Then go to the comments:
It’s not surprising that that’s a misattribution. We all know that lying for Jesus is encouraged by scripture.
Xians are obsessed with what *everyone else* is doing with their private parts. They will do with their parts as they please, but if you do something they don’t the judgment comes swiftly.[Some] Atheists are tone deaf to their own irrationally false claims.
Xianity does so much harm with it’s sex obsession. Millions of women will never have an orgasm because of it. Millions of men will commit rape because of it.
It’s sad to me that Xians can’t decide that their god wants them to be happy and enjoy life, which includes non-reproductive sex. Why would their god give them the ability to feel such wonderful things but make it a sin to actually feel them. This of course applies only to women and gays. Men may do as they please.
As if atheists are more promiscuous than Christians.
As if it were even physically possible to be more promiscuous than Christians.
48 comments:
It is always amusing to see the juvenile attempt to delete ANY and all references to Christ, even when writing about Christians (so called or otherwise). It is of a similar vein as the feminist attempt to insert "her" in place of "his" in every word; for example, re-writing "history" as "herstory." Perhaps those of us of the theist persuasion should begin referring to atheists as "Xtheists." That is considerably more accurate linguistically than referring to Christians as "Xians." Sticks and stones, pots and kettles, no broken bones, nothing but nettles.
It's always amusing to see Xtians get butthurt over perceived insults. I personally think it is epidemic in their culture of martyrdom where they are the consummate victim.
"The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "Xρ" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as 1021. This X and P arose as the uppercase forms of the Greek letters χ (Ch) and ρ (R) used in ancient abbreviations for Χριστος (Greek for "Christ"),[2] and are still widely seen in many Eastern Orthodox icons depicting Jesus Christ. The labarum, an amalgamation of the two Greek letters rendered as ☧, is a symbol often used to represent Christ in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian Churches.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
The 'X' is an abbreviation, not a deletion.
Michael, Christianity is a BELIEF system, which you can reject.
Homosexuality is a SEXUAL ORIENTATION, which you cannot reject.
Nobody is censoring Christians nor attacking them just because they are Christians, in the USA.
Homosexuals still get beaten up just because they are gay, right here, right now, in the USA.
That's the idea.
Humanist,
A great many homosexuals have, in fact, rejected their temporary bent toward homosexuality. Your comment is dogma which is now law in some places, where those counsellors who dare to counsel homosexuals who want to leave homosexuality will be imprisoned for doing so. This is legal persecution.
So your claim that attacks on Christians is false. The media and government attacks on all those who "intolerantly" adhere to moral standards (including churches and christian businesses) is constant and unrelenting, including from a number of government agencies which are beyond citizens control, as they control elections by persecution from within the power of the government.
This constitutes government censorship and repression of ideologies which are non-compliant with amoral Leftism.
Homosexuals are far more likely to get beaten up by another homosexual than by a hate criminal.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555535275/ref=ase_aardvarcorg-20/002-5153007-2133655?v=glance&s=books
Homosexuals are far more violent than non-homosexuals. Their statistics are still available despite the recent attempts to lump them in with heterosexual statistics.
Are you saying that Xians don't use the term Xians?
Because my post laid out exactly how and why and when the term originated.
But don't let facts interrupt your victimology...
So then, Humanist, explain why a privately-owned and run bakery in Gresham, Oregon was forced to shut down because the owners refused to go against the tenets of their faith, as is protected in the First Amendment, by providing their services to a homosexual marriage. While homosexual activists like to preach tolerance, they have a nasty tendency to infringe upon other people's rights.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-that-denied-same-sex-wedding-cake-closes--222004711.html
humanist,
You made this claim as if it were a driving moral imperative:
"Homosexuals still get beaten up just because they are gay, right here, right now, in the USA."
Your implication that all Homosexuals suffer abominably at the hands of all non-homosexuals is demonstrably false regardless of whether you like the data at the CDC; moreover, their biggest problem is internal to their own culture, whether you deny that or not.
Discrimination was not the issue: you changed subject mid stream.
What you are presenting here is the standard Victimhood/Oppressor/Messiah narrative, where you are the Messiah defending the Victims from the Oppressor.
But the major oppressor to homosexuals is other homosexuals and their common behaviors which include high rates of domestic violence and promiscuity leading to death via AIDs. Legions of homosexuals have died awful deaths due to their behaviors.
"They were shut down because of what they did, not what they believe or who they are."
It is incredible that ANYONE would make such a claim. It is beyond false. They were shut down precisely because of their religion, which they refused to violate at the order of the state - in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Sometimes I just have to say GoodGawdAmighty!!
"Your examples shoe that you are not talking about the real disagreement because you are the ones with a dogma: being gay is wrong just because... you tell me!"
Being gay is highly likely to have occured due to sexual abuse and trauma incurred in childhood. Look it up. Given that such trauma can and does affect adult lives with contiued trauma and unwanted consequences, and given that there are homosexuals seeking help for that, then denying them that professional help is unethical.
Being disallowed counselling because being homosexual is Good by definition is irrational and unethical. That is the issue.
Being homosexual is bad for the individual who doesn't want that for him/herself, and it is worse when they are denied help due to ideology which locks homosexuals in.
That is the morality of Victimhood which is being visited upon homosexuals, and it is not coming from the Right Wing or any supposed homophobes. It is specifically denied by the Left, whose passionate protection of homosexuality as a normal, Good behavior by definition is displayed by yourself.
An interesting note on the logic of homosexuality; if homosexuality has a physical cause, as many homosexuals wish, then it is preventable as a physical issue. But if it has no physical cause, then it is a behavior, which is preventable as an emotional issue.
Either way, homosexuality is not likely to survive its short term as a protected class, because it will be preventable unless prevention is forbidden in order to trap the individual into the behavior. And that would be evil.
Stan,
"You made this claim as if it were a driving moral imperative:
"Homosexuals still get beaten up just because they are gay, right here, right now, in the USA.""
Moral imperative? That does not make any sense. I am just pointing out a fact... something that does not affect me personally but that I find quite sad, since beating up people just because they have feelings for the same sex as theirs is terrible. It used to be blacks, and probably still is in some part of the country, but the logic was the same: you are different; I will make you suffer for it.
"Your implication that all Homosexuals suffer abominably at the hands of all non-homosexuals"
Not at all. Thankfully, it's getting better and most homosexuals live normal lives without the fear of being persecuted for their sexual orientation. Some countries are not so gentle about their gays...
"their biggest problem is internal to their own culture"
You mean this thing of homosexuals being more likely to be beaten up by another gay person rather than a non-gay? So what? It's not part of their 'culture' since it's not even a 'culture' to begin with. They were forced historically to live among themselves to not get harassed, so ya, of course they are more likely to be beaten up by another gay. Just like a black person living in a black neighborhood is more likely to be attacked by another black person. Would you call that something part of their 'culture'? Statistically yes, but would you then claim that it's 'ok' to beat up a black person because they are black? Does it make it less horrifying when a black person is beaten up because of the color of their skin alone?
"Discrimination was not the issue: you changed subject mid stream."
Michael and yourself brought examples of discrimination against gays: Christian business who care about what the sexual orientation of their potential clients is. They discriminate against them; you brought up the examples. In any case, hate crimes and discrimination are almost the same, since they are some form of "punishment" or "denigration" based solely on sexual orientation. The 2 topics can be approached independently, I agree, but claiming that I changed the subject is absurd.
"What you are presenting here is the standard Victimhood/Oppressor/Messiah narrative, where you are the Messiah defending the Victims from the Oppressor."
Is that a logical statement or an emotional baseless attack on my person? Ironic coming from you Stan. I expected better. So the mere fact that I point out to discrimination/hate crime commited base on sexual orientation puts me in this Victimhood/Oppressor/Messiah narrative? Would you have said the same to white people who work to get voting rights to black? Would you have said the same to men who fought for women right to vote?
"But the major oppressor to homosexuals is other homosexuals and their common behaviors which include high rates of domestic violence and promiscuity leading to death via AIDs. Legions of homosexuals have died awful deaths due to their behaviors. "
Same illogical reasoning that I pointed out before. First, I doubt the domestic violence statistics are true; what you posted did not include that. But more importantly, who cares? It does not justify the claim that being gay is wrong and you must change I agree that not being promiscuous is better but forcing people to change sexual orientation would not help that. I gave example above; you did not address them:
Men are more violent on average, blacks, poor uneducated people are also more violent on average for so many reasons; should we discriminate against men? Blacks? Poor? Poor and uneducated especially can change, so should we deny them rights until they do?
