Ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven

[MrMixelPixel]

Well, at least hell will be fabulous.

Edit: Oh, and I think that any religion that considers two fully functioning adults loving each-other a sin might have some problems.

 

[Therumancer]

I could slew around a few quotes, like Napoleon's "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich," but I don't think it would fit the given context. Plus, people get mad.

Whyyyyy the sudden influx of homophobes though? I swear it wasn't this bad a few years ago.

Backlash. The very usage of terms like "homophobe" explains exactly why your seeing some major responses from the other direction. Basically it's an issue that has the US divided roughly 50-50, for a lot of differant reasons. The pro-gay movement has been increasingly offensive, belligerant, and unwilling to even consider the anti-gay side of things. Left wing media control helped maintain that and present the illusion that the anti-gay side of things was some tiny, fringe, majority, but as that was never the case your starting to see that side rallying and becoming increasingly vocal.

I'm pretty much at the center of the issue, whether anuyone wants to accept that or not, being in the middle between anti-gay and pro-gay. Being seperated from both sides (and disliked by both sides) it gives me a pretty clear perception of how things are moving. The left wing/pro gay side has had a lot of intertia, but intertia ultimatly fades, and your seeing the other side having rallied and it's likely to start pushing back big time. It may or may not happen, but I kind of figure you'll see the pro-gay movement gradually losing steam, and then things to start swinging back in a very anti-gay direction for a while. This will continue until all of the all or nothing "we will not negotiate on this issue" guys on both sides knock it off and meet somewhere in the middle, which will leave nobody really happey, but will throw a bucket of ice on the conflict.

See, the mistake you are making there is trying to argue that homophobia is an acceptable view on any level. Talking about it like it is an argument with two equally valid "Sides" (Which is how you come accross). Homophobia is not ok. It is not the worst thing in the world, but it is just not ok. On the one side you have people who want the freedom to love who they want, marry who they love and live a happy life. On the other side, you have a bunch of wankers who don't want homosexuals to be happy. Let me make it clear that I am not saying all christians are like that, yada yada, or even that anyone who is not interested in the debate. But you know what? There are plenty of people in this world that don't like homosexuals (For whatever reasons) but are on the same side of the debate because they care about civil liberties. I have friends who have admitted that the idea of two guys kissing makes them feel slightly ill. They still think that gay marriage should be legal. The kind of people who are on the "Anti-Gay" side of the debate are, without a shadow of a doubt, horrible people.

There should be no negotiation on this issue. Especially in the states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Pretty sure "Freedom to be in love with someone" is covered by the pursuit of happiness. Ergo, fighting against the "Gay" movement is fighting against the declaration of independence. I thought you Americans were all for those old, musty documents?

Discrimination is bad. End of. Homophobia is bad, Racism is bad, you get the idea. Times have moved on, its about time the "West" stopped clinging on to this bullshit.

... and there you go, making my point for me. Everything you said right there pretty much proves the point and explains why the conflict continues, remains deadlocked, and sees an ebb and flow, periods of backlash, etc...

Things won't change until your side admits that there is validity to the other side and it isn't entirely the kind of issue you have convinced yourself it is. Likewise the other side has to do something very similar when it comes to a lot of the faith based arguements. Once that happens, it will be possible to see an actual resolution.

Mistake: Assuming you have a clue what position I am coming from.

I am a bisexual christian who is living with my queer sister and her strait partner. Lets use that as a jumping board.

Follow this up with my being a utilitarian socialist, well, then you get my political views. Which feed into this. This is not a "Debatable" issue any more than you can debate that "All Chinese people are sneaky". There are two sides to this "Debate". People who care about civil liberties and want them exteneded to the entire population and people who do not want other people to be happy for whatever reason.

That is the ENTIRE debate. There IS no middle ground. Say whatever you like about how you are somehow in the middle of this debate and hated by both sides, yet apparently you have described yourself as "Anti-Gay".

That should not be a term. The fight here is not a religious one, it is not even neccesarily a moral one. This is an issue of civil liberties, plain and simple. On the one hand you have people fighting for equal protection and rights under the law, on the other hand you have people who are fighting to continue discrimination.

Either you are FOR discrimination or you are WITH the movement that has apparently been so insulting. With regards to your points that the west has made no progress?

Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell. Where did that go?
Homosexuality is no longer illegal in the UK. That was one HELL of a victory.
Posthumous apology for Turing because of what we did to him. Again, FUCKING HUGE VICTORY.

Sitting back and saying there are "No victories" and this fight is a stalemate, well, it is simply wrong. The only reason you hold those views are they back up your own particular ideology that until some middle ground is found this fight will never end. The battle against homophobia, hell, the battle against prejudice IS succeeding in other countries (Germany, France, the UK, Scandinavia. God, I fucking LOVE scandinavia).

