Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

[waltero]

The converse is also true.
'Because homosexuals actions do harm to people that don't share the same views as gays, and who are doing nothing that causes harm to others themselves.

This is nothing more than a Homosexual politician going after the church, cuz it is what gays do.
Gays want to be seen they want to be heard, they want everybody to learn and understand that the Gay lifestyle is not as sick and disgusting as it appears.
One thing I do not understand; have you seen the gay pride Perade...how is that going to help their cause? What a freak show.

The Homosexual community has no Power over the Church, so they seek to destroy it by other means...keep trying.

Please, enlighten us all. What demonstrable harm is caused by loving gay couples living their lives the same as loving straight couples do, including getting married...

(Key word there - demonstrable)

I'll start off from the other perspective that discrimination causes demonstrable harm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts. According to some groups, this is linked to heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, including the use of rights and protections for LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages. Depression and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed.

There you have it.

[crispybits]

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

In the United States, what do you think has made more of an impact on "gay bashing" as a cultural taboo?

This? - http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-s ... -marriage/

Or this? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Eye_ ... raight_Guy

Pure speculation, by the way, but I think there is probably more racism in the United States than homophobia.

In any event, and I think I've mentioned this before in another thread, if a local, state, or federal government starts to pass and/or enforce laws against churches that preach compulsory human sacrifice, we'll see if the U.S. courts value the first amendment the way that the first amendment was meant to be valued (as the most important of the bill of rights).

Firstly, changed your quote. Still think "religious freedom" should be the ultimate trump card?

Secondly, marriage is only one aspect of the equality fight for gay people. I cba to find the data (it would tke up a big chunk of time googling around and following links in links in links) so I won't make solid predictions, but what do you think would happen if you compared public attitudes to homosexuality over time vs changing in laws outlawing gay sex (it was a felony in most staes only 50 years ago) vs changes in laws defining who could marry vs overall media portrayal of gay people. I think all 4 probably have an impact but it's notable that the first openly and publicly gay celebrities didn't really start appearing in any numbers until the late 70s, 15-20 years after the laws started changing.

[crispybits]

The converse is also true.
'Because homosexuals actions do harm to people that don't share the same views as gays, and who are doing nothing that causes harm to others themselves.

This is nothing more than a Homosexual politician going after the church, cuz it is what gays do.
Gays want to be seen they want to be heard, they want everybody to learn and understand that the Gay lifestyle is not as sick and disgusting as it appears.
One thing I do not understand; have you seen the gay pride Perade...how is that going to help their cause? What a freak show.

The Homosexual community has no Power over the Church, so they seek to destroy it by other means...keep trying.

Please, enlighten us all. What demonstrable harm is caused by loving gay couples living their lives the same as loving straight couples do, including getting married...

(Key word there - demonstrable)

I'll start off from the other perspective that discrimination causes demonstrable harm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts. According to some groups, this is linked to heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, including the use of rights and protections for LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages. Depression and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed.

There you have it.

Ah OK, so using that logic black people cause the harm propogated by racism because they are black! Excellent point!

[thegreekdog]

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

In the United States, what do you think has made more of an impact on "gay bashing" as a cultural taboo?

This? - http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-s ... -marriage/

Or this? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Eye_ ... raight_Guy

Pure speculation, by the way, but I think there is probably more racism in the United States than homophobia.

In any event, and I think I've mentioned this before in another thread, if a local, state, or federal government starts to pass and/or enforce laws against churches that preach compulsory human sacrifice, we'll see if the U.S. courts value the first amendment the way that the first amendment was meant to be valued (as the most important of the bill of rights).

Firstly, changed your quote. Still think "religious freedom" should be the ultimate trump card?

Secondly, marriage is only one aspect of the equality fight for gay people. I cba to find the data (it would tke up a big chunk of time googling around and following links in links in links) so I won't make solid predictions, but what do you think would happen if you compared public attitudes to homosexuality over time vs changing in laws outlawing gay sex (it was a felony in most staes only 50 years ago) vs changes in laws defining who could marry vs overall media portrayal of gay people. I think all 4 probably have an impact but it's notable that the first openly and publicly gay celebrities didn't really start appearing in any numbers until the late 70s, 15-20 years after the laws started changing.