""They were shut down because of what they did, not what they believe or who they are."
It is incredible that ANYONE would make such a claim. It is beyond false. They were shut down precisely because of their religion, which they refused to violate at the order of the state - in direct violation of the First Amendment."
You still don’t understand the point. What we have here are people who discriminate against other people base on their sexual orientation. There were consequences, which I agree with you were too much. But that is not the point. The point is that the consequences they suffered were not because they label themselves as Christians; the consequences they suffered were triggered by the discrimination they depicted versus people based on sexual orientation. Gays, on the other hand, suffer consequences just because they are gay; in some case even without acting upon it, or worse, in some cases only because a person looks gay! There is no comparison with the example you gave, even though I insist that I agree with you that's these Christians should not suffer these consequences.
"Being gay is highly likely to have occured due to sexual abuse and trauma incurred in childhood. Look it up. Given that such trauma can and does affect adult lives with contiued trauma and unwanted consequences, and given that there are homosexuals seeking help for that, then denying them that professional help is unethical."
No you look it up, that's such bullshit. I am sorry but I live in the 21st century; let me know when you catch up. But it's even worse than that, because I told you that I don't see any problem with a gay person wanting to try to change their sexual orientation. What's horrible is if they feel pressured from outside for no good reasons, from people like you, who cannot explain why they think being gay is bad. You just classify them as bad and then show meaningless statistics; but why do you even classify people by sexual orientation in the first place? What about left-handed people? Black? Poor? Uneducated? You keep avoiding these comparisons. Tell me why you care only about sexual orientation... tell me why a gay rich educated couple should not be allowed to marry and adopt kids but a poor black uneducated couple can have as many children as they want; with the consequences we know: higher chances of violence and so on, statistically.
"passionate protection of homosexuality as a normal"
Who said it was normal? You just show how you misunderstand the point again and again. I need to bring up being left-handed yet again... Is it 'normal' to be left handed? Certainly not, the norm clearly is to be right-handed. Should we force everyone to be right-handed? It can be learned; so why deny counseling to left-handed people who want to be right-handed? If you want to look at statistics, there is necessarly one of the 2 groups that slightly more violent than the other, or more prone to be educated or I don't know what else, but I am sure you can find differences. Does this mean we should make 1 group become like the other? Of course not; this shows the illogical way of thinking you have when it comes to homosexuality; you start with the idea that we have to label people by their sexual orientation and then you use all these stats to come up with ridiculous correlation. But why care about sexual orientation in the first place? Why not care about gender/race?
" homosexuality is not likely to survive its short term as a protected class "
Nobody wants them to be a 'protected' class; this is just your irrational view of the situation that speaks for itself yet again. Gay rights activists want equal rights. That's it. People want to not have to talk about sexual orientation; people don't want people to care. We have to care now because of religious people who fight this fight for no good reason, just because... again, you tell me! Why do you care about sexual orientation?
The subject was changed to “poor homosexuals”. You are behaving as a destructionist troll at this point, bent on annoyance with your Victimhood Narrative couched as being uber morality. Yet you state that “…this thing of homosexuals being more likely to be beaten up by another gay person rather than a non-gay? So what? It's not part of their 'culture' since it's not even a 'culture' to begin with.”
You show exactly no empathy, none, for homosexual-on-homosexual violence, despite the blatant evidence that such violence is a much higher danger to homosexuals than your claim of Victimhood crimes. All you seem to care about is Victimhood and the Oppressor Class. That is Leftist Narrative in action. SO WHAT indeed.
” "What you are presenting here is the standard Victimhood/Oppressor/Messiah narrative, where you are the Messiah defending the Victims from the Oppressor."
“Is that a logical statement or an emotional baseless attack on my person? Ironic coming from you Stan. I expected better. So the mere fact that I point out to discrimination/hate crime commited base on sexual orientation puts me in this Victimhood/Oppressor/Messiah narrative? Would you have said the same to white people who work to get voting rights to black? Would you have said the same to men who fought for women right to vote?”
It is a statement of empirical fact, as delineated by intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell, Berman, Benda and Hayek, to name a few off the top of my head. And it concerns me not a whit what you “expect” of me. What I give you I give with attached data and references. What you give us here is just emotional wishful thinking and blatant flights out of reality, including denial of data and blatant disregard for homosexual violence. And I would say the same to anybody who values Narrative over real facts, and anybody who doesn't care about the actual plight of the homosexual, as you do not.
”But the major oppressor to homosexuals is other homosexuals and their common behaviors which include high rates of domestic violence and promiscuity leading to death via AIDs. Legions of homosexuals have died awful deaths due to their behaviors. "
Same illogical reasoning that I pointed out before. First, I doubt the domestic violence statistics are true…”
Of course you do; facts interfere with your Narrative. Here is a CDC factoid: homosexual rape and domestic violence is thought to be the most unreported crimes that there are. And I no longer care what you doubt. You are pushing a moralizing story which is noncongruent with the actual facts regarding the dangers which homosexuals (and blacks for that matter) face: violence from within, not violence from outsiders.
Here is your first honest statement:
”… what you posted did not include that. But more importantly, who cares?”
No you do not care.
” It does not justify the claim that being gay is wrong…”
The claim is specifically this: IT IS WRONG TO USE HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALS AS WEAPONS AGAINST RELIGIONS AND AS WEAPONS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I’ll repeat that since you cannot grasp it with out shouting it appears:
IT IS WRONG TO USE HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALS AS WEAPONS AGAINST RELIGIONS AND AS WEAPONS AGAINST THEMSELVES.
This is not a morality play against whatever it is that homosexuals do to each other. It addresses declaring them GOOD and UNDENIABLY GOOD and USING THEM TO ATTACK RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Wars are necessarily fought over the dictation of the loss of natural freedoms.
“… and you must change…”
I did not say that, and declaring that in this context is a lie.
“… I agree that not being promiscuous is better but forcing people to change sexual orientation would not help that…”
No one said to force them to change, so that is a lie.
” I gave example above; you did not address the”
And I’m not going to.
The following is the Narrative in full bloom:
”Men are more violent on average, blacks, poor uneducated people are also more violent on average for so many reasons; should we discriminate against men? Blacks? Poor? Poor and uneducated especially can change, so should we deny them rights until they do?”
Until very recently no one had the unalienable right to enter anyone else’s private property, much less to demand from the owner private service based on their Victimhood status. Messiahs such as yourself now assume that right to be unalienable, that no one can deny the designated Victim Class access to private property and private service, because they are designated by the Messiah Class as the protected Victimhood Category which can automatically access anything private and make demands for private service just because of that cherished Victimhood Status. If access is denied, the denier must be destroyed including his means of supporting his private property and private service, and further be vilified as an immoral discriminating “racist”, “homophobe” or other Leftist pejorative.
The Victimhood Class will ALWAYS be the Victimhood Class because the Messiah Class absolutely MUST have someone to save. So any data which besmirches the character of the Victimhood class must be denigrated, because the Victimhood Class is full of GOOD and INNOCENT and HELPLESS victims who are always in thrall to the Messiah Class. Co-dependency always works that way. Co-dependency is a behavior disorder.
This will have no meaning to you; you only care about preserving the Narrative which you push relentlessly. Thus you are the problem, the Messiah, who is declaring your pet Victimhood Classes, and defining me as the Oppressor Class, to be defeated.
The defining evidence for this is threefold:
(1) You have only pretend empathy for the victims of violence in your protected Victim Classes since only one type of violence concerns you;
(2) You deny the CDC data which goes counter to your Narrative.
(3) You make claims about the contrary positions here which are blatantly false.
If you don’t like being called out like this, tough: facts are facts, and you obviously don’t care for actual facts. Go and live happily in your fanciful world of moral elitism, and just quit pushing your falsehoods around here.
Wow, what a strong emotional post, and I now I think your last line meant you won't post this so I will be brief.
Complete misunderstanding regarding the gay 'culture'. My choice of words was horrible and I understand why you thought I meant there is literally no such thing as a gay 'culture'. One of my best friend is gay and I've been to just enough gay events with him to experience their 'culture'. You are right on that; that was my mistake.
"the US Government discrimination against the freedoms clearly called out in the First Amendment"
I agree with you on all the excess you mentioned. The problem is that we disagree on whether it's wrong for people to be allowed to express their freedom of religion for discrimination based on sexual orientation. How can we discuss if the measures are too strong or not when you refuse to see it as something wrong?
