Demonizing people

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    This is the thing - you are confusing Biblical and Legislative marriage. Nobody is saying a priest, pastor, or what have you shouldn't have the right to say "I don't want to do gay marriages"... that's a RELIGIOUS thing, and should be up to the religious to decide.

    What we ARE saying is, lawfully and legislatively speaking, we CANNOT forbid people from getting married, filing taxes together, et al. Remember, separation of Church and State and all that jazz.

    Would I have a problem with my friend/daughter/mother et all marrying another woman? No. In fact, after 25 years married to my abusive bastard of a "father", my mother is now living happily with her girlfriend. Was that a little awkward for me? You bet - mostly because she happened to be my BOSS at the time, and my mother wasn't upfront about it (in fact, she tried to DENY it for months because she was terrified of what her mother and her own kids, myself and my lil bro, would think about it).

    You know what my brother and I think about our mother being with another woman? We think that she is the HAPPIEST we have seen her in... well, our entire lives! She's healthier, happier, smiles more, and generally enjoying life more, because she is no longer taking abuse from an alcoholic husband and has found someone who shares the same interests and who she honestly connects with.

    Going from a purely biblical sense, she would have had NO right or way to divorce my father, NO right or way to be get away from the abuse, and NO right or way to be with the person who TRULY makes her happy.

    Now, tell me... is not her happiness MORE IMPORTANT than someone's petty ideal that "Oh, she's a woman, she can't be with another woman"? They don't make out in public or anything, but anyone and everyone who sees them KNOW they are happy together.

    To me, that is FAR more important than ANY religious bigotry could EVER be. And if God wants to send me to Hell for thinking such, well, then dammit that isn't a God I would want to know anyway.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Great post, Kittamaru.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    If men nowhere at any time fell in love with each other or had sexual desire for each other I can see how Christians MIGHT have a reason for calling being gay an unnatural vice. If animals never ever exhibited the same tendency to have sex between the same genders which in fact nearly all species DO, they MIGHT have a basis for claiming it is unnatural. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homosexuality been around since the beginning of time, is biologically instilled into our DNA, and consistently occurs in every culture at a rate of about 5% of the population. There is simply no basis for calling it an unnatural vice, as if being unnatural could ever really be equated to a vice to begin with. The whole evolutionary history of the cultural man is virtually a study in no longer being just natural.

    Yeah, judeochristian religion has historically led the charge in fighting the so-called "evils" of society. Bowing before idols, adultery, witchcraft, heresy, heathenism, fornication, prohibition, censorship, interracial marriage, contraception, teaching evolution in schools, not praying in class, doing business on Sunday, etc. We are so lucky having had them around to help us avoid these "evils" in our society. lol!

    We have the right to speak out against and expose your intolerance for what it is. If that upsets you, so be it. The world is changing. "Live and let live" is the growing attitude these days. Your kind are losing the battle. And you know it. Not a good feeling is it, this being a shunned minority in a society that doesn't even pay attention to you anymore?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    The description is not mine, but the standard description of this until the propaganda onslaught of the last 30 years.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    <snip stock rhetoric>

    What any of this has to do with my comments might be questioned, however.

    Again, this does not address the point made.

    And if that doesn't work, denounce people to the police. Yes, tolerance indeed.

    But again, this dodges the point made.

    Which should tell you something.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    It hearkens back to about the same time when you people were using the unnatural vice argument to argue against interracial sex and marriage. That didn't exactly pan out now did it?

    1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

    2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

    3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

    4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

    5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

    6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

    7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

    8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

    9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

    10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


    I haven't dodged anything. I addressed all your points headon and surgically exposed them as the cliché homophobic claptrap they are. And who exactly is calling the police on you? Have the police in any way suppressed the rights of you homophobes from carrying "God hates fags" signs at funerals or censored you from spuing your lies and stereotypes online, on talk shows, or among your congregations? Not that I can see. .
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Still waiting for you to provide scientific (peer reviewed) proof that homosexuality is an "unnatural vice".
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Is "unnatural vice" a scientific definition or assertion? Perhaps making it out to be is simply a straw man.

    Depending on priming, 35-80% of people tend to blame others.

    Psychopathy affects approximately 1 percent of the United States general population... - http://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...are-not-neurally-equipped-have-concern-others

    So you would need significantly more data to support this ad hominem.
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    If it's not a scientific assertion, it's against the rules.

    This is where you're supposed to, you know, do something.
     
  12. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Should you attempt to answer the point made, I'll be happy to discuss your response. Any idiot can squeak "prove things to me!"
     
  13. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    [deleted]
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You made no points. Your so called points were nothing more than homophobic posturing and excuses. I am asking you to qualify your points with peer reviewed scientific evidence.

    Shouldn't be hard for you, should it?

    If you believe that homosexuality is unnatural, and have declared it as such, you should have numerous scientific papers and studies to back your points.

    You have 48 hours.
     
  15. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    [Deleted]
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    If someone claims that religious belief IS delusional, are they also required to produce numerous peer reviewed scientific papers and studies to back the statement up?

    jan.
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Kittamaru,

    I already made that point...

    That wasn't the question. You said you have no problem with women marrying canines as long as they had sex in the privacy of their own home/kennel. Now would you still have no problem with you mother, friend, daughter, doing that.
    If you were only joking please say sol

    Is your mother bi-sexual, or homosexual? Sorry for the prying questions, I'll understand if you don't wish to answer. Was it your father that made her consider homosexuality, or has she always been a homosexual?