(1) Yes. The government should not be permitted to pass a law prohibiting a religion from preaching compulsory human sacrifice. What's the problem with preaching compulsory human sacrifice? By the way, feel free to make "compulsory human sacrifice" something even more disturbing and disgusting. I'll give you the same answer. There is a difference between "speech" and "the act" which I'm not sure you're getting here.

(2) Okay. I'm still pretty sure that popular culture has had more of an impact on the acceptance of gays than any laws. I mean, there are probably 2,000 times more people that watch TV than are registered to vote (or even aware of bigotry laws in the US). I mean, the people in this country suck ass. Seriously. They would rather watch Honey Boo Boo than understand the federal government. So I seriously doubt they are getting their guidance on homosexuality from laws, and it is much more likely they are getting it from television and movies.

[crispybits]

1) Fair enough - sloppy argument was sloppy (in my defence I was making several quick fire responses to vastly different points but that's no excuse). I've consistently said throughout the thread that religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.

2) And in the 50s and 60s when the laws against sodomy were being torn down by court challenges? The point isnt that the media has no impact, just that it tends to follow cultural trends rather than lead them. Until a cultural trend is somewhat established at least, there is no audience for it. Most media works on some form of profits = ratings system, so airing media that doesn't hit existing cultural trends is unlikely to get views and therefore unlikely to be made. If media led cultural trends then you would expect to have seen widespread acceptance of gay lifestyles on TV before the law changes, not 15-20 years afterwards.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Everything you're saying might be technically correct crispybits, but if you've ever once celebrated Christmas, then in the eyes of the Islamo-facist terrorists, you're a Christian. And since Christmas is so popular in the USA, it's considered a Christian nation by the Muslim nations that want to destroy us.

I think it's possible to be an atheist and embrace the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our ancestors. Because we need as many allies as we can get against Islam. The more we push an atheist agenda, the easier it'll be for the Muslims to take power. And they want to, badly. So keep an open mind. Christians can be silly and obnoxious, but by and large, they'll just shake their heads at us heathens, not fucking remove our heads. Think on that.

If we left them the f*ck alone they wouldn't want to kill us. Problem solved.

-TG

Maybe. It's a difficult case to make because there's a series of cause-and-effect over decades--during which many other causes play some influence on the outcomes. And, it's impossible to demonstrate that non-intervention is the answer because there's no counter-factual history (and any use of a proxy--e.g. a non-interventionist country--will be shot down because 'their culture is different than ours' and 'well their history is--blah blah blah').

Also, the government doesn't really conduct much research on its programs which are critical of its status quo. Going against this trend is a great way to get fired or not promoted. It also intentionally obscures its own outcomes (e.g. mislabeling victims of drone strikes as all "militants" v. "unknowns" (i.e. civilians). Sometimes, it conducts no scientific research at all (e.g. its aid distribution and 'infrastructure' rebuilding programs in AFG from small firebases). If pushed, it'll hide behind a "national interest" argument, and the relevant information needed to evaluate various US foreign policies are classified until they feel like releasing them. At that time, voters hardly care, so politicians hardly care, and the same nonsense continues.

But, given the fundamental nature of the political process, I wouldn't expect it to solve 'terrorism'. It's not like we're talking about a different process in regard to its war on drugs, on domestic poverty, and on foreign poverty--all of which should be viewed as an embarrassing waste of resources and unnecessary harm to others.

Also, there's the issue of path-dependency. The US and its previous policies have annoyed a bunch of people, so stopping now wouldn't necessarily end reactions to previous US actions--in the short-term. So, given this logic, the current US foreign policies 'must' be continued, which in my opinion exacerbates the current problems for the long-term. But it's not like politicians, bureaucrats, and voters really need to think about the long-term. Look at how 9-11 was handled: blame others but not ourselves for previous policies, and voters gobbled that shit up.

You're probably right. I'm too lazy to consider an actual solution, though, so I prefer to just wish that complete separation would be possible. I just find it hilarious when people rant on about the evil of "the terrorists" when they don't really consider why they're evil the first place.