There are so many valid cases of religious freedom being infringed for good and valid reasons. What about Jehovah's witness who would rather see their child die than get a blood transfusion? Or the parents who prayed instead of bringing their child to the hospital?
"you do not care."
Everything you mention about 'caring' is complete misunderstanding on your part. The shouting and all is unnecessary.
So, not much to discuss since for you, sexual orientation is something that can be wrong in some cases.
"So, not much to discuss since for you, sexual orientation is something that can be wrong in some cases."
Correction: because the desperate attempt to show that homosexuality is a physical error in DNA or other physical manifestation which is unchangeable has completely failed despite the decades of frantic searching for it, homosexuality is quite likely to be a behavior, not a physical necessity. Being a behavior, it is modifiable, for those who want to modify it. It is wrong to deny help to those who want that help.
Your conclusion to the contrary is based on dogma, not fact.
And not so much to discuss with you because, despite your denial, you show no concern for anything other than the dogma and Narrative, including no concern for the actual, real, massive problems which homosexuals face. For you there is just the one problem for homosexuals: Christians, who must be forced into submission, no matter the cost to them. As you pointed out, they are not the protected Victimhood Class, so they can be forced to violate their own principles, whereas it is a hate crime if homosexuals are – not forced to violate their own principles, of course – but denied access to all private property whenever they wish (quelle horreur). The distinction is obviously lost on you because it is outside the Messiah Narrative.
For you, Narrative is truth; facts are obstacles.
Humanist, you are aware that people get bullied, beaten and otherwise attacked for a wide multitude of reasons, not merely restricted to sexual preference, right? The core difference here is that homosexual activists are using positions of power within the state, especially judicial, to codify homosexual anti-discriminatory protectionism. The inverse of that being applying First Amendment-eroding intrusions by the state upon religious matters, hence that bakery being forced to close shop. Tell me, what of the clear discrimination (or 'intolerance' as is the preferred catch-all word used by progressives) being displayed by the state against people for keeping faithful to their religious practices? If the state can visit violations of religious conscious upon you at their volition, the First Amendment is effectively rendered worthless. There's no point in running a *private* business where the state can dictate your business' policy.
There was a photographer couple out of New Mexico who refused to violate the tenets of their beliefs by photographing a same-sex couple, so the latter sued them. There's a gay couple in Great Britain who are suing a church for refusing to marry them. People are being bounced around in Canada's so-called "Human Rights Tribunals" for the thought crime of being opposed to homosexuality. Here's the best part: the burden of proof is entirely upon the accused to prove their innocent, so guilt is assumed by default, on nothing more than a mere accusation of "intolerance."
It's astounding how downright Orwellian political policy has become as of late. As with all of the above cases, when Obama tried to force religious groups to subsidize abortions, contraception and birth-control pills as being part of mandatory health coverage, it constituted a [i]direct attack[/i] upon their religious freedom. Such is the underlying motives of the progressive-socialist movement made perfectly clear: they want to institute and enforce their [i]own[/i] distorted version of morality. Religious freedom be damned.
Stan, you write: "you show no concern for anything other than the dogma and Narrative" yet you did not answer any of my questions that would help understand the disagreement we have. Instead, you are the one pushing his same narrative again and again. It's as if you don't even read; why would you bring up the same misunderstanding otherwise?
""So, not much to discuss since for you, sexual orientation is something that can be wrong in some cases."
Correction:..."
Why is sexual orientation something bad, for certain types of orientation? Point 1 ignored by you.
What comes after 'Correction' is something else completely...
"Correction: because the desperate attempt to show that homosexuality is a physical error in DNA or other physical manifestation which is unchangeable has completely failed despite the decades of frantic searching for it, homosexuality is quite likely to be a behavior, not a physical necessity. Being a behavior, it is modifiable, for those who want to modify it. It is wrong to deny help to those who want that help."
You did not read what I wrote because I told you I agree with that. There are identical twins who are not both heterosexual. QED.
What I told you in that respect was using the left-handed people analogy. You ignored. Why?
Point 2 ignored by you.
"you show no concern for anything other than the dogma and Narrative, including no concern for the actual, real, massive problems which homosexuals face.
Which problems? There are many that we could discuss, including being discriminated against by religious people... Here the parallel can be made with blacks, uneducated and/or poor people. You ignored (Point 3) the examples and continue with your narrative instead.
More can be said here by the way. Lots of black people are descendants of slaves, so obviously they had a rougher start in life and the consequences are still visible today. Homosexuals have always been shunned for religious reasons, and nothing else (they did not use statistics on home domestic violence when writing the Bible...), so of course it's not surprising that the Homosexual population is different, that promiscuity is higher if you are not allowed to marry! It's amazing how the religious ideas that cause they issues in the first place are now playing the Messiah and want to "help" them change. You have no good reason to want them to change in the first place; that's the point.
"For you there is just the one problem for homosexuals: Christians, who must be forced into submission, no matter the cost to them "
No. I don't care about the religion; again I told you this, Point 4 ignored. The action is what matters.
I also told you (and Michael) that you raised good examples of what I agree is excess by the government. The bakery being shut down for instance sounds like it went too far, even though I did not look at the details. So you ignored my position here (Point 5). But the question you ignored is this: should we let bakery deny service to black people? Where does religious freedom stops and common sense law begins? What about the other examples I gave, you also ignored that, and Michael too clearly since his comment is just as off track as yours...
Is it 'ok', for religious freedom' sake to allow parents let their children die? It's their religious freedom; they are against blood transfusion and/or prefer to pray!
1 more thing from Michael (the rest of your comment is addressed by the point above I believe)
"Humanist, you are aware that people get bullied, beaten and otherwise attacked for a wide multitude of reasons, not merely restricted to sexual preference, right?"
Yes and what you put after is what I told you I agree with: excess from the government is bad.
” Instead, you are the one pushing his same narrative again and again. It's as if you don't even read; why would you bring up the same misunderstanding otherwise?”
Yes I am repeating the same point over and over because it seems to have no effect on you: you always make the same statements out of the Victimhood manual. Examples? You blatantly don’t care about their major problems by changing the subject to other categories of Victimhood. And you try to intimate that those problems aren’t significant because what about Left Handed Victims? What about Black Victims? Evidence is “meaningless”. Pure Red Herring:
”You just classify them as bad…”
You have said this lie over and over; if it doesn’t stop, you actually will be removed for that behavior.
”… and then show meaningless statistics;”
Meaningless only because you, specifically, do not care about what actually happens to homosexuals.
”…but why do you even classify people by sexual orientation in the first place?”
I can’t believe that anyone ever could say that with a straight face. They did it to themselves (!) They purposefully called themselves “Gay” and created organizations for the LGBTW’s and screamed “WE’RE QUEER AND WE’RE HERE” over and over on national TV for decades. They have multiple onanist orgies on the streets of San Francisco every year, with all sorts of bodily fluids gushing everywhere, and every orifice filled, in public.
” What about left-handed people? Black? Poor? Uneducated? You keep avoiding these comparisons.”
There is no use in changing the subject in order to avoid the charges made against you and the Messiah Cult. All designations of classes of Victimhood are essentially of the same cloth: the Messiah needs a Victim Class, one which will persist regardless of what anyone does to help, AND each Victimhood Class needs an oppositional Oppressor Class which can be vilified and punished for the state of the Victimhood Class (the persecution of Zimmerman by the Black DOJ head is case in point for Black Victimhood).
” Tell me why you care only about sexual orientation...”
I address exactly one subject at a time. Tell me why you don’t give a flyshit about the actual, major problems which homosexuals face: go ahead, do it.
Never mind, it is obvious.
”tell me why a gay rich educated couple should not be allowed to marry and adopt kids…”
I did not say that, did I? Stop saying that I did. It is a lie.
… but a poor black uneducated couple can have as many children as they want; with the consequences we know: higher chances of violence and so on, statistically...”
It is the Left that encourages the killing of blacks in their abortion abbatoirs, not me, not the Republicans, not the Right Wing.
I’m done with that. Stay on subject: why don’t you care even one quark about the actual, real, demonstrable with data, problems which face homosexuals? Why? Why do you pimp the hatred for the Oppressor Class? Why?
Why?
Why?
@Stan: Why? Because he can. He's not entirely rational. And by now, it's his nature.
I see him writing words, but stringing words together into self-contradictory, self-serving sentences does not imply reason. He squarely refuses to face your questions and answer them at all.
It's all ducking and dodging and weaving. Change the subject, erect a strawman, ignore a statement over and over, throw out a Tu Quo Que dressed in Red Herrings... Stan, I will bet you a fiver he doesn't even know what those things are, but he knows how to do them.