Do not presume to know what my position is or where my position is coming from. I feel you barely understand what the fight is.

Finally:

The day I give an inch to a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, a chauvanist or any other asswipe who pressumes to push his fear and intolerance upon me is the day I eat my hat. There is no validity in an argument which is essentially "These people do not deserve happiness". Again, There is no validity in that argument within the states (Where I pressumer you are from) because it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

Oh, and a disclaimer here: Some arguments which disagree with my own have merit. I can see some of the benefits of fiscal conservatism and thigns like that. I can see where conservatives come from and I understand their logic. Unlike my Comrades, I do not think it immoral to hold those political views.

But Homophobia (Which is what being anti-gay is. Stop hiding from that fact) has no merit. Fear of the unknown, fear of those who are different, it has no merit. Denying somones right to happiness because you disagree with the idea of two men holding hands, kissing, fucking, it has no merit.

But maybe you can change my mind. Come on, Give me one argument from the "Anti-Gay" side of this debate that is not based in:
- Fear
- Intolerance
- Religion

And does NOT infringe on any of the "unalienable rights" outlined in the declaration of independence.

Please.

Try.

I request the highest of fives.

That was very well written and nicely explains why homophobia is wrong.

*gives you the highest of fives to have ever been highfived in the history of high-fives*

Again, I am not going to engage in another gay rights arguement, and have made it clear from the very beginning that it was off the table. I am remaining focused entirely on the issue of "backlash" and why it occurs. A point your making for me by the way.

See, your going off about how you believe all of these things, and how your position is not negotiable, etc... etc... and all kinds of justifications from your side which you doubtlessly believe. But that doesn't mean that the other side is invalid only that YOU think it's invalid. There are people who believe just as strongly, and with just as much reinforcement on the other side, which is why despite all of these "Facts" as you like to think of them, the nation remains more or less polarized with a couple of percentage points in either direction, and you see counter attacks and backlash being made.

If I was to take your offer and say go off on the other side's perspective, all I'd be doing is inviting attacks on myself, from a group of fanatics, and nothing I said would be accepted as any source that acts as a foundation for the other side, would of course be attacked and people would insist it was debunked, biased, etc... while your own position remains irrefutable an don the side of angels. I see no point to that.

Instead I recommend you educate yourself, go to some of the opposition sites, read it first hand, etc... You probably still won't want to believe it, but at least I won't have to deal with the headache. In the end though if there is going to be any resolution both you and those other guys who are equally fanatical are going to have to admit that your both wrong on a lot of levels.

Oh and also, while it makes for some powerful points, quoting documents like The Constitution, Declaration of Indpendance, and other things is almost comedy gold. The reason why is that the founding fathers designed those things to sound powerful, but were never all encompassing as they are presented today. If you look at how they practiced the law and interpeted those documents, let's just say the fanatics on the anti-gay front are going to seem absolutly progressive in many cases. Indeed one issue nowadays has been states where homosexuality was declared a crime, even if it was no longer being enforced (with those insisting it be enforced again, before it being nixed) a lot of those laws go back to colonial times, and were established, approved, upheld by the guys who wrote those same documents. See you could say that the laws in force at that time act as intended exceptions (to a lot of things, not just homosexuality, things like "cruel and unusual punishment" and "the right to free speech", and "protection against unreasonable search and seizure" are all good examples where their intended interpetation is far differant from what it's turned into). I'm NOT going to argue the point in detail, but as such understand that if you decide to pull that kind of patriotic declaration crap in a discussion with people who know better, your going to get it thrown right back at you. Let's just say that guys like George Washington didn't exactly step in to prevent the prosecution of homosexuals, and that really kills any arguement based on "intent". It's really very much a case based on modern liberalism, and there is nothing wrong with making a case based on modern morality, BUT in doing so you really can't make arguements based on classic Americana. Indeed if you actually knew the other side (which you don't) you wouldn't even try that if you thought you were fighting someone who believed it, since one of the big defensive points is attached to a "back to the bssics" attitude on morality and law enforcement, and that we should enforce such issues the same way they did in the time of the founding fathers. You pretty much lose by default when you try and make an arguement based on modern morality, and try and invoke centuries old documents... it just doesn't work, and it's a good way to get your lunch eaten if someone was seriously debating you (which I'm not). The consitution, bill of rights, declaration of independance, etc... are all jokes when you consider how the same guys interpeted those principles in the street and the morality that existed around them.

 

[Woodsey]

If the Atheist truly did not believe, he would not bother to deny.

^_^ Prachtett's Golems ftw.

That means... fuck all.

I don't bother denying, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it's not pushed about enough as a series belief by other people to warrant bringing it up.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm not going to engage in another circular arguement with fanatics.