-TG

[Gweeedo]

crispybits, Try not to bring hypothetical analogies into an argument.
Hypothetical situations can be brought on either side of an argument...Logic does not dictate Social behavior.

Every time black people bring up the race card they cause harm propagated by racism...because they are black!
Lets not get off topic; attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population.
Why are there so many Gay youths?
Do you actually think that kids are committing suicide because; the use of rights and protections for LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalizing same-sex marriages.
Should we be more concerned about the gay youths, or the fact that they are gay?
Why does everything have to be about GAY, with the gays?
Not only that, the gays want everything to be about GAY among the heterosexuals, political, society etc.
No worries, it is the same with everybody; sex among the heterosexuals, the force among all police officers, politics among politicians, beauty among women, ect.
A person hangs around likeness to ones self.

Some gays do not wish to live openly with other gays (in the closet).
Some Gays do not wish to live among raging Queens (the really gay).
When you have a openly gay person in a relationship with a closet gay there is a potential problem...resulting in youth suicide.
Of course it holds true for Heterosexuals as well.
Difference being, gays wanting to be counted, recognize, to be identify as something even if it is harmful to others.
Can men and women be, just friends?
Can Homosexuals be just friends?
Can a gay man be friends with a heterosexual male?
If not, you will not be hanging around...that hurts, but must be excepted...if not...

Gays should limit there homosexual exploitation.
Just be gay, be happy.
Nobody cares, really.

[BigBallinStalin]

So... You heard of Jim Crow laws, right? That didn't drop outta the sky; it was pushed by some unknown amount of male, white voters. So, this 'state intervention for ending racism' claim is nonsensical. The intentions are not the issue although a many secularists believe it is (go figure, the political arena is full of sentiment).

Actually they were forced out by a whole series of Supreme Court cases finding them to be unconstitutional. They weren't voted out of the system, they were litigated out of the system.

Anyway, do such interventions end with the goal of promoting "equality" for favored groups of people? Or shall we expect more intervention in other social relations which were previously unrelated to political means of control?

We should expect more intervention into other social relations. Pandora's Box doesn't close when the secularists wish--particularly when some secularists have greater designs on other people's lives than you yourself may have. That's the problem; it's not just about equality. It's about social control for a variety of intentions beyond so-called "equality" (an vague, loaded term).

And even if intervention attains equality in name, it's not like that goal is actually attained. Driving bigotry underground prevents people from identifying bigots, thus denying them the opportunity to call them out (people will inadvertently support bigots through market exchanges; had they known better...). Punishment through the state is not effective in reforming people's attitudes (e.g. see war on drugs, war on terrorism). Your position is counter-productive and unnecessarily abusive.

So in the first paragraph you say it was the power of voters who struck down the Jim Crow laws (and while the political process may be flawed, votes are currency in the "free market" of that process, just as money is the currency of the economic free market). And then in the second section you mke a clear distinction between free market forces and state intervention. I think that's a false distinction.

I think there are lots of things that the state shouldn't be getting involved in that it currently does, but for you on the one hand to claim that state actions were somehow about political free market (vote) processes, and then on the other hand claim that free market processes are better than state processes at identifying and ostracising those who we find unpalatable is just plain weird.

Also racism isn't exactly hidden beyond all sight without a thorough undercover investigation. You only have to lightly scratch the surface of some politicans' policies to find the underlying racist tones that they are trying to conceal. White supremacists are hardly quiet about their goals, in fact many of them tattoo their own faces with their hate messages. Employers that consistently treat their black employees different from their white employees are easily identified through patterns and statistics even if they are cunning enough not to be identified from any given individual case.

No, "[Jim Crow laws] were pushed by some unknown amount of male, white voters." Laws need some modicum of support. Support.

[thegreekdog]

1) Fair enough - sloppy argument was sloppy (in my defence I was making several quick fire responses to vastly different points but that's no excuse). I've consistently said throughout the thread that religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.

2) And in the 50s and 60s when the laws against sodomy were being torn down by court challenges? The point isnt that the media has no impact, just that it tends to follow cultural trends rather than lead them. Until a cultural trend is somewhat established at least, there is no audience for it. Most media works on some form of profits = ratings system, so airing media that doesn't hit existing cultural trends is unlikely to get views and therefore unlikely to be made. If media led cultural trends then you would expect to have seen widespread acceptance of gay lifestyles on TV before the law changes, not 15-20 years afterwards.