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. In this case, the writer is trying to blind us with brilliant bullshit. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense.
It just has to be entertaining. You don't seriously think any atheist showing up here is gonna disagree with his tripe, do you? They *all* think alike after a certain time in the dungeon.
Was this how you sounded thirty years ago, Stan? When you were an atheist, did you make arguments like this? What prompted you to let go of it? Because a lot of the attachment to this stuff is ego-driven, and I admire the heck out of anyone who can overcome that.
"Stay on subject: why don’t you care even one quark about the actual, real, demonstrable with data, problems which face homosexuals? Why? Why do you pimp the hatred for the Oppressor Class? Why?
Why?
Why?"
Because the problems they face stem mostly from the fact that they were shunned by religious people in the first place:
- Promiscuity will be higher in a population that's not allowed to marry.
- Violence will be higher among a population that's labelled as marginal, that's bullied by many just because of their sexual orientation.
- Suicide rates will be higher within a population that's told they don't fit with normal people.
- Confrontation between homosexuals and heterosexuals started with the extremist of the hetero majority doing everything they can to label the homo minority as lesser, evil, bad, etc...
If sexual orientation had never been a concern for anyone, do you think homosexuals would still face the problems they face now among themselves? If they had always been mixed with the rest of the population, do you really think they would still be that different?
You say that you are not opposed to gay rich educated couple marrying and adopting kids. Great. But pardon my skepticism: religious groups are against this very idea. They are an abomination in the eyes of pretty much all fundamentalist of all religions. None of them think it's 'ok' for gays to marry and have kids. I simply doubt that all you care about is the excess in government infringement of religious freedom. The description you just made of San Francisco's gay pride tells a lot more about what you 'really' think of gays...
The day you make a post about examples of religious people exaggerating in their fight against homosexuality, I will believe you. Until then, you will look like someone who pretends that he is 'ok' with gay people having the same rights while caring only about the victimization of Christians who discriminate against gays. What I think is really happening is that you dislike gays because they have an abnormal sexual orientation.
Because they are not normal, they deserve a different treatment; they need to be cure. You want to be on the Messiah side, the very thing you complain about. Good Messiah let people decide their own fate and give them liberty, they don't remove the liberties. That's what religious groups do to gays, and I don't see you argue with them; you only argue against the other side that tries to get equal rights to gays. They exaggerate, I agree, but you use that as an excuse to pretend that their fight is the wrong fight.
If you can answer the following questions, I will believe your good intentions:
- Do you think that religious freedom should be infringed to force parents to provide care to their children instead of praying?
- Do you think that a bakery that refuses to cater a mixed race wedding because it's against their principles should be labelled as discriminatory? If yes, should the free market alone decide whether they stay in business or not, or should the government intervene by fining the business? Would your answers change if it's a gay wedding?
(FYI, I think the free market should decide)
” The day you make a post about examples of religious people exaggerating in their fight against homosexuality, I will believe you. Until then, you will look like someone who pretends that he is 'ok' with gay people having the same rights while caring only about the victimization of Christians who discriminate against gays. What I think is really happening is that you dislike gays because they have an abnormal sexual orientation.”
What I dislike, no I detest, is that people like you place the blame on parties which you hate so that the actual parties involved are maintained in a faux State of Blameless Pristine Goodness and abject Helplessness without your protection – protection based on pushing falseness at every juncture. It is not possible for me to care what you say you think, because you are unable to discern truth from lies. No, I take that back: you must know the difference because so little of what you produce is truth, so you must be actively discriminating against it.
”Because they are not normal, they deserve a different treatment; they need to be cure. You want to be on the Messiah side, the very thing you complain about. Good Messiah let people decide their own fate and give them liberty, they don't remove the liberties. That's what religious groups do to gays, and I don't see you argue with them; you only argue against the other side that tries to get equal rights to gays. They exaggerate, I agree, but you use that as an excuse to pretend that their fight is the wrong fight.”
Whaaat?? Need to be cured? That is a complete turnaround, a contradiction. They must be protected from any psychological help, right? Or not, depending on the time of day you type stuff in.
And the cheapest of Tu Quoques. And again denying the data that shows that not to be their most serious fight at all.
I’ve entertained you long enough.
”If you can answer the following questions, I will believe your good intentions:”
I do not care what you think; you have demonstrated your lack of empathy for homosexuals and your hatred of Christians. You have no currency left.
”- Do you think that religious freedom should be infringed to force parents to provide care to their children instead of praying?
- Do you think that a bakery that refuses to cater a mixed race wedding because it's against their principles should be labelled as discriminatory? If yes, should the free market alone decide whether they stay in business or not, or should the government intervene by fining the business? Would your answers change if it's a gay wedding?
(FYI, I think the free market should decide)”
Those issues are irrelevant and you are using the irrelevancies in an attempt to cover for your lack of empathy for real homosexual issues outside of your hatred for Christians, and I can prove it:
First issue, the problem exists only if there is a danger of death or permanent impairment of the child. That in no way is similar to having to find a different photog or baker. To conflate those issues is blatantly prejudicial and without any logical basis.
Second Issue, the attempt to destroy the concept of private property has been a Leftist pursuit ever since Marx. If private property is actually private, then the owner can refuse access to anyone, period, including the government itself if there is no warrant approved by the judiciary. That is Principle One, which the Left hates; Principle Two is that destruction of Religious Liberty to satisfy the need to Destroy Private Property is just fine, and that is a totalitarian basic requirement.
If you argue against these principles, then you clearly are totalitarianism inclined, which I do not doubt, since that is the direction of the current crop of Messiahs.
"you promote of homosexuals as All Good"
You really get nothing...
Humanist: "Until then, you will look like someone who pretends that he is 'ok' with gay people having the same rights while caring only about the victimization of Christians who discriminate against gays."
Correct me if I'm mistaken but are we not a free people?
Yes, Christians believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but that's their Constitutionally-protected right. I love it how all of sudden people act as if this were some new revelation when this is something which the Church has taught for thousands of years. Don't think for one second that us Christians are going to alter our beliefs either. Homosexuality isn't some new phenomenon. It's been almost universally rejected within practically every civilization, whether Christian or not, since the dawn of time FOR A REASON.
Funny how you didn't address a single point I brought up head-on with the sole exception of the first sentence in my reply. This indicates to me that you have no solid premise for arguments, which up to now have been comprised of appeals to emotion. If anything, it's the Christians who are facing open discrimination and persecution, both here in the US and abroad. I just read in the news where Muslims in Pakistan blew up a Christian Church, killing over 80 people. What about the Obama administration supplying Al Qaeda insurgents in Syria with weapons, despite the fact that aiding and abetting an enemy we're at war with is considered treason and with foreknowledge that the insurgents are brazenly slaughtering Christians? That implicates this administration in a campaign waged by extremist ideology. What say you about all of grossly offensive theatrical plays portraying Jesus and His disciples as being homosexuals, as scripted and performed by (who else) homosexuals? Or how about during gay parades where they routinely mock priests, nuns and other religious figures, often while simulating sexual acts? This is not a one-off event, this is a recurring theme. They mock Christianity because they know their lifestyle is inherently offensive to it (i.e. Satanic).
I don't expect a reply but that's fine. I've laid out facts which you cannot refute.
Michael, you are right, I am done. Stan's latest comment shows how he completely misunderstood my position and comments. Everything I write is wrong according to him. I disagree on many points but at least I acknowledge where we do agree. Stan and yourself just argued the same narrative regardless of my comments. You go "wrong, wrong. Wrong!" I go "no I agree, here too, but not there, here's why".
Your comment had nothing to address for that reason, it was addressed already, but you guys are not able, or willing to, break down a topic into separate points. So you claim that my points are all over the place or don't stick to the topic, since it diverges from your victimization narrative, as Christian.
"It's been almost universally rejected within practically every civilization, whether Christian or not, since the dawn of time FOR A REASON."
That's the main thing I have been asking about: WHAT REASON!?
There is none. There is no reason to claim that a sexual orientation is wrong just because it's not normal. But religion has imposed its views and shunned gays for centuries, as you just expressed. Pissing on people or other crazy nonsense you might bring up is not limited to gays yet they get blamed for it since they were marginalized first. Take swingers couple for example, you think that's normal? I certainly don't, but it's their choice and would never argue that it should be illegal... so you blame gays for that?
In any case, the "good" reasons to find homosexuality wrong would be interesting to discuss but I never heard anything else but 'god says so' so that will be the end of this conversation. And Stan will accuse me of not caring about deviant sexual behavior, gays wanting to change, ignoring facts and so on again... which never ever support the notion that homosexuality is bad to start with.
I think it is everyone's right to mock, ridicule or criticize any idea.
Christians have the right to mock gays, and vica versa. If Xtians want to put on a play ridiculing gays; hell I might even buy a ticket to that!
However anti-discrimination laws (which I agree with) state that you cannot refuse equal treatment regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity and (sometimes) religious and political opinions.
Where the laws make an exception in the case of religion, it is in the favour of the religion. Ie: "Selection of teachers and pupils in schools for general education but with a religious affiliation is often permitted by law to be restricted to those of the same religious affiliation even where religious discrimination is forbidden."
You've confused religious freedom with not being allowed to do everything you want. Prime example of the Xtian persecution complex.
Humanist says,
…since it diverges from your victimization narrative, as Christian.”
Copycat language is either a compliment or a cheap Tu Quoque Fallacy. It is obviously not a compliment. Sheesh.
”That's the main thing I have been asking about: WHAT REASON!?”
How many times must I say this: Either homosexuality is a hardwired physical deviation which can be repaired, or it is a behavioral deviancy which can be repaired. Choose whichever to believe about it, yet it remains a destructive behavior, and the evidence supports that. Only blind denial in pursuit of an ideological dogma would claim otherwise.
You have been answered, many times over; so quit asking.
”There is none. There is no reason to claim that a sexual orientation is wrong just because it's not normal.”
Sheer ideology. A destructive behavior cannot be declared Good.
”Pissing on people or other crazy nonsense you might bring up is not limited to gays yet they get blamed for it since they were marginalized first.”
Prove both parts of this assertion. We’ll wait.
”Take swingers couple for example, you think that's normal? I certainly don't, but it's their choice and would never argue that it should be illegal... so you blame gays for that?”
This sentence is non sequitur; blame homosexuals for… what? That you wouldn’t argue something regarding swingers? Or that you don’t think they are normal?
”In any case, the "good" reasons to find homosexuality wrong would be interesting to discuss but I never heard anything else but 'god says so' so that will be the end of this conversation. “
False. FALSE FALSE FALSE. You’ve been given reasons multiple times.
”And Stan will accuse me of not caring about deviant sexual behavior, gays wanting to change, ignoring facts and so on again... which never ever support the notion that homosexuality is bad to start with.”
Again, it is a demonstrated fact that you don’t care about the main, huge problems which face homosexuals. So you are right about your first claim. And you have been given the reasons why homosexual behavior is a deviant behavior (very unlikely to be a physical deviation, so it is quite likely to be a behavior deviation), and why that disorder leads to huge problems. So you have to show that, contrary to facts provided to you, that homosexuality is a beneficial behavior which does not manifest itself in hugely destructive consequences for homosexuals. While you are at it demonstrate why keeping the blacks on the Democrat ghetto plantations, in border-line poverty with rewards for kicking men out of households, nihilism for fatherless, futureless teens who drop out of abominable schools, and abortions for rampant sexual behaviors, is beneficial to those blacks. And don’t just make stuff up, as you are prone to do. Show us the statistical evidence which supports your claims. Or forget it altogether because you have no rational justification.
Hi Stan!
Long time no see, and I won't hang around for too long since I still don't have time to get involved in these long discussions (yes I know I always say that if you remember :))
There are a few points I wanted to make...
First, the main reason I am commenting: you seems to have been struggling with trolls a lot recently. Even though you seem to be doing it already, I hope you understand that this is not a typical Atheist behavior. This is not a typical behavior for any group of people... Anyway, what I was getting at is a simple advice: I believe you can force comments to be coming from signed-in bloggers only, no? Isn't' there an option for that in blogger.com? I remember seeing it some time back when I played around with a blog of my own... If you do have this option, I think you might not even need moderation at all, since trolls could not use different nicknames to comment multiple times. As a reader, we can tell when someone uses a real blogger profile because the icon next to their name is different on the web; so that get rids of these names that have a link attached to it and 'look like' they were real blogger profiles... Hope this helps!
While I am at it...
Second, you mentioned a few times that you never ban/block/censor people that want serious discussion with you. This is strange to hear because you personally banned me at least 3 times after I attempted serious discussions with you; we even ended up discussing by email using my actual personal email address... you can call me stupid, illogical, irrational, immature, whatever you want, but you cannot pretend to know what my intentions were, or are right now. Therefore, the claim that people only get banned for being 'not serious' really means that you ban people who 'think' are not serious...
Third, I am commenting on this tread in particular since the last topic I tried to discuss with you was homosexuality. The points that Humanist raised are very similar to what I was saying. He essentially say 'why do you care about sexual orientation?' while I was asking 'why do you care about gender?'. I feel like the gender approach makes it even clearer why sexual orientation should not be an issue. People who have different sexual preferences are not evil by default, its their action that speaks to themselves. Gays and pedophiles for instance do not choose to be that way, and they should be allowed to have access to counselling if they want to change. But the big difference of course is that pedophiles 'must' change, or at the very least not act upon their impulses since the object of their desire (kids) cannot give consent, even if the pedophile likes to think kids can. But the question is: why 'must' gay change as well? I think the points raised by Humanist were lost on you Stan and that's why I was writing here, having lived in the San Francisco area for 2 years now... what you mentioned are extreme behaviors that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are so many kinds of people living here that if you haven't ever visited, you cannot really understand. But at the same time, they are not necessarily gay... we do see a lot of 'normal' looking people holding hands, walking down the street, and then you realize, ah, that were 2 guys, oh 2 women, and dam what a waste because they were good looking! ;-) But we also see heterosexual couples that look really weird walking together and wonder what planet they are from... As for sexual display, this is not tolerated and actually less tolerated today than it was only a year ago. There used to be these men next to the Church MUNI station in Castro, the gay village of SF, who would sit naked on benches all day. Nobody really cared and you would just see smiles or giggles on people's face when they walk by. The mayor decided this was wrong and they are not allowed to be naked anymore... so the thing about all holes getting filled, well, that's just disgusting and unrealistic...
Cheers!
Robot says,
”However anti-discrimination laws (which I agree with) state that you cannot refuse equal treatment regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity and (sometimes) religious and political opinions.”
Those laws are intended for the governmental arena, so that everyone can vote, have access to government programs, government contracts, government schools, etc. Not even Obama thinks that his private school should not discriminate against those with no cash. Access to government largesse is different from showing up on someone’s doorstep and demanding access. Private property is protected by The Bill of Rights, amendments I, II, III, IV, V, IX and X; Further, amendment XIV, sec. 1. Anti-discrimination is not meant to mean total access to private property (private business is private property).
Obama was forced by the courts to back down from forcing religious based private organizations to provide abortion benefits. First Amendment to the US Constitution.
” You've confused religious freedom with not being allowed to do everything you want. Prime example of the Xtian persecution complex.”
First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;”
The Left, a la Pelosi et al, has no respect for the US Constitution, except if they can manage to misinterpret it to their advantage. They wish to broaden the statement, “make no law respecting the establishment of religion” to mean that no taxpayer funded program may have religious principles, and religion must be purged so that the government is Atheist: aka secular. So killing pre-born humans does get subsidy, and in high volumes, so those with principles against the wanton mass killing of innocent humans at any stage of life for the convenience of the mother but not the father must violate those principles by the demand of paying the tax to the unprincipled Leftist government. And the Tenth Amendment has been ravaged ever since the Progressives got the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, when behavior legislation via the federal courts began, and the will of the people was permanently subverted to the will of the Left via dictated law outside the elected Congress.
Christian persecution complex? That’s denial of any legitimate right to lodge considered complaints based in fact about the removal of First Amendment Rights, a denial by the tactic of false labeling and ridicule, the major tactic of Atheists and Leftists. A totalitarian bent is required for denying Constitutional Rights and then attempting to delegitimize objections by ridiculing those who dare to point out that it is happening and has happened.
There is no rational reason why homosexuals should have a Right not to be slightly inconvenienced by (a) private property boundaries and (b) The First Amendment, so that principled people must be forced by the government to violate their principles in order not to incovenience them.
If anyone should be inconvenienced, it is the Left's presumed Right to intrude wherever they wish by making any excuse they can come up with. (...and justifying it with ridicule, of course).
The laws apply to employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation.
Freedom of religion doesn't grant you the right to refuse service to anyone based on race, sex, religion.
I like how you classify refusing homosexuals rights as an "inconvenience" and insisting they possess such rights as "totalitarian".
Yes, this is text book persecution complex.
...and passing laws which protect their ideology while infinging on Consstitutional Rights of their designated enemies.
Hugo says,
”…you can call me stupid, illogical, irrational, immature, whatever you want, but you cannot pretend to know what my intentions were, or are right now. Therefore, the claim that people only get banned for being 'not serious' really means that you ban people who 'think' are not serious...”
Intentions are always clear regarding whether a person will respect logical processes enough to accept that fallacious reasoning can be demonstrated fully, and is not rational. The persistence in denying that one’s claims contain obvious documented fallacy, circular reasoning, infinite regresses, etc. indicates that the person is not serious about the objective pursuit of valid conclusions, regardless of what they are. There is no productive conversation to be had with someone who creates their own logic and will not be dislodged from it by grounded principles.
A number of folks have had this issue, and they have been removed. As I recall, you fit into that category. After explaining how Aristotlian disciplined logic works and being ignored a significant number of times, it is no longer a conversation worth having. Yet some of the self-logic folks become incensed that their special brand of thinking is not respected. And that is true; I cannot respect illogic, dearly held in the face of reality.
”Third, I am commenting on this tread in particular since the last topic I tried to discuss with you was homosexuality. The points that Humanist raised are very similar to what I was saying. He essentially say 'why do you care about sexual orientation?' while I was asking 'why do you care about gender?'. I feel like the gender approach makes it even clearer why sexual orientation should not be an issue.”
Did you not read anything I wrote? When Sexual Categories (or Racial Categories) are used to beat up the rest of the population, the rest of the population will not take it lightly. And when it is done by declaring Sexual or Racial Categories to be immune to criticism, the resentment will certainly increase proportionally. When the Constitutional Rights of the rest of the population are purposely violated for the convenience of the Sexual or Racial Categories, then an inevitable conflict will occur.
The Left is tone deaf to this. They must be satisfied at the total sacrifice of Constitutional protections of the dissident class, aka the Oppressor Class. And that is totalitarianism.
”People who have different sexual preferences are not evil by default, its their action that speaks to themselves.”
I have no idea what this means.
” Gays and pedophiles for instance do not choose to be that way, and they should be allowed to have access to counselling if they want to change.”
Well, you are up against laws and the Humanist, above, who deny that to homosexuals.
” But the big difference of course is that pedophiles 'must' change, or at the very least not act upon their impulses since the object of their desire (kids) cannot give consent, even if the pedophile likes to think kids can.”
So you have your own reason why X cannot be “discriminated” against, but Y must be discriminated against. That is differential discrimination between two classes.
”But the question is: why 'must' gay change as well?
They must change their concept of attack on their sworn enemies. Both legal and with moralizing as they were instructed to do by their militant propagandists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, and their Leftist hatred of all who are not them. It doesn’t have anything to do with their pissing on each other in public or private. I am free not to go to San Francisco, ever again, and I won’t. They are free to leave me the hell alone, and not force me or any principled person to legally violate our principles, whatever they might be, including the US Constitution.
I never had much of an opinion about homosexuals until they became the legal persecuters and moralizing priests of Leftist assault on the rest of us.
”I think the points raised by Humanist were lost on you Stan and that's why I was writing here, having lived in the San Francisco area for 2 years now... what you mentioned are extreme behaviors that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.”
Hugo, first, that’s a load. These people were out there celebrating their Gayness in official Gay celebrations, complete with Gay banners and Gay websites with directions. Second, I understand humanist completely. He wants me to curl up and bawl in remorseful agonizing self-guilt over the perception that I am evil and evilly oppressing the poor homosexuals by not allowing them to dictate my behaviors on my own property. No free man would do that, unless possessed of an ideology of complete passive failure, or if forcibly relieved of his freedom. What humanist doesn’t understand is that his moral sense is both empty of actual empathy for homosexuals and empty of any empathy whatsoever for the violation of Constitutional Rights of the officially designated Oppressor Class. I know exactly what class the messiahs have designated myself; I will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent them from relieving my freedoms for their own ego maintenance and the convenience of their designated Victimhood Class.
” There are so many kinds of people living here that if you haven't ever visited, you cannot really understand.”
All I have to do is keep up with the insane laws passed there and in the CA legislature. That’s not available on the Leftist MSM, of course, but it is available on the web. I understand completely. And you cannot discern what I don’t understand when you are captive to illogic and Narrative yourself.
” But at the same time, they are not necessarily gay... we do see a lot of 'normal' looking people holding hands, walking down the street, and then you realize, ah, that were 2 guys, oh 2 women, and dam what a waste because they were good looking! ;-) But we also see heterosexual couples that look really weird walking together and wonder what planet they are from... “
You certainly make a compelling case, for not going there.
”As for sexual display, this is not tolerated and actually less tolerated today than it was only a year ago.”
Display is not the issue; it is the deviant behavior which leads to serious problems for homosexuals, inside the homosexual culture, and which people like humanist deny even exist, despite the CDC data, which he rejects without cause.
”There used to be these men next to the Church MUNI station in Castro, the gay village of SF, who would sit naked on benches all day. Nobody really cared and you would just see smiles or giggles on people's face when they walk by. The mayor decided this was wrong…”
Wrong?? That’s a discriminatory moral value judgment on innocent behavior… right?? Right??
” and they are not allowed to be naked anymore... so the thing about all holes getting filled, well, that's just disgusting and unrealistic...”
It’s not up for debate; it was filmed. Disgusting yes; on web video yes; realistic, yes. With cops watching on, yes. Outdoors, in public, yes. Lots of them, yes. Swapping sex stations, yes. We're Queer and We're Here, yes.
Cheers to you as well.
Robot,
Your labelling of my concerns for the loss of my Constitutional freedom of personal Choice as a mental disorder as a type of ridicule (bullying) is duly noted.
I suspect that the loss of the personal Choice to kill one's preborn progeny for convenience would provoke similar but contrary attack from you and/or the AtheoLeft in general.
It is starting to appear to me that the morals of the AtheoLeft are based on the principles of "any abomination of which I approve must result in the removal of Rights from those who refuse to implement those abominations as demanded, and upon demand". Since that is the moral base, then ridicule (and laws) are to be used to bully (and enforce) those morals.
This is a natural outcome for the seizure of the moral authority to determine everyone's morality and the seizure of the power to enforce it. Simply stated, Nietzsche's Atheist Will To Power - the philosophical basis for the amoral seizure of control by self-anointed elitists of Atheism.
Actually Stan, what I pointed out was that your Constitutional freedoms are NOT being taken away. This is not bullying nor ridicule.
Your insistence that they are is why I've pointed out how typical your behaviour is of those with a (Xian) persecution complex. Such behaviour IS ridiculous, and as such will attract ridicule. However it is not my intention to ridicule. I am merely pointing out the irrational behaviour.
Why are you responding to a perceived insult, rather than to the facts raised which demolish the entire basis of your argument?
Is it because you cannot dispute the facts and must resort to "being offended"?
"It’s not up for debate; it was filmed. Disgusting yes; on web video yes; realistic, yes. With cops watching on, yes. Outdoors, in public, yes. Lots of them, yes. Swapping sex stations, yes. We're Queer and We're Here, yes."
Do you have the video? For, uh, science.
"Actually Stan, what I pointed out was that your Constitutional freedoms are NOT being taken away. This is not bullying nor ridicule."
That is false, and off to poor start. You have been given examples to the contrary. Your claim is evidence free, and there is documentary evidence to the contrary.
"Your insistence that they are is why I've pointed out how typical your behaviour is of those with a (Xian) persecution complex."
There is no such disorder; that is fabricated as a term of ridicule. Ridicule is bullying. Your entire position is easily demonstrated to be entirely false and self-serving.
"Such behaviour IS ridiculous, and as such will attract ridicule."
What is ridiculous is the designation of a fabricated non-existent disorder as a pejorative, especially when it is based only on fact-free claims - and in the presence of demonstrated data to the contrary.
"However it is not my intention to ridicule. I am merely pointing out the irrational behaviour."
And your behaviors are more indicative than your denials.
"Why are you responding to a perceived insult, rather than to the facts raised which demolish the entire basis of your argument?"
You have presented no facts, only claims and I have responded to every one. It requires valid facts to "demolish" an argument, not just unsupportable claims. The actual facts show otherwise from your claims, and a few of those facts have been given in prior comments, above.
Your claims rationalize that Constitutionally declared freedoms don't exist if the Left passes a law against them. King George was of the same opinion, in his day.
"Is it because you cannot dispute the facts and must resort to "being offended"?"
Bullshit^(bullshit). You have NO facts. You have not and cannot demonstrate that my right to private property and the rights of sole ownership to determine its use has not been obviated by the new Leftist morality of inclusion of Victimhood Groups into the commanded (dictated) use of my property. Here's why: it has been done and is on record. So you cannot have ANY facts to the contrary.
You ignore this with even more cheesy attempts at insults and continued falsehoods. I have addressed every claim you have made.
"It’s not up for debate; it was filmed. Disgusting yes; on web video yes; realistic, yes. With cops watching on, yes. Outdoors, in public, yes. Lots of them, yes. Swapping sex stations, yes. We're Queer and We're Here, yes."
Do you have the video? For, uh, science."
I viewed it (them) on the SF Area homosexual websites. You can try that, or contact them for access if it is not still up. If that is not available, maybe a new one is. If you can't find any, then you'll have to get your jollies elsewhere.
Stan,
You do not have the Constitutional Right to refuse service to someone based on their colour, race or political affiliation.
That is a fact.
That you rail against this as government encroachment on YOUR rights is evidence of your persecution complex.
I googled " SF Area homosexual websites" and found nothing like you describe.
Robot,
Nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government the right to tell me that. It takes a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment for them to violate the prior amendments.
And thats a fact. Under the Tenth Amendment, I am a Free Man. Whether you and the bicoastal Lefties like it or not.
The Constitution is based on negative rights: the government is constitutionally prohibited from doing anything which is not expressly allowed by the dictates of the US Constitution and its Amendments. The only Amendments addressing discrimination are Amendment XV (right to vote, any race), Amendment XIX (right to vote, any sex), Amendment XXIV (right to vote eliminating poll tax); Amendment XXVI (allowing 18 year olds to vote).
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Your continued insults are without merit. You need to stop it.
Robot says,
"I googled " SF Area homosexual websites" and found nothing like you describe."
Then ask them for it.
LOL Fine dude. You want to live in a country that can refuse service to people based on race, creed or politics? Yeah that is soooo American.
How would you feel about a country that was 80% Hindu/Muslims/Humanists that routinely refused service to Xians?
I'll lay off the persecution complex if you stop lumping me in with every group you don't like. I don't live on the coast, didn't vote for Obama and don't want to take over the world and enforce my brand of subjective flip flop morality on everyone.
Really. For someone who jumps on every perceived insult, you sure can dish them out.
Yes, saying you have to serve jews and blacks at your restaurant is soooo Communist.
Ah yes well since you insist on acting the brat I'll leave you to it.
I would care if you lost actual rights. "Losing" the rights to not serve those different from you however, I will laugh in your face at your crying.
Haha you have to sell food to gays. You are basically making gay food. Gay.
Just breathe in that ridicule Stan. Let it fuel your persecution complex.
"First, I was merely re-mocking your continued insults."
Congratulations on your status as a moral icon.
Robot,
See how you work? I never claimed a moral imperative to infringe on your constitutional rights, did I? What I claimed is that you have no moral imperative to infringe on mine, nor constitutional right to do so.
You're not just a jerk, you are also a liar.
And you will not be commenting here any more.
@Austin
What...no unicorns?
It seems as if Austin's projecting his own atheistic sex-obsession onto Christians.
If you really want to get atheists mad just tell them that when Christians take-over they will ban porn.I promise you,atheists will go completely nuts.
Humanist, "Your comment had nothing to address for that reason, it was addressed already, but you guys are not able, or willing to, break down a topic into separate points. So you claim that my points are all over the place or don't stick to the topic, since it diverges from your victimization narrative, as Christian."
Whoa, whoa, back up there a second. When protecting the homosexuals' rights (i.e. feelings) involves infringing upon other people's Constitutional rights, then the former's "rights" are not actual rights but rather state-granted privileges. BIG difference.
"That's the main thing I have been asking about: WHAT REASON!?"
Let's see -- it's abnormal, deviant, immoral, extremely dangerous, of no benefit to society, it cannot produce offspring.
"There is none. There is no reason to claim that a sexual orientation is wrong just because it's not normal."
So wait, you're admitting that it's abnormal yet expect for society to just accept it as if it were normal?
"But religion has imposed its views and shunned gays for centuries, as you just expressed."
Not speaking for other religions but my own. Christianity is against it because it is intrinsically evil, an abomination to God. What exactly is your point, that religion should turn against God just to make you feel good?
"Pissing on people or other crazy nonsense you might bring up is not limited to gays yet they get blamed for it since they were marginalized first. Take swingers couple for example, you think that's normal? I certainly don't, but it's their choice and would never argue that it should be illegal... so you blame gays for that?"
Right, it's their choice, just as it's mine not to agree with it.
"In any case, the 'good' reasons to find homosexuality wrong would be interesting to discuss but I never heard anything else but 'god says so' so that will be the end of this conversation. And Stan will accuse me of not caring about deviant sexual behavior, gays wanting to change, ignoring facts and so on again... which never ever support the notion that homosexuality is bad to start with."
Could it be that people in general find it abnormal, if not downright disgusting ...or that it conflicts with their beliefs and morals?
i am a robot, "Haha you have to sell food to gays. You are basically making gay food. Gay."
If I owned a bakery and was asked to make a "wedding" cake for a homosexual couple, I'd refuse them my services.
The First Amendment gives me that right. If the courts violate it then they're infringing my Constitutionally-protected rights. Further, if the state can dictate the policies on my private property then it is no longer private but rather government-owned, i.e. communist.
Therefore, I derive from your comments that you are anti-American to the core.
Hi Stan!
" Intentions are always clear regarding whether a person will respect logical processes
[...]
A number of folks have had this issue, and they have been removed. As I recall, you fit into that category.
"
Obviously, it's easy to claim that someone who disagrees with you has issues with logic, but that's still not justifying your claim that you know what the intentions of that person is. Actually, I would go one step further; I don't think that someone who makes obvious error of logic has wrong intentions. This can be proven right here in this thread with Michael. Even though I disagree with both of you, Michael has been less evasive than you Stan, and because of that he committed clear errors of logic. Should I thus doubt his intentions? Is he only trolling? I don't think so. He is just mistaken on the topic of homosexuality and more explicitly than you are Stan. I will provide examples right after I reply to your comment...
" The Left is tone deaf to this. "
Yes I am tone deaf to 'this' because 'this' includes all the things you insist on discussing even if you have (almost, see below) never been able to justify your need to classify people by sexual orientation, or even gender for that matter. It's obvious that 'this' happens; there are abuses done in the name of 'gay rights', but 'this' is hard to discuss if you insist that it's 'ok' to keep discriminating against gays. As it seems to be the buzzword in this thread now: you only stick to your 'narrative'. You refuse to have a deeper philosophical discussion on what it means to have a different sexual orientation and why should we care, or not, about it.
" ”People who have different sexual preferences are not evil by default, its their action that speaks to themselves.”
I have no idea what this means."
Which proves my point: you avoid discussing the deeper issue of what it means to have a certain sexual orientation. The starting point is not that complicated. People are attracted to all kinds of other people. Most of us are attracted by members of the opposite sex, but clearly we don't all like the same kind, right? Some guys prefer petite blonde girls, others like tall brunettes. So why is it so hard to understand that some are attracted to people of the same gender, or that some are attracted to very young ones (pedophiles). What I meant in that sentence above is that all of these natural variations among humans is not evil by default; nobody chose to be the way they are. What's evil is if they are not able to understand that their preferences might not respect the object of their desire. Pedophiles are not evil because they like kids; they are evil if they have sex with kids. Gays are not evil because they like other gays, they are evil because...? I think they are not; you think they are!
" I am free not to go to San Francisco, ever again, and I won’t.
[...]
You certainly make a compelling case, for not going there."
Too bad, the Bay area has so many great things to offer, from the natural beauty of the ocean, trees, mountains, to the vineyard of Napa and Sonoma, passing by all the great restaurants, sporting and cultural events one can attend, and all of that is not just the city itself of course! Obviously, it's ultimately your choice but I think that it tells a lot about your tolerance versus differences. We live on a planet that's full of different people yet you are not willing to visit another place, within your own country, just because some of its inhabitants are too weird for your taste. I really hope that this was a figure of speech just to make a point... Regardless of where you live, even if it's the most boring remote farm land in the US, I would personally find it interesting to visit; there is always something to see or learn and people to meet, everywhere. We just don't stay as long if there is nothing to do ;-)
Now on to what Michael said in response to Humanist:
""That's the main thing I have been asking about: WHAT REASON!?"
Let's see -- it's abnormal, deviant, immoral, extremely dangerous, of no benefit to society, it cannot produce offspring.
"There is none. There is no reason to claim that a sexual orientation is wrong just because it's not normal."
So wait, you're admitting that it's abnormal yet expect for society to just accept it as if it were normal?"
I find this very interesting because I kept trying to ask Stan about 'why' we should care about sexual orientation, or why is homosexuality so evil from your (Stan and Michael's) point of view. The only thing I saw Stan write about this is that it's not normal and, more precisely, that it is not normal for a man being attracted by another man's anus. ("It is Hate to claim that the attraction of males to the anus of other males is abnormal, biologically")
So first of all, of course not, it is not 'normal' to be gay. Just like it's not 'normal' to dislike chocolate, be 7-foot tall or be blind. The point is thus that 'normality' is in no way indicator of 'acceptable' or 'requires fixing'. In other words, the notion of what's right or wrong cannot start with a notion of 'normal' or 'not'. If only 'normal' things were 'right', the definition of 'right' would lose its meaning since only the most common things would be 'right' and anything not conforming to the norm would be 'wrong'. This does not make sense; it's completely illogical as a reason to oppose equal rights for all sexual orientations.
Next, after normal comes 'deviant', which is exactly the same, no?
Next, 'immoral', well the question is 'why is it immoral?' so that's not an answer. An example of Michael not thinking before writing...
Next, 'extremely dangerous', no idea what he's talking about. Homosexuals can commit crimes just like heterosexuals. There may be more intra-homosexual violence as Stan pointed out. That's very sad if it's true but it's also sad and true that handicapped people don't succeed in life as much, for obvious reasons, and no matter how much we want to help them, we cannot fix all handicaps, people can only cope with then.
Next, 'no benefit to society', that's just a useless judgment call, as if only the 'useful' things were to be accepted as 'right'. Again, very similar to the notion of abnormal... who cares if something is not useful to society; most entertainment is not useful to society, is it mostly wrong?
Finally, 'cannot produce offspring', which is I think my favorite one to hear, a very common one. Goes to show that Michael probably did not discuss this much before since he would know why it's not a good reason: some heterosexual can also not produce offspring for tons of reasons, and homosexual couples can adopt and be successful at it... another irrelevant point.
Therefore, every single point Michael raised is illogical. Nothing supports the idea that we should care about one's sexual orientation.
Oh and Stan, I still see a lot of non-blogger comments, did you ignore my advice or purpose or it just does not work?
Almost forgot this too!!
"Further, if the state can dictate the policies on my private property then it is no longer private but rather government-owned, i.e. communist."
Another ridiculous claim by Michael, on 2 levels... the government can already dictate the policies on your private properties. If they could not, no one would go to restaurants; can you imagine how terrible the hygiene would be in some of them!? It's already horrible sometimes!
Next, communism is about property ownership; you probably wanted to make a rhetorical point but you just sound stupid (sorry) by claiming that more laws turn your private business into a government-owned property. Regulation is not the same as ownership, come on...
Cheers!
" Intentions are always clear regarding whether a person will respect logical processes
[...]
A number of folks have had this issue, and they have been removed. As I recall, you fit into that category.
"
Obviously, it's easy to claim that someone who disagrees with you has issues with logic, but that's still not justifying your claim that you know what the intentions of that person is. Actually, I would go one step further; I don't think that someone who makes obvious error of logic has wrong intentions.
You still fail to understand the metaprinciple of logic: it must be used objectively and with the intention of accepting the conclusion because it is logical. If one, like yourself, consistently avoids that, then it is intentional and obviously so. This is not having incurred a single logic error; it is purposefully using not standard rational logic, but rather insisting that the proceeds from one’s own mind are “logic” and logical. That eliminates any rational conversation, because non-rational faux “logic” is tautologically not rational.
” This can be proven right here in this thread with Michael. Even though I disagree with both of you, Michael has been less evasive than you Stan, and because of that he committed clear errors of logic. Should I thus doubt his intentions?”
I do specifically avoid having the conversation changed from its purpose, and Red Herring deviated into a different track; your continued insistence on doing so places you outside any need to converse with.
For example, rather than discuss the rights of private property you want to discuss the rights of homosexuals to force themselves onto private private property and its uses. Not to be allowed to do this, you say is discrimination – as if discrimination is evil; it is not, unless it is done by the government. You want to claim that not allowing homosexuals or any other party to force themselves onto private property is an indication that the property owner can’t have empathy for sexual preference deviancy, and therefore it’s the property owner who is evil. So you want to hammer on why I care about sexual deviancy, rather than on the actual issue, which is private property ownership, privacy, and personal choice of association.
Further you refuse to accept that it is the LGBT crowd who have self-identified as a distinct body of common-interest individuals, with organizations for themselves, and lobbying for their self-interest. That makes them a separate category, which they demand to be recognized. So I recognize them. Your persistent insistence that I justify my recognition of LGBTs is absurd, but it is also a refusal to disengage from your Red Herring.
”Which proves my point: you avoid discussing the deeper issue of what it means to have a certain sexual orientation.”
Your point is of no concern to me or to the actual point of the conversation. If one doesn’t know “the deeper issue” of being a drug addict, a thief, a pedophile, an obnoxious bully, a terrorist, a masked man with a chainsaw, or any derangement whatsoever; if one doesn’t know the “deeper issue” of being a messiah who selects certain categories for legally imposed salvation; if one doesn’t know the “deeper issue” of those who scream “I’m a victim! Force them to serve me”; it still has no bearing on the subject at hand, which is victimizing the Other for the sake of the poor Victim.
So the Red Herring which you are attached to demonstrates your attachment to irrational argmentation, from which you will not let go. And that’s why you were terminated.
Here is another example I will give:
”Gays are not evil because they like other gays, they are evil because...? I think they are not; you think they are!”
This is absolute bullshit. My refusal to allow my private property to be usurped forcibly by homosexuals, or any category for which I wish to refuse access is my Right. You cannot accept that, so you claim that I think homosexuals are evil. Any category which wishes to destroy my Rights for their own convenience, especially as a designated category of Victimhood which therefore deserves my private property, is evil, by their actions and their belief in their superior rights to mine.
You don’t agree, I don’t care. You have taken the messiah position. Go and be happy in it.
The last example is this:
”Therefore, every single point Michael raised is illogical. Nothing supports the idea that we should care about one's sexual orientation.”
Michael fell for your Red Herring, and you passed judgment, based not on logic but on your personal moral judgments. Your call was for judgments and that’s what he gave; you then passed your own judgment on his judgment.
[Note to Michael: Don’t fall for Red Herrings; these in particular are intended as moralizing stumbling blocks in a culture of amorality].
Your final comment:
”Another ridiculous claim by Michael, on 2 levels... the government can already dictate the policies on your private properties. If they could not, no one would go to restaurants; can you imagine how terrible the hygiene would be in some of them!? It's already horrible sometimes!”
That violates no one’s moral principles. And your statement about dictating policies is true, and it demonstrates the unconstitutional reach that the government has asserted for a very long time. If they dictated that every restaurant had to be strictly kosher in order not to violate the Rights of Total Access by Jews, you would have made a valid point.
”Next, communism is about property ownership; you probably wanted to make a rhetorical point but you just sound stupid (sorry) by claiming that more laws turn your private business into a government-owned property. Regulation is not the same as ownership, come on...”
Regulation can and has shut down businesses, whose owners lose livelihoods, jobs created, and property. We are beginning to find this occurring in a politically focused manner by the US government. And all property is rented from the government via property taxes, which if not paid will result in the governmental taxation unit taking the property and evicting the “owner”. That also is in violation of the US Constitution, even though it is universally done as a source of revenue for schools, etc. Not only that, but tax protesters are routinely jailed. This sort of abuse goes all the way back to Geo. Washington and the Whiskey Tax Rebellion which he forcibly put down. So kindly don’t be calling “stupid”, OK?
Now. The overall message which you promote is that Private Rights do not exist in the sense that designated Victimhood groups must be allowed to violate them at will, purely because not to allow that is “discrimination”; for that message your evidence is that there is no understanding of the “deeper meaning” of being a [specified category of Victimhood], and health laws.
Got it. All restaurants must now be forced to be both kosher and halal and yet serve bacon, because we must understand the deeper meaning of being Jewish, Muslim, and American. And now that conversation is over.
Post a Comment