Why do R-wing Xians hate gays?

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Amergin, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think government should cancel all handouts, both to corporations and to people who don't work. Government should cut "services" to the bone. Government should likewise cut taxes severely.


    I also think that government should remove all bans on substance use, including smoking bans, drug bans, etc.Government should get its nose out of the bedroom and stop telling anybody at all who is and is not or should be married.

    So, where does that put me?
     
  2. Virtual_Cliff

    Virtual_Cliff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tombstone Arizona 1881 :)
     
  3. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, that just doesn't make sense. If you're attracted to women, I don't know how anyone can change that. Can you advertise and market homosexuality as a pleasurable pastime? Win $5,000 if you try having sex with another man? Get a free phone? Win a trip to Disneyland?

    Actually I don't think you're necessarily mentally ill when you think these things. You've just been trained and taught a particular world-view and that everybody else who doesn't think and believe what you do are people who just don't get it. Everybody else is deluded. Basically, if someone doesn't think as you do, they're deluded.

    What I believe does lead to mental illness is when they start questioning what they believe and start realising that their beliefs are unrealistic. This is likely to lead to depression, as they try to pretend that nothing has changed, behaving and talking the same way as before. But deep inside, they're having an identity crisis. They feel ashamed of themselves for thinking such ugly things. It's going to have a huge effect on their serotonin and dopamine levels when their sense of reality falls apart.

    This is a sign that Christianity, a religion that was about moving away from fundamentalism and legalism has wandered so far away from its original ideals, goals and vision. Christians have become self-righteous, judgmental and arrogant. This was the kind of attitude that attracted anger from the God of the Tanakh/Old Testament. It was where religious people harboured attitudes that led to injustice, oppression and persecution. It was where they did what was contrary to what that God commanded and intended. The same God should be angry at the Christians of today who hate those who do no evil.

    I think there's an explanation behind every (or most) kind of hatred or hostility toward a group of people. The racism of the 19th century was about some races being superior to others. The racism of the last century was one of transition to what we have in this century: a fear of losing jobs to immigrants, lost economic opportunities and the fear of cultural infiltration by people with values that we feel will threaten the quality of our lives. All human beings are equal. We just don't like certain cultures.:)

    I think the statement "marriage is between a man and woman" is a hint to how homophobia develops in a person. What do men and women do with each other in a marriage? They have kids and babies. That means that they engage in procreation and perform their reproductive "duties."

    Every man is a sperm donor and every woman is a baby-making machine. Every man who has sexual relations with a woman fulfills his duty to spread his genes and contribute to the process of evolution. Every woman who makes herself available to a man for sex fulfills the "duty" to do two things: (1) participate in the process of evolution and (2) contribute to population growth by carrying the unborn baby around until it is ready to leave the womb.

    Anybody who chooses not to participate in this process is considered a threat to this normal cycle of contributing to evolution and population growth.

    Homosexuals are one group (but not the only category) of people who do not contribute to this cycle. They could just as well participate even if they are not interested in the opposite sex, but most people who want a sexual relationship would rather be with someone who attracts them.

    Apart from homosexuals, there are many others (heterosexual or bisexual) who wouldn't contribute to the process of evolution or population growth: virgins, men and woman who never had sex, aren't interested in sex or don't have enough of it, contraceptives, people choosing not to have kids, people marrying later and letting their fertility decline to such low levels that they become infertile, etc.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but is the world population not 6 billion people right now? A big problem is how we can distribute wealth, in the form of energy supplies, material goods and housing to these 6 billion people in a way where everybody can enjoy the quality of life that people have in developed countries. I do not think that is possible. There is not enough oil to supply 6 billion people with the level of economic activity we have today. If we all switch to biodiesel in our efforts to maintain the same level of economic activity we would have to use up more land. We can't all be rich.

    I think the world as a whole is having an overpopulation crisis, although locally, some countries may be afraid that they are having an underpopulation crisis -- or maybe something else that is very similar -- an aging population or immigrant-driven population growth.

    When you have people choosing to marry later, having kids later, choosing to be single or not having kids at all, pretty soon you are going to have an aging population. Politicians and national policymakers have to compensate by allowing more immigrants into their country because they need revenue to spend on aged care. This is what is happening in Europe right now.

    People start looking for someone to blame and it is tragic that they choose to point the finger at homosexuals and make them the scapegoat for the country's problems. They ignore the singles, virgins, spinsters and married couples who choose not to have kids. It seems to me that it is a sin to be homosexual but not a sin to be childless. Personally, if I choose to be childless, that is my business and nobody else's but it's just tragic that some other person gets the blame for the consequences of a choice that I make.

    Anti-abortionists and anti-homosexuals are often in agreement because their interest is very similar. It's about population growth. If you don't make babies you're a sinner. Homosexuality is . . . sort of . . . like an abortion isn't it?

    Personally, I think anti-abortionism and anti-homosexuality are part of the old patriarchal culture where men are expected to be sperm donors and women are baby-making machines. It is the idea that men and women were made for a specific prescribed purpose and not for a purpose of their own choosing. I hate the idea that we are all drones and that is what the old patriarchal culture teaches -- that men are X's and do Y and women are A's and do B. It reeks of a primitive civilisation.