(1) I agree.

(2) I wonder if someone has done a study on the impact of current media compared to the impact of media from the past. Does the 24-hour news/entertainment/stupid shit news cycle have a greater effect on how we perceive cultural issues than media in the 1950s and 1960s?

[Gweeedo]

1) Fair enough - sloppy argument was sloppy (in my defence I was making several quick fire responses to vastly different points but that's no excuse). I've consistently said throughout the thread that religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.

2) And in the 50s and 60s when the laws against sodomy were being torn down by court challenges? The point isnt that the media has no impact, just that it tends to follow cultural trends rather than lead them. Until a cultural trend is somewhat established at least, there is no audience for it. Most media works on some form of profits = ratings system, so airing media that doesn't hit existing cultural trends is unlikely to get views and therefore unlikely to be made. If media led cultural trends then you would expect to have seen widespread acceptance of gay lifestyles on TV before the law changes, not 15-20 years afterwards.

Sure, Homosexuals are not imposing their belief on anybody...Rahight, Nor are they trying to manipulate the law in order to do so...no problem there.

Many of the Churches in todays world hold firm on the belief, regarding Homosexuality, adultery, incest, bestiality, sin, necrophilia (my Fav) ect.
Homosexuals are treated no different then anybody else while visiting the Church.
Homosexuals have hand (in the world) now, while having no hand within the church.
The acceptance of homosexuality in the world today is lax...not the same as it is in heaven.
Sorry, but the church does not make the rules, No matter how much Christians would love to see Homosexual's enter into the kingdom of heaven, it can not be done.
why not Except what you have...forget about the rest.
Homosexuals, Idolater, sinners have this life, this Earth...enjoy while you can.
All is going to pass away...all is death.
Don't bother yourself with the Afterlife, if you believe in God and the afterlife, repent and Except Jesus as your Savior (really simple) and you will be excepted (as you are).
To carry on as you do by attacking God and his Church is only going to bring you more grief.

There was a day when Homosexuals had to keep silent (example: Military), they no longer have to keep silent.
I am not against gays, I am just tired of hearing about it all the time; F*ck this politically correct bullshit!!
They Don't no when to shut up, always bitching...always.
Oh no, look at that guy...did you hear him, he called that truck Gay...attack!

Edited
=====================================================================================
Look at media in the late 70's...I think your analysis is weak.
Media viewed break dancing...rap took off.
Media viewed wide spread perversion in Frisco...homosexuality took off.

[AndyDufresne]

There was a day when Homosexuals had to keep silent...they no longer have to keep silent...problem?
I am not against gays, I am just tired of hearing about it all the time;

Bad Translated to:



Seems pretty accurate.

something to bitch about

--Andy

[Gweeedo]

BBS a big part of the equality drive to try to end racism as a problem was state intervention. Granted the problem still exists, but compared to when there were no rules about treating people differently based on race we now live in a society where it is becoming a cultural taboo to be openly racist. There's an interesting point in there about the effect of civil laws on cultural taboos over time but it's probably off topic for this thread.

In the United States, what do you think has made more of an impact on "gay bashing" as a cultural taboo?

This? - http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/map-s ... -marriage/

Or this? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Eye_ ... raight_Guy

Pure speculation, by the way, but I think there is probably more racism in the United States than homophobia.

In any event, and I think I've mentioned this before in another thread, if a local, state, or federal government starts to pass and/or enforce laws against churches that preach compulsory human sacrifice, we'll see if the U.S. courts value the first amendment the way that the first amendment was meant to be valued (as the most important of the bill of rights).

Firstly, changed your quote. Still think "religious freedom" should be the ultimate trump card?

Secondly, marriage is only one aspect of the equality fight for gay people. I cba to find the data (it would tke up a big chunk of time googling around and following links in links in links) so I won't make solid predictions, but what do you think would happen if you compared public attitudes to homosexuality over time vs changing in laws outlawing gay sex (it was a felony in most staes only 50 years ago) vs changes in laws defining who could marry vs overall media portrayal of gay people. I think all 4 probably have an impact but it's notable that the first openly and publicly gay celebrities didn't really start appearing in any numbers until the late 70s, 15-20 years after the laws started changing.

Sure, Homosexuals are not imposing their belief on anybody...Rahight, Nor are they trying to manipulate the law in order to do so...no problem there.

Many of the Churches in todays world hold firm on the belief, regarding Homosexuality, adultery, incest, bestiality, sin, necrophilia (my Fav) ect.
Homosexuals are treated no different then anybody else while visiting the Church.
Homosexuals have hand (in the world) now, while having no hand within the church.
The acceptance of homosexuality in the world today is lax...not the same as it is in heaven.
Sorry, but the church does not make the rules, No matter how much Christians would love to see Homosexual's enter into the kingdom of heaven, it can not be done.
why not Except what you have...forget about the rest.
Homosexuals, Idolater, sinners have this life, this Earth...enjoy while you can.
All is going to pass away...all is death.
Don't bother yourself with the Afterlife, if you believe in God and the afterlife, repent and Except Jesus as your Savior (really simple) and you will be excepted (as you are).
To carry on as you do by attacking God and his Church is only going to bring you more grief.
Gay bashing...just shut it!

There was a day when Homosexuals chose to keep silent, that which many homosexuals do not remember or understand...Guess those days are a thing of the past.
I am not against gays, I am just tired of hearing about it all the time; F*ck this politically correct bullshit!!
They Don't no when to shut up, always bitching...always.
Oh no, look at that guy...did you hear what he said; he called that truck Gay...commence the attack!
If God is not real...why do you bother?

There will come a time when God is more real (to you) then you could ever have imagined...believe that.


Edited
=====================================================================================
Look at media (the news) in the late 70's; Media viewed break dancing...rap took off.
Media viewed wide spread perversion in Frisco...homosexuality took off.
There was a time when Homosexuals engaged in a wide variety of perversion, not acceptable in society.

[Phatscotty]

Looks like this may be the next Obamacare thread. So, let's pick up where I left off, that was religious people and their beliefs being marched into the closet. Mets, I will agree with you halfway about one thing you said else where. It's not the I love to see myself post, but I am and have every right to be proud that I was 100% right to take the risk and go out on a limb and say what I believe needed to be said and do what I did. I stuck to my guns, and it is good to know my reasons and my understanding about marriage and what redefining marriage and deciding gender doesn't matter truly meant and where it would end up based on a long, clearly worded and studiously thought out 'slippery slope' process, with malice towards none and in the name of equal rights for all, has been confirmed as 'dead on balls accurate'. I am not gloating, clearly this is nothing but sad. But before we can unite for Freedom, we have to know how it's being attacked.

Based on all the hate I received and continue to receive even today, I think it's tremendously important for all the haters, slanderers, and stalkers to see the error of their ways and to see and understand just how they have been taken advantage of, used to support things totally unrelated that are indeed tearing at the heart of our most fundamental rights. Whether they know it or not doesn't matter at this point. Oh, you had good intentions though? Guess what, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is the EXACT reason why Animal Farm is such an important book. What did the pigs do again? Well, let's get to it.

In the name and law of this woman publicly being who she wants to be in all ways at all places and at all times and living the way she wants to live, with all the new laws built in it's special edifice, we dictate you are not be who you are, and we dictate you are not to live the way you want to live! You do that religion stuff in the privacy of your own home, and we hereby order that you don't talk about any of it in public!!

“Orange Is the New Black” actress Lea DeLaria publicly clashed with a man preaching the Bible on a New York City subway Tuesday morning, proclaiming that “religious fanatics … the Tea Party, ultra-creepy Christians and conservatives … are the reason America’s in trouble.”


LOS ANGELES, CA - AUGUST 25: Actress Lea DeLaria attends the 66th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards held at Nokia Theatre L.A. Live on August 25, 2014 in Los Angeles, California.
Actress Lea DeLaria attends the 66th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards on August 25, 2014 in Los Angeles, California.


“You have no right, you have no right … you have absolutely no right, sir,” DeLaria shouted over the man, who can be heard in a video telling subway riders to beware of sin in their lives. “Go to another train, get off this train.”

