have been and will always be a free speech zone.
Many of the comments reported in the newspaper have been taken out of context. An example is the word, "disgusting." I made that comment in reaction to pedophilia and bestiality. And frankly, I still find those behaviors disgusting.
There are additional comments you are aware of that reflect my belief system. My belief system is mine, and it does not mean I want to impose those beliefs onto anyone else.
Even though the LGBT community and I do not share the same views, I respect and support their personal freedoms and right to their lifestyle.
I will however, not change my own values or beliefs for political gain or survival; I would not expect that of anyone else. I stand firm in my right to have my private views in a private conversation.
I govern from fairness, because one of the basic tenets of our democracy is the guarantee of the right to live in any manner unless it poses a threat to an individual or society at large. Any opinion I hold is surely superseded by this fundamental principle.
Political correctness will not win this day; standing firm as an individual in service to the whole community does. I stand strong in my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and our right to privacy. As an immigrant, I consider this to be the greatest privilege of being a U.S. Citizen.
As always, please contact my office with any questions or comments.
By politicizing lifestyles, we've managed to make them "off limits" for discussion - and that's a shame.
As with anything else, there are things that should be discussed openly and without rancor - and that includes someones' personal beliefs and values. If I don't believe homosexuality is "right", I should have the RIGHT to express that opinion. If, by my actions or deeds I deny someone their constitutional RIGHTS to something, then I am in the wrong.
Much of this fight has been to "main-stream" what was considered immoral 30 years ago, to make it "wrong" to speak out against something. Well, I'm sorry - this fossil believes that the homosexual lifestyle goes against the natural process of life, and as such believe that it's wrong. Would I wish harm or hardship on those in that lifestyle? Of course not - but the detractors will attempt to shout me down and insist that I do, because it will further their cause.
Don't quote me the exceptions - let's talk about the overall reality of life.....2 creatures of the same sex can't procreate - and that is the natural way of life, to procreate and continue the species. Those that choose otherwise are free to do so - but don't expect me to actively support that, just as I won't actively work against those that choose that lifestyle.
Go ahead - flame suit is on, and besides - I need the laughs!
This is at the heart of the debate and why this recording ever came out. Can ANYONE tell me why an ordnance banning discrimination in the work place for LGBT people is wrong? In Texas you can be fired simply because you are gay and that is not right.
Don't quote me the exceptions - let's talk about the overall reality of life.....2 creatures of the same sex can't procreate - and that is the natural way of life, to procreate and continue the species. Those that choose otherwise are free to do so - but don't expect me to actively support that, just as I won't actively work against those that choose that lifestyle.
Go ahead - flame suit is on, and besides - I need the laughs!
If you want to follow the natural way of life, then you should know that nature didn't intend for mammals to live in monogamous relationships, most mammals don't even attempt this. And if you actually studied biology, you would know that the only way to contribute to the survival of a species is not through procreation. In fact the greatest threats to our continued survival is overpopulation. China even has a law to ban producing more then one baby because they want control population in their country. Without people who don't procreate the world could easily over beyond it's capacity to feed itself.
Last edited by Capsuleneo; 08-21-2013 at 10:41 AM..
Don't quote me the exceptions - let's talk about the overall reality of life.....2 creatures of the same sex can't procreate - and that is the natural way of life, to procreate and continue the species. Those that choose otherwise are free to do so - but don't expect me to actively support that, just as I won't actively work against those that choose that lifestyle.
Go ahead - flame suit is on, and besides - I need the laughs!
You're going about it the wrong way. If I say the biological goal of every living creature is the reproduce and any activity that doesn't further than goal is wrong or against the natural order then there are a lot of infertile women and men in this world who are contributing nothing. They aren't producing offspring so they serve no biological purpose (the spreading of genes). Hell, priests and nuns serve no purpose then and their activity of celebacy is just as biologically wrong as homosexuality.
Just take a page from Councilwoman Chan's book as say you feel homosexuals are disgusting based on faith or your personal feelings. Don't try to justify it through a biological or scientific basis, it just doesn't work that way.
Anywho, Chan knows how she feels and she is sticking by that. Some people will feel that admirable but it is definately an antiquated outlook and doesn't serve the people of her district or San Antonio very well.