    Do we all have to be breeders?
     
  4. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3

    I was baffled for a little while by that ok, I will just put it through "processing"

    *shrugs*

    A Liberal?
     
  5. Amergin

    Amergin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    You would like the idea of tax cuts for those who undergo orchiectomies or oophrectomies. That would be for the rich and reduce the number of greedy lying and stealing sociopaths.

    Then give money subsidies for poor people who do the most overpopulation of less intelligent kids.

    Obtain the money by taxing churches which all oppose population control. Tax the Catholic Church 50% of its income.

    Oh, maybe give the RCC a break since its clergy seems to be overwhelmingly gay and paedophilic.

    Repeal all gun control laws.

    Amergin
     
  6. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Re: suspect class defintion

    Perhaps the Homosexual community might want to seriously consider getting themselves identified as a "suspect class". If not they may be on a collision course with the womens rights advocates, not just society at large.

    preventing_Homosexuality_in_the_womb

    If science is this close to determining sexual orientation and or correction in the womb, imagine what might the future hold for the homosexual society at large (which is already considered a societal contributor of diminishing returns as far as contributing to the gene pool is concerned), when women (at least in the US), learn their foetus is homosexually oriented, and decide to abort the child, rather than bring it into the world.

    The Roe vs. Wade decision (1973) gives women the "right" to abort on demand, which currently would deprive the homosexual community from preventing such abortions for people like themselves.

    Ergo, the homosexual community will in essence lose their basic citizen's rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness, as well as continuation to even exist as an entity of society.

    To say it can't happen, is folly as history past and recent, shows.

    To call it Orewllian is putting it mildly...
     
  7. bob x

    bob x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Q, you are giving the most garbled understanding of "discrimination" law I have ever heard. This is from one of my earlier posts to c0de about how American law works:
    -------
    EVERY law treats people unequally. Laws against theft discriminate against people who want to take things: here we use "discriminate" in its morally neutral sense "to make distinctions, in favor of one over another", as a wine-taster or food-taster who can subtly distinguish the finest from similar products is said to have "discriminating taste"; the morally condemnatory sense of the word is called "invidious discrimination". US constitutional law sets four criteria for determining how difficult it ought to be to change the laws and create new discriminations:

    1. Are we discriminating against a "voluntary action" or against an "immutable characteristic"? When the law discriminates against thieves, you can avoid being discriminated against by: not stealing. When the law discriminates against blacks, you cannot avoid being discriminated against, if you are black. So we do not regard these two kinds of "discrimination" as being alike. If you can avoid the discrimination by not voluntarily putting yourself in the disfavored class, the law need only have a "rational basis". The Jewish law contains some commandments called choq (I think? bananabrain would know the exact term) which are not justified in terms of any other principle, they are "just because": like not mixing meat and dairy products. Such a law would not be allowed in the US, without some "rational basis" that states why it hurts anybody for me to eat a cheeseburger, or helps the society if there is a general ban on cheeseburgers. But if any such basis at all can be stated, a law against a voluntary action is perfectly OK.

    If the law discriminates against an immutable characteristic:
    2. Are we discriminating against a "sizable group", or a "small minority"? If the disfavored class has numbers on its side, it should be able to pursue the ordinary political process if the law is unfair. There are a lot of laws which treat men and women differently, often though not always to the disadvantage of women, who slightly outnumber men in fact. If the law has majority support anyway, it might be presumed that a lot of women agree that the overall benefits of the law make it acceptable despite some burden on themselves. There still must be some suspicion of a law that discriminates against someone for a condition like gender which is not the "fault" or "choice" of the person in any way, so it is said that such a law is "subject to heightened scrutiny" to see if the political process has been rigged in some way, but courts are really vague about when such laws should be disallowed.

    If the law discriminates against an immutable characteristic of a small minority:
    3. Are we discriminating against an "isolated" class? (as opposed to one integrated into the society)
    and 4. Is there a history of "odium"? (emotional antagonism against the disfavored class)
    These questions are more ambiguous than 1 and 2. But if the minority has a chance to use the political process, pleading their case with the majority that they are treated unfairly, there is less suspicion about the law than in the case of a minority which is ostracized and despised. A law which is all about preserving isolation and odium should never be upheld; in a less extreme case, a law discriminating against an immutable minority must "serve a compelling state interest." For example, the military has a strict ban against color-blind people becoming fighter pilots. This meets tests 1 and 2 for invidious discrimination (it is a genetic trait they cannot change; and there are very few of them) but not 3 and 4 (they are scattered randomly, and all have friends and family among the normal-sighted to help plead their case if they are treated unfairly; and there is no history of treating them contemptuously). We ask then whether the military's concern about them not seeing instrument panels precisely is a "compelling" one, and since the military is vital to us, we defer to their judgment. A ban on color-blind people entering some other profession where their sensory defect might make it a little harder to do their jobs would not be upheld; they should be accommodated where it is at all practical to do so.