From there, the incident intensified, with the actress, who plays character Big Boo on the popular Netflix series, proclaiming that she and her fellow transit riders shouldn’t be forced to hear the man’s Bible-based views.

“Other people believe other things and have every right to believe other things on this planet and in this world,” DeLaria continued. “We do not have to be force fed this man’s religious beliefs. Jesus never said for you to do this, ever — not anywhere in the Bible.”

DeLaria also challenged the subway preacher to show her where in the Bible it says that preaching on a crowded subway is permitted under Christian doctrine, spewing out an expletive in the process.

“Don’t come at me because I went to f***ing Catholic school for 12 years and I know every line,” the actress continued. “I want you to stop telling us anything. You do not have a right to do this … this is mass transportation.”

Watch part one of the subway clash below (caution: strong language):

You can't really get much from the video as they are just talking over each other, but I must wonder, what the heck makes this woman think it's okay and she has the 'social' power to demand a person get off a train and yell in their face and hound them on the way out? How we seriously come round full circle to recreate Rosa Parks conditions and environments, just with different bigots? This is way beyond preaching what the Bible says are sins. She looks like she was close to physically attacking him. Remember, as I have noted every time in the past and now again, whenever anything 'Progressive' gets what they want, they will not be happy at all. In fact, they will be more hateful and arrogant than ever before.

[AndyDufresne]

Looks like this may be the next Obamacare thread. So, let's pick up where I left off, that was religious people and their beliefs being marched into the closet.

--Andy

[crispybits]

There was a day when Homosexuals chose to keep silent, that which many homosexuals do not remember or understand...Guess those days are a thing of the past.
I am not against gays, I am just tired of hearing about it all the time; F*ck this politically correct bullshit!!
They Don't no when to shut up, always bitching...always.
Oh no, look at that guy...did you hear what he said; he called that truck Gay...commence the attack!
If God is not real...why do you bother?

There will come a time when God is more real (to you) then you could ever have imagined...believe that.


Edited
=====================================================================================
Look at media (the news) in the late 70's; Media viewed break dancing...rap took off.
Media viewed wide spread perversion in Frisco...homosexuality took off.
There was a time when Homosexuals engaged in a wide variety of perversion, not acceptable in society.

Actually, I think you'll find most homosexuals are acutely aware of the fact that within living memory there was a time when they had to keep silent, not because someone might call their relationship a sin or discriminate against them based on their sexual preference, but because they would be thrown in jail for daring to love another consenting adult human being...

Frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck what you're tired of hearing. If you are so tired of this spend more time in your church where nobody will talk about it and stop coming to threads where people are arguing that every human being has exactly the same right to be in a loving consenting adult relationship with anyone else and not have to face public shame or maltreatment for it.

Nobody is forcing you to enter a gay relationship. Nobody is forcing any church (note, church, not business with religious owner/staff) to participate in any form of ceremony or ritual for a gay couple. All that is being forced (and it wouldn't need to be forced if religious idiots just kept your damn noses out of other peoples' business) is that all people are treated equally in civil society regardless of their preferences for who should be their romantic partner.

[crispybits]

PS, not gonna quote you, but she was wrong to tell him to get off the train. Nobody has ever said that all people opposing religion have the right to shut down religion. Religious people do and should have the same right to free speech in public places as non-religious people. But she only was wrong insofar as she told him to stop talking and to get off the train. If she had stuck to arguing with him about whether what he preaches is true or whatever then she is equally using her right to free speech.

There is a big difference between free speech and actual discrimination though. As long as I'm not promoting violence against religious people I am free to say whatever I like about why I disagree with religion and why I think it's a load of BS grown out of early society's attempts to control the population and does far more harm than good. I could point out just as many situations where religion is the agressor as you can point to where homosexuals or liberals are the aggressor across the world and then keep going with a bunch more. Lets start with this:

http://www.liberianobserver.com/news-re ... ry-liberia

The men of God, meanstream Episcopalians and non-denominational evangelicals alike, unanimously endorsed the following resolution:

That God is angry with Liberia, and that Ebola is a plague. Liberians have to pray and seek God's forgiveness over the corruption and immoral acts (such as homosexualism, etc.) that continue to penetrate our society. As Christians, we must repent and seek God's forgiveness.

