Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
And lest anyone suggest that religion and homophobia are not linked together:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/whats-connection-between-religion-and.html
And lest anyone suggest that religion and homophobia are not linked together:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/whats-connection-between-religion-and.html
That chart is based on someones fantasy? Why didnt they just throw in coker spaniels?
:facepalm:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I was on Webtv for around 12 years before I got here. I was a member of discussion groups which included the scum of humanity: gay bashers, neo nazis, racists, anti-semites, schizoid conspiracy theorists, religious fanatics, nativists, women haters, tea partiers, birthers, you name it. So I got very good at keeping my cool and using reason and wit to make my points in the face of being told I was a child molesting fag who should go die of aids and then go to hell. After so much of that you just laugh and shrug it off. But one good thing came out of it: I got very good at smelling a homophobe from a mile away and refuting their litany of cliche arguments. It's like they all operate from the same playbook. Same old bullshit claims over and over again. In fact there's a whole Wiki article on their propaganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric
Maybe you, albeit inadvertently, learned from them?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You have some studies showing otherwise? Let's see um.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There's that familiar stench again. Wow..they just sort of crawl out the woodwork don't they?
I dont know what you mean by that rude post. I am not homophobic at all.
I should have said you learned from those few individuals who happened to have been online.
roger_pearse
Registered Member
If by this you mean, does Christianity oppose unnatural vice, and the sudden promotion of it in the last few years, the answer is yes. And indeed it is opposed to a great number of other evils which are favoured by or practised by the establishment. Which is why an intelligent man is unsurprised to find that the establishment objects to Christianity. What else would we expect? That the powerful and corrupt will not dislike those who condemn their favourite vices?
As a rule, this rather obvious remark causes those addicted to this evil to start shrieking their hate. So little tolerance there is, these days, for disagreement towards what the establishment decides to do.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
That's not what he means. Homosexuality is not a vice, and I suggest you find some new terminology if you wish to stick around a while.
So you're saying that homosexuality is evil? Please clear this up for me. Is that what you're saying?
Okay, yes, that is what you're saying.
Goodbye, Roger.
Yeah, I think your days are few here Roger...Ciao, and AMF...
Bells
Staff member
I'd like you to provide scientific proof (peer reviewed, scientific journals and studies, etc) that homosexuality is an "unnatural vice".
Funny, but the Establishment in this country is Christian. Some Christians just love to call persecution and intolerance when the tables are turned on them.So as long as you can cast stones and no one else can all is fine in heaven, eh?
(Q),
As in 'Kanines'? I think its a cause for concern. Don't you?
Or does magic of 21st Century programming make it good and wholesome behaviour?
jan.
As in 'Kanines'? I think its a cause for concern. Don't you?
Or does magic of 21st Century programming make it good and wholesome behaviour?
jan.
Do you mean Canines?
Assuming you did - do I have a problem with it? No, not really... do I agree with it? Again, no, not really. But you know what? It's none of my goddamned BUSINESS! Just like if a gay couple wants to get married, it's none of yer damned business! Now, if the lady starts having SEX with her dog out on the front lawn, THEN it becomes a problem because now it's lewd and inappropriate behavior. Same can be said about two guys banging each other on a tire swing in the front yard... but I would HOPE you would also say that a straight couple copulating on said tire swing would be just as inappropriate!
Seriously, I've said it time and time again - WHY is this such a big deal? If you don't agree with it... don't do it! Simple! If you REALLY think it is a "sin" or "evil" or what not, then fine - let the person know you disagree with it, politely tell them why, and respectfully leave it at that! Everyone is entitled to their opinions and, you know, if it's really "wrong", well, when we all die and go to the pearly gates, God can do his job of judging us - it isn't for other mortals to judge and condemn!
That sounds like hypocrisy, in violation of the commandment not to judge others.
Which establishment? The Tea Party? The congregation of Anabaptists? The government of Uganda? Or do you mean some other establishment, such as the one we have here in the US, which protects citizens from discrimination based upon, among other things, sexual orientation?
To the extent that Christianity is being used as an excuse for converting homophobia into a cold war on homosexuals, then yes, the establishment of laws in the US which exist to protect against such petty hypocrisy, at the expense of the civil liberties of the victims, would not surprise the educated person.
I suppose we expect Christians to mind their business, to get their noses out of other people's affairs, and to put all of that judgmental angst to work at chastising themselves for being judgmental. :shrug:
That's right, blame the victims. It's classical psychopathy.