By politicizing lifestyles, we've managed to make them "off limits" for discussion - and that's a shame.
As with anything else, there are things that should be discussed openly and without rancor - and that includes someones' personal beliefs and values. If I don't believe homosexuality is "right", I should have the RIGHT to express that opinion. If, by my actions or deeds I deny someone their constitutional RIGHTS to something, then I am in the wrong.
Much of this fight has been to "main-stream" what was considered immoral 30 years ago, to make it "wrong" to speak out against something. Well, I'm sorry - this fossil believes that the homosexual lifestyle goes against the natural process of life, and as such believe that it's wrong. Would I wish harm or hardship on those in that lifestyle? Of course not - but the detractors will attempt to shout me down and insist that I do, because it will further their cause.
Don't quote me the exceptions - let's talk about the overall reality of life.....2 creatures of the same sex can't procreate - and that is the natural way of life, to procreate and continue the species. Those that choose otherwise are free to do so - but don't expect me to actively support that, just as I won't actively work against those that choose that lifestyle.
Go ahead - flame suit is on, and besides - I need the laughs!
You are fighting a moot point. Homosexuality is not the question of debate; niether is Ms. Chan's right to free speech. Those issues are not in debate.
The question is... if an elected public servant's constituents have the right to choose their representivitves based on her views whether they be public, private, secret, or exposed.
Ms. Chan, as well as every other American, can believe as they wish. Likewise, Americans can determin whether she is suitible for public office. If a majority of Ms. Chan's constituients agree with Ms. Chan and her views, then she will be accepted as the district's representitive. If, on the other hand, her constituents believe her personal views are not representitive of the district, then she will not be re-elected.
So now she thinks all gays are pedophiles or are into pedophilia? How else did she introduce those terms into the conversation? And, if you verbalize your feelings to even one person let alone a room full of people, you ARE imposing your beliefs upon them. Sad that she doesn't understand that.
Very nice San Antonio, booing an injured Irag war veteran This guy is brave enough to fight your ex-governor’s stupid war, and lose a leg in the process, but God forbid he should have civil rights. All those “good Christians” may believe that they will go to Heaven but I think they are in for one hell of a shock on their judgment day. I can hear Satan laughing at them now.
This was not "San Antonio", but rather a few vocal protesters. I find it sad that no one is giving SA credit for even PROPOSING the ordinance.
To assume all "good Christians" support the protests is also ill-informed. What about the SA Presbyterian minister that wrote a published op-ed article this last week in FAVOR of the ordinance. What about the fact that the local "branch" of the Presbyterian Church USA actually voted to ALLOW gays and lesbians to be eligible to serve in the church?
If you haven't listened to the whole recording, at least read a transcript. Her aides do a lot of talking but she does too. This is probably my favorite part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transcript
Roger: The argument that, that I read in this paper, there's two arguments in this paper.
The first one was that Americans can, with a ninety percent success rate, identify gay
people by their face alone, which implies that there are some biological traits that are
linked to becoming a homosexual.
Cw Chan: No, that's because they shave.
The best and the brightest, folks.
Then at this point they are sure the ordinance is going to pass, but they are brainstorming on what to do (op ed, etc) to come out against it to score points for a future election:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transcript
CW Chan: You know, I voted no when that was put on the Constitution about a marriage
should be between a man and woman.
Roger: Yeah.
CW Chan: Okay? And I'm telling you, that's how... That's okay if you want... This is my
philosophy, guys. Whatever you want to do in your bedroom, that's none of my business,
but do not impose your view on other people, especially become a policy. And I'm, that's
all. Because personally, I think it's just disgusting just to even think about. All the...
definitions...
Chan claims she was talking about beastiality there. Give me a break.
And, if you verbalize your feelings to even one person let alone a room full of people, you ARE imposing your beliefs upon them. Sad that she doesn't understand that.
If merely verbalizing one's beliefs is the same as imposing them, then no one should have a problem with imposing beliefs. Everyone imposes their beliefs on a daily basis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This guy is brave enough to fight your ex-governor’s stupid war, and lose a leg in the process, but God forbid he should have civil rights. All those “good Christians” may believe that they will go to Heaven but I think they are in for one hell of a shock on their judgment day. I can hear Satan laughing at them now.