So here we have an Archbishop of the Liberian Catholic Church stating that Ebola is a punishment from God for increased acceptance of homosexuality. And it's not just one rogue bishop, this was a statement agreed upon by a committee of more than 100 Bishops, Pastors, General Overseers, Prophets, Evangelists and other Ministers of the Gospel, under the auspices of the Liberia Council of Churches (LCC).

Which one of these two incidents has done more harm to innocent people? The train incident may have made it more likely that people will tell preachers to STFU and GTFO and breach their right to peaceful free speech, and for sensible people to rein them in and remind them that everyone has the right to express their opinions, however much we disagree. The Ebola incident... well lets look at what's happened:

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/m/story. ... 7&pageNo=1

Leroy Ponpon doesn't know whether to lock himself in his flat in Monrovia because of the deadly Ebola virus, or because he is gay. Christian churches' recent linking of the two have made life hell for him and hundreds of other gays.

Ponpon, an LGBT campaigner in the Liberian capital, says gays have been harassed, physically attacked and a few have had their cars smashed by people blaming them for the haemorrhagic fever, after religious leaders in Liberia said Ebola was a punishment from God for homosexuality.

"Since church ministers declared Ebola was a plague sent by God to punish sodomy in Liberia, the violence towards gays has escalated. They're even asking for the death penalty. We're living in fear," Ponpon told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by telephone from Monrovia.

Edit - sorry forgot to keep it in America:

Hurricane Sandy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 38781.html

9-11
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/h ... blamed-911

The economic crash
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/s ... -economy-0

Hurricane Katrina
http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/0 ... s-e/142724

The mass animal deaths of 2011
http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news ... adt-repeal

Oh and just every storm, earthquake and tornado in general
http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news ... a-campaign

Granted the US isn't as violently homophobic as many parts of Africa, but the consequences of these retards making links based on BS religious reasoning about how they know why "God caused X" is exactly the same in terms of promoting hate...

[Gweeedo]

Sex is nasty business if you want to flaunt it out in the open you will become a target.
The Church is prone to attack, Homosexuals have joined the fight against the church...good luck.

[crispybits]

Sex is nasty business

Says it all about how religion warps people....

[warmonger1981]

Nearly all religions were brought to people and imposed on people by conquerors and used as the framework for controlling their minds. My main point here is that if you are a child of God and if God is a part if you, then in your imagination God is supposed to look like you. When you accept a picture of a diety assigned to you by another people, you becomes the spiritual prisoner of them people.

Dr. John Henrik Clarke

[crispybits]

Indeed, and even the founding fathers knew it

[shickingbrits]

Thanks for quoting Thomas Paine, one of the most adamant slave masters of the time. Being a slave master doesn't take away from the quote, but does extend it beyond national institutions.

Enforcing laws against free speech doesn't change the ideas or make those inclined to agree any less inclined, or protect people in any way. When laws and state opposed homosexuality, it did not drive it out of existence, it did not convince homosexuals to submit or protect those who petitioned for the laws. What it did do is create secrecy, united homosexuals and gave them atrocities to fight against.

If it is wise to keep your friends close and enemies closer, if knowing your enemy provides the best defence, then why not let people speak freely? If truly repugnant and openly propagated, then the very ideas themselves will repulse people. The greatest strength against a bad idea is that bad idea. But you want to turn your strength into a weakness, a binding force conducted secretly and substantiated by its persecution.

More and more homosexuals are involved openly in religion. Should they be allowed to know what they are getting into? Should they be allowed to have their merits examined and propagated? Should they be allowed to promote a position and debate the opposition?

The irony of the quote you selected must be lost on you or you wouldn't have posted it. Is it not the same types of institutions that are trying to monopolize, gain power from and profit off of the issue that has brought the issue to your attention? Have you decided that their voice encompasses and abrogates others within your community?

I don't think that polarization has helped in the past or will in the future. Some freed slaves became slave owners. Is that what the struggle was about?

[patches70]

Thomas Paine didn't own slaves. He advocated for ending slavery so adamantly that he was excluded from any political power after the war.

