Woman Wins Appeal for 'GAYSROK' License Plate (Utah)

AP ^ | 7-28-05 | Mark Thiessen

[Phlap]

XGAYSROK

Too many spaces.

[Phlap]

A classic case of "be careful what you wish for".

[calex59]

BS. I am advocating alright, I am advocating that freedom of speech be applied to all Americans and not just the ones we agree with.

[AggieCPA]

LOL

FUDGPAK, GLRYHLE, BAREBAK, GIVEMHIV

[Nice50BMG]

[longtermmemmory]

Ok so now I can use a particular four letter word on my lic. plate because it promotes anther sexual behavior.

The headline should read "Judge ok's Sexual Acts on license plates."

[DBeers]

BS. I am advocating alright, I am advocating that freedom of speech be applied to all Americans and not just the ones we agree with.

Well -freedom of speech and the glorification and promotion of homosexual activities may be the same thing in your mind -not mine. There are some things that can be justly discriminated against AND the homosexual agenda is one of those things that one is either a supporter of or in opposition to --like abortion, there is no intellectually honest middle ground called 'choice' -- LOL take your BS and apply it to yourself...

[Dimensio]

Comparing something unnatural to something that was a purposeful design?

You are asserting "purposeful design" in human biology, however unless you can demonstrate that your starting premise is true, you don't have an argument.

[DJ MacWoW]

You are asserting "purposeful design" in human biology, however unless you can demonstrate that your starting premise is true, you don't have an argument.

Don't I? And I won't debate the use meant for different body cavaties on FR. You should know the difference and what they were meant for. Besides, that's not the point in this thread. This woman believes she's entitled to use a state (government) issued plate to make a political statement that's more appropriate on a bumper sticker.

[DBeers]

You are asserting "purposeful design" in human biology, however unless you can demonstrate that your starting premise is true, you don't have an argument.

Regardless -a pro-homosexual 'argument' is not legitimately entertained on FR. Semantics aside -you have no audience here to discuss your insights with on the 'natural' aspects of homosexual activities. What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

[Dimensio]

Regardless -a pro-homosexual 'argument' is not legitimately entertained on FR.

Okay. That makes it alright to use unsupported assertions as the basis for an argument.

[DJ MacWoW]

That makes it alright to use unsupported assertions as the basis for an argument.

It's not unsupported. It's basic anatomy. EVERY body cavity has a specific, primary function. They can be used in ways they were NOT designed for. That makes it unnatural. This concludes our anatomy class for today.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Sheesh, what kind of crap is THAT supposed to mean?

[ConservativeMan55]

What is 3MTA3 ????

[AmericanInTokyo]

sheesh --some people will still be debating the intricate points on the neutral intrinsic morality of homosexuality, based on a value system of situational ethics and disdain for moral objectivism, straight on through until Satan in his hot palace, opens the door to them, sneering "well done good and faithful servant!"

[sono]

I'll never know how NY Plate "S5X 69" slipped past the vanity plate censors *wink*

[Vision Thing]

"The narrow issue before us is whether a reasonable person would believe the terms 'gays are OK' and 'gay rights' are, themselves, offensive to good taste and decency. It is the conclusion of the commission that a reasonable person would not," Phan wrote.

These people are saying that we are unreasonable because we are offended by the terms 'gays are OK'. This sounds like a highly subjective conclusion on their part.

[Dimensio]

I mean that even when a bad argument is made for a good position, it is still a bad argument.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yeah. And I have no patience for it.

[Dimensio]

They can be used in ways they were NOT designed for.

Again you assert "design" without demonstrating it.

That makes it unnatural.

Things that are "natural" simply implies that they occur entirely within the natural universe. Homosexuality is "natural" because it occurs in biological life forms that are a part of the "natural" universe.

The "natural" argument doesn't really work well. For one, it tries to redefine "natural" to suit your whims, and for another it tries to carry with it the hidden implication that things that are "natural" are good and things that are "not natural" are bad, when in reality "natural" is no indicator of moral value whatsoever. It is entirely possible for something that is "natural" (such as brain cancer) to be bad, and there's no reason to believe that all things that are "unnatural" are inherently bad.

If homosexuality is a "bad" thing, then it is a "bad" thing for reasons other than its classification as natural or unnatural.