    That's good that she's happy.

    It's hard for me to comment because I don't the circumstances of their relationship, or how it descended into her being abused by your father.

    If a sixteen year old lad hooked up with a 93 year old woman, and claimed to be happier than he has ever been with his ex sixteen year girl friend, how would honestly react to that?

    Did happiness occur because she now in a relationship with - another woman, the person who just happened to b a woman, or is she happy because she is not with your father anymore?

    jan.
     
  18. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Well said.

    But of course it means nothing: it's just a standard method of heckling employed against the unwary. I've lost count of the number of trolls who have demanded, with the utmost sense of entitlement, that I prove this or that to them - often things not faintly part of my post, and often things they know very well are true and widely held. People who can offer a rational argument for their beliefs don't need to use such tactics. It's just a crude way of yelling "shut up shut up shut up". Which itself isn't very respectable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  19. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    This, in case people haven't realised, was a little thought experiment. I think we have the responses, so it's time to sweep up.

    Do people want the results here, or in a separate thread?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    In other words, you are incapable of substantiating your argument or to provide any proof in science on a science forum that homosexuality is unnatural..

    So your belief that homosexuality is unnatural is based on your religious belief?

    How is it unnatural exactly? Why is it unnatural? Is it unnatural because someone from the stone age said it was so? Religious text also says that beating your wife and children is also appropriate. Is that natural?

    Unnatural is defined as not existing in nature, being artificial and a human construct, if you will. Yet we know for a scientific fact that homosexual sex and behaviour exists in nature within various animal species.

    Therefore, I would like you to provide proof for your claims that it is "unnatural". Your time is ticking down.
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Jan - Answers are in red

     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Unnatural is also defined as...


    Unnatural:

    contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
    "death by unnatural causes"
    synonyms: abnormal, unusual, uncommon, extraordinary, strange, freakish, freak, queer, odd, peculiar, weird, unorthodox, exceptional, irregular, atypical, untypical, non-typical, anomalous, divergent, aberrant, bizarre, preternatural More

    un·nat·u·ral (ŭn-năch′ər-əl)
    adj.
    1. In violation of a natural law.
    2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
    3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm: an unnatural attachment.
    4. Contrived or constrained; artificial: smiled in an unnatural manner.
    5. In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.

    1. not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature
    2. speaking or behaving in an artificial way to make an impression
    3. distorted and unnatural in shape or size; abnormal and hideous

    not natural or normal; specif.,
    contrary to, or at variance with, nature; abnormal; strange
    artificial, affected, or strained: an unnatural smile
    characterized by a lack of the emotions, attitudes, or behavior regarded as natural, normal, or right
    abnormally evil or cruel

    jan.
     
  23. roger_pearse Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    I think I'd better sum up.

    Political correctness is very useful, to those of us of a mischievous turn of mind. It allows us to test, not what people say, but what they truly believe; because we can observe their actions. Atheists churn out quite a bit of rhetoric. How do we test it?

    I noted a great deal of self-praise in this forum. And there is a great deal of criticism of Christians for being "dogmatic" - i.e. actually believing what they say they believe. There is criticism of the church for being violent towards dissenters, bigoted, offensive, closed-minded, conformist, etc. Nor are these criticisms without foundation. But ... are they sincere? Or are they excuses?

    So I thought I'd do a little experiment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I posted here a post in which I referred to homosexuality in a less than flattering way. I chose this subject mainly because several posters were accusing the Christians of failing to endorse it (without, of course, making the case for so doing), and using societal pressure as their approach. You have to be very stupid not to know that this particular societal convention is newly invented, within the last five years, and has been the work of a small group of activists, imposing their values on a society which is mainly hostile, by means of backroom politics. So ... it's a nice test case. Do we conform? If so, why? Or do we think for ourselves? If so, how and why?

    How did the members of this forum do? -- A group of people who talk often about such things as thinking for themselves, and decry "orthodoxy" and convention? For here, note, we have a real, newly invented, convention. Are you all rebels? Sadly not.

    Well, of the half-dozen who responded:

    * The same people, who scream about "orthodoxy", demanded orthodoxy.

    * The same people, who scream about violence, responded with violence or attempts to get at me or harass me in one way or another.

    * The same people, who jeer about open-mindedness, responded with fury to any questioning of this (newly invented) orthodoxy.

    * The same people, who complained about "demonization", rushed to demonize, to marginalise, etc.

    I won't name names - that's not the point.

    The issue here is not homosexuality (I don't feel the slightest urge to discuss the subject). Indeed I was mildly disappointed that, in the rush to scream at me for Failing to Conform (which did make me laugh, given my secret agenda), nobody seems to have realised this. The issue is how we decide our values. Does someone in NBC or CBS decide? Or do we?

    At the moment, there's a sad lot of mindless conformity going on here. There is NOT rational discussion. Rather there are simply demands for conformity. Which renders almost every bit of anti-Christian rhetoric in this thread quite null and void.

    Until we can offer a rational argument for our own position, we are merely heckling if we throw stones at that of another. Any idiot can do that, whatever position is involved.

    Friends ... a lot of you need to think. You need to do, what you often talk about ... you need to THINK FOR YOURSELVES. At the moment, too many of you have the establishment's hand up your arses to the elbow. Do you really suppose that the new values are invented and propagated for OUR benefit? Whichever politics we espouse?

    Be sceptical.

    All the best,

    Roger Pearse
     

Share This Page