Here ya go, check out the "non slave holding Founding Fathers" and see the names-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... y8i8osNSnw

or, if you'd prefer, you can read Thomas Paine's own words on the subject. Written in 1774 and published on March 8, 1775 in the "Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser" is Paine's essay entitled "African Slavery in America" copied for your benefit so that you may correct your false belief-

show

Thomas Paine was also the founder of the very first anti slavery society in America.


Why are you calling Thomas Paine a "slave master"? He was anything but. You can disagree with PS, that's fine, but at least get your history right.

[crispybits]

I'm not sure entirely how to respond to you shickingbrits, I think the only way is to break it down into separate statements:

Thanks for quoting Thomas Paine, one of the most adamant slave masters of the time. Being a slave master doesn't take away from the quote, but does extend it beyond national institutions.

As patches70 says, this is factually incorrect. I won't bother adding anything as he's covered it off well.

Enforcing laws against free speech doesn't change the ideas or make those inclined to agree any less inclined, or protect people in any way. When laws and state opposed homosexuality, it did not drive it out of existence, it did not convince homosexuals to submit or protect those who petitioned for the laws. What it did do is create secrecy, united homosexuals and gave them atrocities to fight against.

The laws against homosexuality weren't laws against free speech, they were laws against homosexuality. Similarly, laws against discrimination aren't laws against free speech, they are laws against discrimination. Free speech and free action are two completely different things. I could stand in the middle of Washington DC today and say that I think murder should be legal, and I'm not breaking any free speech laws. If I murder someone then I've broken the murder law.

If it is wise to keep your friends close and enemies closer, if knowing your enemy provides the best defence, then why not let people speak freely? If truly repugnant and openly propagated, then the very ideas themselves will repulse people. The greatest strength against a bad idea is that bad idea. But you want to turn your strength into a weakness, a binding force conducted secretly and substantiated by its persecution.

People can speak freely. The only limits to that are for things which compromise public safety, like shouting fire in a crowded building when there is none or promoting violence towards certain groups of people. There is no law against any preacher saying that any act they choose is a sin, the law simply states that in civil interactions with other members of society you cannot act in a discriminatory way. You cannot deny a service to someone purely because they are black. You cannot refuse to offer a job to someone purely because they are a woman. You cannot refuse to sell an item to someone purely because they are gay. You can still say whatever the hell you please about that person though as long as you're not libelling or slandering them.

More and more homosexuals are involved openly in religion. Should they be allowed to know what they are getting into? Should they be allowed to have their merits examined and propagated? Should they be allowed to promote a position and debate the opposition?

I would say they know exactly what they are getting into precisely because nobody is shutting down free speech outside of public safety limits. There are gay-friendly churches popping up all over, using the same kind of religious justifications for their faith as the traditional churches use for their beliefs. And it has been consistently said throughout this thread that you or anyone else should be able to say whatever the hell you like, it's how you act that is the issue here.

The irony of the quote you selected must be lost on you or you wouldn't have posted it. Is it not the same types of institutions that are trying to monopolize, gain power from and profit off of the issue that has brought the issue to your attention? Have you decided that their voice encompasses and abrogates others within your community?

I don't think that polarization has helped in the past or will in the future. Some freed slaves became slave owners. Is that what the struggle was about?

Again, everybody has a voice. Nobody's voice abrogates anyone else's. But we also have a civil structure of law, based in the case of the USA on several declarations of the principles that civil law must be based from. One of which is equality for all. Nobody is saying you can't preach and worship and believe whatever the hell you want to. What is being enforced is that you must act in a civil and egalatarian way towards all of your fellow law abiding citizens.

Don't confuse "I don't get to enforce my beliefs on others any more at the expense of their happiness" with "I'm being persecuted"....



(I suppose you're now going to tell me how he used to eat live kittens and stole from little old ladies and children...)

[thegreekdog]

Actually, maybe it will be super cool if the religious were persecuted. Then we could have television shows like "Baptist Eye for the Gay Guy" or something.

[Phatscotty]

1).....religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.

(1) I agree.

Crispy, how is that any different from saying homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, it's when they act to impose their lifestyle on others who disagree....