    A case that I, and most modern commentators, think was decided very wrongly was Kobayashi v. US in which the Supreme Court upheld the roundup and detention of all people of Japanese descent during World War II. At least we didn't murder any of them, but it was still tragic. The immigrants had chosen the United States, whatever sentimental attachment to home they retained ("When father and mother are fighting, do you want one of them to beat the other?" one asked. "No, you just wish they would stop fighting!"), and the second generation were born here, citizens, many of them intensely patriotic (some were allowed to prove their loyalty by volunteering for the military: a few used in the Pacific as interpreters, large units of them sent to Italy, where they compiled a very brave record). The court found the interest in stopping any possibility of espionage "compelling" although Italian-Americans and German-Americans (some of whom actually did spy) were not similarly treated; said the Japanese had "infiltrated" our society: a very "invidious" way of saying they were assimilated and integrated, which was not really true, as they continued to be socially shunned and subjected to insulting slurs and vicious stereotypes. This was all about "isolation and odium" and should never have been allowed.
    ----------
    Now, what "suspect classification" means is a differentiation ("discrimination") in the law so that the disfavored class meets all or most of the 4 criteria; therefore, the law must meet the standard of "strict scrutiny" (the state must prove that it serves a compelling interest, with the least possible burden on the disfavored class) or it cannot be upheld. Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case ruled that it does not matter whether or not discriminating against homosexuals is a suspect classification, since the law does not even meet the standard of "rational basis" (no-one is hurt by allowing us to marry, or helped by forbidding us to).
     
  8. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    6
    Going backwards will never help us move forward ...

    Perhaps there is a difference between `taking a step back,' and *moving backwards*.

    What is worth keeping, is worth understanding.
    Maybe it's the latter which is lacking ...
     
  9. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I would take the credit, but it is not mine to take. The legal precedence has already been set in place. I was simply giving a "heads up", to those interested.

    Law is one thing, judges are a whole different thing. Interpretation is the benefit or detriment of the one standing before the judge.
     
  10. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    How drunk did you have to be to come up with that? The whole "special class" rubbish is entirely OUTSIDE OF the US Constitution. NOBODY has ANYTHING guaranteed them in the Constitution on the basis of gender, race, creed, etc. You must be aware that nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit guarantee of a right for ANYONE to marry ANYONE at all. I happen to have a solid, Constitutional, answer for that, but you wouldn't like it.

    You must be very proud of your ignorance to show it off so much.
     
  11. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Provided for specifically under terms of treaties, which are normal affairs of states interacting with each other--falls under the normal parts of the US Constitution governing treaty.


    THIS NEVER HAPPENED!

    What year was the ERA added to the US Constitution? I'll answer it for you--IT NEVER WAS. NEVER! Few people are so screamingly ignorant as to simply need to shut up--have you crossed over into that territory? You might wish to ask yourself that.


    This only formalized what had already been the case in federal elections and most state elections.

    In 1920, what adult US citizens, besides women, were prohibited by law from voting? No, racial minorities do not fall under this. They were stopped from voting, but these acts were even illegal in the states that they occurred in. The Voting Rights Act only served to enforce laws already on the books.
     
  12. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberals adore government handouts and want as many as possible, with as high taxes as possible.
     
  13. bob x

    bob x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, what *I* told you is what the law is. What *you* came out with was incredible garble. At the very least, try to get this part straight: the term is not "suspect class", it is "suspect classification"; WE are not "suspect" for existing-- YOU are "suspect" for wanting laws to treat us differently. We should be treated exactly the same, unless you come up with some very strong reason.
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Again, I did not come up with "anything". Constitutional lawyers did. I merely pointed the direction of the link to show how that was considered. Perhaps reading the document might shed more light on the subject...

    And the term is not "special class"; it is "suspect class".

    Q
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I don't "want anything" Bob. I'm not your enemy. I pointed out a legal article, that I thought some might be curious to read. History shows there is presidence for considering granting some a kind of protection that otherwise might not be considered, due to social stigmas.

    Q
     
  16. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    As I stated, the Constitution has the basic laws of the land, and "other" laws have been enacted to enforce the details of the Constitutional rights of people.

    Q
     
  17. bob x

    bob x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    And I am telling you that this article was ABSOLUTE CRAP.
     
  18. Snoopy

    Snoopy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    44
    (Not being an American I am truly ignorant of your constitution.)

    "Suspect class" is an abhorrent term. "Suspect classification" may be slightly less so....All sounds very dodgy...

    s.
     
  19. bob x

    bob x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Suspect classification" means that you are classifying people, giving them different rights, in a way that ought to arouse suspicion, and raise a presumption that the two different classes ought in fact to have the same rights. A law that said only right-handed people are allowed to fly kites (fines and possible imprisonment for left-handed kite-flyers) would be very "suspect" for example.
     
  20. Snoopy

    Snoopy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    44
    Indeed, Mr x.

    Dodgy.


    s.
     

Share This Page