Among the things the educated should come to expect is that there is no tolerance for intolerance. Play the victim though, it completes the psychopathy checklist.
If that was your best, I'd hate to see your worst. :bugeye:
For centuries slavery was something that occurred between whites and blacks. Real estate was something that happened between a man and the land. And "divine right" was something that happened between a monarch and God. Funny how things change, though, as a result of progress.
I think what you're referring to is the way people used to cower in fear from their overlords, whether it had anything to do with sexual orientation or not. Slowly but surely all of those chains are coming off. Freedom is right around the corner.
Now if we can just get the religious people to stop sticking their noses in other people's business . . .
Aqueous Id,
The ''result of progress'' was good in giving the appearance that slavery was a) something that was exclusive to whites and blacks, and b) that it (slavery) is over. It's no different with ''marriage''. It will give the appearance that marriage can mean anything out little hearts desire, due to the big nasty version of marriage which was controlled by tyrants, is now a thing of the past.
Nope. There is was no desire, or need, for a man to marry another man, due to what being married meant.
Men didn't think they were oppressed because they couldn't marry other men. The notion of a marriage between two men is an oxymoron for a reason, until you change the meaning of marriage.
You mean stop doing things like making a mockery of a serious, natural institute, backbone of great societies, and turning it into a human rights issue. ''They can get married, so why can't I''? Now that's sticking your nose in
jan.
The ''result of progress'' was good in giving the appearance that slavery was a) something that was exclusive to whites and blacks, and b) that it (slavery) is over. It's no different with ''marriage''. It will give the appearance that marriage can mean anything out little hearts desire, due to the big nasty version of marriage which was controlled by tyrants, is now a thing of the past.
Nope. There is was no desire, or need, for a man to marry another man, due to what being married meant.
Men didn't think they were oppressed because they couldn't marry other men. The notion of a marriage between two men is an oxymoron for a reason, until you change the meaning of marriage.
You mean stop doing things like making a mockery of a serious, natural institute, backbone of great societies, and turning it into a human rights issue. ''They can get married, so why can't I''? Now that's sticking your nose in
jan.
Kittamaru,
Yes I did. Thank you for the correction, is is duly noted, and respected.
Wait? You really don't have a problem with women marrying canines?
Wouldn't you be concerned if your female friend, daughter, mother, announced that they were thinking of marrying the neighbours dog?
My point is, they can't really get married, not in the real sense of the word, because marriage is between a man and woman. It always has been, and always will be. The government giving the nod to men getting married is only sanction by the powers that be. So yes they are married in the eyes of the law, but they aren't really married as they do not fulfil the original criteria which IS naturally restricted to male and female.
It's inappropriate until government legislation deems it okay. That's the world you're okaying.
Why is what such a big deal?
jan.
Yes I did. Thank you for the correction, is is duly noted, and respected.
Wait? You really don't have a problem with women marrying canines?
Wouldn't you be concerned if your female friend, daughter, mother, announced that they were thinking of marrying the neighbours dog?
My point is, they can't really get married, not in the real sense of the word, because marriage is between a man and woman. It always has been, and always will be. The government giving the nod to men getting married is only sanction by the powers that be. So yes they are married in the eyes of the law, but they aren't really married as they do not fulfil the original criteria which IS naturally restricted to male and female.
It's inappropriate until government legislation deems it okay. That's the world you're okaying.
Why is what such a big deal?
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Many black people were also probably convinced that being a slave was their proper status in life. The thought that they were oppressed or deprived of rights belonging to white people might not even have occurred to them. That doesn't mean they weren't oppressed. That's how affective oppression can be. It can convince even the victims that they don't deserve anything better. Until one day someone wakes up and says: "Hey, we don't need to take this anymore. All men are equal and free." Then that idea of freedom spreads like wildfire and changes the world forever. Such is the same for being gay. Even gays had to wake up to the idea that they deserved equal rights. It was a major turning point in history. And it happened in 1967 at a gay bar in New York called the Stonewall Inn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg_emQoerBA
If gay marriage doesn't even really exist, then why are you so against it? Two men or two women getting married would no more threaten the institution of marriage than say two children playing dress up and pretending to get married. It would effect nothing in any way. Yet look at all the Christian attempts to oppose it with ballot propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. That's a lotta flack over something that doesn't even exist! Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Last edited: