Grassroots Mormon anti-gay campaign

Nick the Pilot said:
Homosexuals must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that homosexuality is immoral, that such a person does not want his/her children exposed to a homosexual lifestyle, etc.
Click to expand...

Fundamentalist Christians who demonise homosexuality must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that fundamentalist Christians are liars and deceivers, murderers, blasphemers, slanderers, criminals, are the source of crime, injustice, oppression and persecution in this world, a destructive force in society and enemies of civil society, that such a person does not want his/her children exposed to the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity, etc. Fundamentalist Christians of this kind do not deserve to live in a democratic society and should be deported.

Fundamentalism is fundamentally opposed to democratic and secular values, whereas homosexuality is not. Fundamentalism is the enemy of humanity. Fundamentalism kills, murders and destroys. It degrades, enslaves and manipulates. It is aggressive, divisive, power-hungry, hegemonic and evil.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
That is absolute rubbish. If I were to write:
We should promote white's moving into the area yet not necessarily [sic!] ...​
no one would hesitate to characterize such an attitude as bigotry. This is no different.
Click to expand...
Maybe its trash talk, but what are you saying? So you feel it will disenfranchise homosexuals if heterosexual unions are promoted as the ideal situation to rear children. From history, there is a tendency to suppress one group over another; and usually its women that get suppressed. To settle this issue, you've got to do more than just decry the oppression of homosexuals. You've got to come up with a solution for all concerned: kids, parents, males & females. If you don't have a solution to all, then you've got no better solution than what I suggested. I'm listening.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Perhaps that should include rising above homophobia rather than invoking "God" to justify it.
Click to expand...
Homophobia implies a fear of, a dislike of, or an aversion to homosexuality.

The New Testament (the Christian side of the Book), has no orders or regulations, or commandments or instructions on judging homosexuals, let alone condemning them and having them executed. In fact no one can pick a speck out of another's eye without first taking the board out of their own.

The Old Testament (based on the Pentatuch and other, including Jewish writ) however, is quite specific on how to get rid of such persons...permanently, quickly and with extreme predjudous.

So, who invokes whom to do what to those deemed abnormal to God's alleged design for man?

And who started it? Christians? I think not.

Furthermore, the Muslims being defended so astoundingly, have even less tolerance for such things as homosexuality, especially among themselves.

Back to the first reader...
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Dream,

I agree that both sides must learn to respect each other's point of view. Neither side presently respects the other side's point of view (heck, they refuse to admit that either side's point of view has any validity at all). Acknowledging each other's point of view is the first step. Which side will be the first?
Click to expand...
Depends on what percentage of the human population is actually homosexual. Is it 1%, 3%, 10%, 20%?

The "higher" the number rises, the more we must realize and accept that it is part of the natural order for man to be this way (at least a percentage of man), as opposed to a "fluke", or a "defect", or simply confusion.

However, if the minority can not convince the majority to modify society (in the case of United States), to going from a traditional family unit, to a more diverse design of what is potentially a family unit, or no family unit at all, then they can not win.

And no eliteist thinking will force that change.

For the government and corporate entities, it is not a matter of morality, nor a matter of right and wrong...it is simply a matter of citizens' collective will and economics. Families create unity and progeny, cohesiveness and continuation. Homosexuals and Homosexual couples provide a product of diminishing returns. Income while they are alive, but no income when they are dead, and a burden on society when they are old because they have (for the most part), no progeny to continue the cycle. Likewise with the insurance companies.

The arguement could be said of those that never marry, and those that have no children, being the same. True. However that is a minority in most societies (a very small minority), that society can absorb.

And this is simply the economic side of this tetrahedran, to consider...
 
Quahom1 said:
However, if the minority can not convince the majority to modify society (in the case of United States), to going from a traditional family unit, ...
Click to expand...
What modification do you claim (i.e., fear) is being proposed by the minority? No one is asking you to change your sexual orientation. Their sole request is that you grow out of your bigotry and grant them the same rights and respect you claim for yourself. Clearly you find that unacceptable.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
What modification do you claim (i.e., fear) is being proposed by the minority? No one is asking you to change your sexual orientation. Their sole request is that you grow out of your bigotry and grant them the same rights and respect you claim for yourself. Clearly you find that unacceptable.
Click to expand...
no, the tradition, which you seem to ignore, yet claim certain traditions of your own.

Ignorance sucks, too bad you can't see it sometimes.

Arrogance on the other hand, is without repose...
 
Salty,

You said,

"Fundamentalist Christians who demonise homosexuality must respect the idea that a person has the right to think that fundamentalist Christians are liars and deceivers…"

--> I agree that Fundamentalist Christians have the right to believe that homosexuals are immoral. But saying they are liars is crossing a line of civility that should not be crossed.

"Fundamentalist Christians of this kind do not deserve to live in a democratic society and should be deported."

--> Another example of crossing the line of civility. Where is that line? The two groups think:

Fundamentalist Christians think that homosexuals are immoral.
Homosexuals think that Fundamentalist Christians are immoral.

Both sides have the right to think so, and are within the limits of civility to think so. But it is when each side accuses the other of being liars, that they should be deported, etc., that the discussion becomes uncivil.

We all have to live in this world together. It is obvious that some groups just do not like each other. We are not expected to pretend all is lovey-dovey when it is not. Frank and honest discussions (like the two sentences above) need to happen as long as each side admits that the other side is entitiled to have their opinion. As long as it remains civil in this way, we need to have these kinds of discussions.

The only way these kinds of discussions can begin is by first seeing things from the other person's point of view. When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door, I ask them if it is okay with them if I disagree with them. If they say no, I send them on their way, because the discussion is no longer civil.
 
Quahom1 said:
Depends on what percentage of the human population is actually homosexual. Is it 1%, 3%, 10%, 20%?
Click to expand...
Does that matter? Was it OK to kill the Armenians, since there aren't a lot of them?
Quahom1 said:
a burden on society when they are old because they have (for the most part), no progeny
Click to expand...
A major reason why many gay couples want to get married is precisely in order to provide stability for children they are for whatever reason attempting to raise: and this is what "the good Christians" try to forbid.
 
bob x said:
A major reason why many gay couples want to get married is precisely in order to provide stability for children they are for whatever reason attempting to raise: and this is what "the good Christians" try to forbid.
Click to expand...
I guess I need to do some reading about kids reared by same sexes. Do you know of some places where this is regular practice, because I have very little personal experience to go on (and have heard some negatives). I am currently looking at some research about kids in same sex households and some testimonials. Obviously welfare of children should supersede other considerations. The American Psychological Association and American Medical associations do not see a problem for children, other than public stigmas like homophobia. Where are the results, the kids, from same sex marriages and what do they say?
 
Dream,

That was an interesting read. Like I said, both sides need to be able to understand the other side's point of view.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Dream,

That was an interesting read. Like I said, both sides need to be able to understand the other side's point of view.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope this happens, and if it happens anywhere it can happen within the walls of this site, people here though argumentative at times are way more thoughtful and emotionally mature than most I meet in my day to day life.

So far I see that we have conflict on a strategic vs tactical view of the issue. Bob of course is more concerned with the tactical level, the level at which people actually live, and Q is going for the strategic. One is at a mature "blue" level while the other is communicating from a "green" meme (using a Spiral Dynamics model)

Back in the days when Colorado was dealing with amendment 2 I fought tooth and nail to get people to understand what they were actually doing to an entire class of people who really had done no wrong other than being gay. Since then I have grown increasingly exhausted and disgusted with the obvious lack of empathy and reason with which opponents approach gay issues.
 
Q, you and Tracy aren't going to have children, but nobody questions your right to get married, or thought it was anything but good. I was happy for you both, and it distresses me to know that if I settled down with a dearly beloved, Tracy would I bet manage to be happy for me, but you just can't do that. This is what Christianity has always meant to me: that deep-seated, relentless hostility from people I have never done anything to; even the "good Christians" who would never dream of assaulting me or anything like that can always be counted to do whatever is in their power to make my life harder.
 
bob x said:
Q, you and Tracy aren't going to have children, but nobody questions your right to get married, or thought it was anything but good. I was happy for you both, and it distresses me to know that if I settled down with a dearly beloved, Tracy would I bet manage to be happy for me, but you just can't do that. This is what Christianity has always meant to me: that deep-seated, relentless hostility from people I have never done anything to; even the "good Christians" who would never dream of assaulting me or anything like that can always be counted to do whatever is in their power to make my life harder.
Click to expand...
That is just it Bob, I have no problem with you personally raising any children. I'm not personally agreived by same sex couples bringing kids to adulthood, at all. I simply provide food for thought, based on what the current status of people's mindsets are (and the current laws).

However, that said...in order to get laws changed, one must see hearts changed first. It can't be the other way around, or else there is nothing but animosity, and begrudgement, towards the party the law change favors.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
--> I agree that Fundamentalist Christians have the right to believe that homosexuals are immoral. But saying they are liars is crossing a line of civility that should not be crossed.

"Fundamentalist Christians of this kind do not deserve to live in a democratic society and should be deported."
Click to expand...
Nick the Pilot said:
Both sides have the right to think so, and are within the limits of civility to think so. But it is when each side accuses the other of being liars, that they should be deported, etc., that the discussion becomes uncivil.

We all have to live in this world together. It is obvious that some groups just do not like each other. We are not expected to pretend all is lovey-dovey when it is not. Frank and honest discussions (like the two sentences above) need to happen as long as each side admits that the other side is entitiled to have their opinion. As long as it remains civil in this way, we need to have these kinds of discussions.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The problem is not what the two sides say about each other, but the fundamentalists desiring power and domination over society. The homosexual does not desire power over the fundamentalist. Fundamentalists aren't even an oppressed class. The fundamentalists have already violated the requirement for civility by desiring power over homosexuals.

Nick the Pilot said:
The only way these kinds of discussions can begin is by first seeing things from the other person's point of view.
Click to expand...

I already know what fundamentalists think. I used to think like them, so I know that they desire power and domination over others.

A better law than one prohibiting or rejecting "homosexual marriage" is one that prohibits people from behaving in a way contrary to what they claim they are. For example, heterosexual couples are forbidden from having homosexual relations, and homosexual couples are forbidden from having heterosexual relations. Whatever you claim, you must abstain from the other. Paedophilia is forbidden to both.

A gay man in a gay marriage, for example, abstains from having sex with women. Whatever government benefits he receives are a reward for such abstinence.

With a society obsessed with heterosexual sex, where Viagra is so popular, where cheating and adultery is so common, where there are so many teenage fathers and men running around with their pants down and flies unzipped, I don't see how that can be a bad thing. There are too many Casanovas.

Women would love to get married to gay men. They are less likely to cheat. There may be fewer sexual benefits, but at least they can focus on the emotional bonding process. I think women would be happier if men didn't want sex so much. More oxytocin.
 
Saltmeister said:
Fundamentalists aren't even an oppressed class.
Click to expand...
Not to drown out the oppression of homosexuals; however its not true that fundamentalists are generally domineering or either un-oppressed. I know that there are a lot of dominators among the fundamentalists, however lets not forget that fundamentalist does not mean 'oppressor'. Careful not to confuse the oppressed and the oppressor, by overloading the word fundamentalist. That is forgetting too much. Fundamentalist just means they are very anti-traditional in their approach and strong believers in being so. Its important to remember our hard earned lessons of the last five-hundred years about the weaknesses and strengths of a fundamentalist approach. We need it sometimes to combat oppression, but we also need to be able to put it aside. If you just say 'Fundamentalist' = 'Oppressor' than the word gets bleached of its meaning and can no longer be used to fight oppression. We lose the lessons and the word 'Fundamentalism', and fundamentalism under another name appears again with nothing to soften it. Fundamentalism is just an approach, like a tool, that needs a handle.


I also disagree and say they are an oppressed class in this country (though not as much as homosexuals). They are automatically oppressed owing to the changing of society around them, wherein they find themselves unchanged and unable to cope. More than that, they are heavily dominated by the clerical class and are vulnerable to unscrupulous clerics, soaked, Tilted, robbed. There is employment discrimination against them, and there are cultural and financial enslavement taking advantage of them. They are a beleaguered crowd, pushed about for votes and punished for being small-minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top