Uh huh. Veiled insults. Am I correct in assuming that you're not going to put your money where your mouth is and say who's a fanatic around here? Of course you aren't, that would risk mod wrath.

Still, ask yourself how often you've actually gone to say a hardcore anti-gay, right wing site without the intent to pick a fight, just listened, and didn't immediatly dismiss everything you heard based on what people on the other side (who you were already inclined to agree with) had to say.

You'd be surprised.

Ask some questions that aren't loaded sometime, check sources with people in a non-confrontational fashion. Over a period of time you'll probably surprise yourself. I won't say you'll agree with them, but after knowing what both sides say, and finding the grain of truth in each, your liable to wind up somewhere similar to me... which is the really hard place to be, because you get it from both ends.

Because we all think and function exactly like you do, and it's only inevitable that we reach the same conclusions, and if we don't, we just didn't think things through enough because everyone who does will end up where you are, right?

 

[Therumancer]

No, it's a big, bloody, shame that your not even willing to consider the other side. Simply saying that something exists doesn't mean that I am here as their defender, especially seeing as I represent a third party acknowledging valid points on both ends of the conflict.

You are correct about religious tradition though, and I myself have pointed out that it's an aspect of this that the anti-gay side needs to drop.

Well, I'd be more willing to perhaps consider the other side if any good arguements for letting innocent people suffer for something they cannot help and doesn't hurt anyone. By all means, if you have any, I'd like to hear them. Just as an example, not by a defender but by an observer.

There are two reasons of why I am rather devotedly entrenched on the "pro"-side of things, and that I doubt I'm likely to budge an inch. First of all, their plans to halt the advancement (and likely push them back as well) of LGBT-rights directly affects me. And in an issue that affects you directly it's a bit difficult to remain aloof. I mean, for heaven's sake. These people personally hate me, for no reason whatsoever.

Many churches (and other religious gatherings as well) have revised their policies and traditions on many areas, including LGBT rights. They're still there, and the very core of their faith is still unchanged. I just don't understand why it would be that hard for anyone else to do that.

Well, you yourself say your "entrenched on the pro side of things" which contridicts neutrality, and even if you were this enviroment is hardly so... open.

That said my intention here is simply to point out that there is a whole other side to this that is just as fanatacal with just a much of a core of truth behind it, which is why the conflict continues. I am not here to "defend their message" even offhandedly and engage in such an arguement so people can mob me on the forums.

Whether you like it or not, the bottom line is that the facts speak for themselves. In this case the facts are that there is indeed growing backlash (as someone pointed out), and that the country is more or less balanced 50-50 (a few percentage points being arguable on either side, and it changes back and forth). Movements like that don't stay together without a core of validity holding them together (no matter what you tell yourself) and it kind of speaks for itself.

There isn't anything else to what I'm saying, and I'm not stopping to the point of turning this into another overall debate on gay rights. I recommend people save their sentiments for someone actually involved in a battle on that subject.

 

[NiPah]

If the Atheist truly did not believe, he would not bother to deny.

^_^ Prachtett's Golems ftw.

Following that line of reasoning anyone who denied they were gay is actually gay?

Wow logic's a *****.

 

[Preacher zer0]

A 4 year old kid shouldn't know about the existence of ANY sexual orientation, straight gay or otherwise.

There is no excuse here, this is wrong.

 

[xchurchx]

Well, first off, "Hommos" can go to heaven, there are plenty of gay Christians at least on the protestant side of it all (not sure on catholic as I live in the UK) of course its a situation that splits the church quite unpleasantly, the only thing the bible says is wrong about homosexuality is that two men shouldn't have sex, and that's a pretty big sacrifice for them to make.

 

[DYin01]

I see where you're coming from, but I'll explain why that isn't right. Religions make claims. Christianity for example, claims there is one god that created everything. If a religious person wants to justify his or her belief scientifically (which is obviously missing the point of faith, but plenty choose to do it anyway) he or she has to provide evidence to support the claim. The person who makes the claim has to provide the evidence. That's called the burden of proof.

You say that atheists have no evidence to support their non-belief and you're completely right. It's also completely irrelevant. Atheists don't have the burden of proof because they make no claims. Not believing is the default position. Atheists do not belief the claims made by religious people. That's it. As such, it is not a ''religion'' in any way, shape or form.

On agnosticism: You can be theist or atheist and an agnostic. Being agnostic only means that you belief the existence of god cannot possibly be proven. You can belief in a god, and still belief the existence cannot be proven. You can also be an atheist agnostic.

True. Another thing I never understood about religious people - especially Christians - who try to empirically prove whatever deity they believe in exists. I think, sadly, it's quite hard for religious people to try and see the other side of an issue, because doing so would be like admitting that they could be wrong...which would compromise their entire belief system. Very unfortunate.

I didn't know of that about Agnosticism. I suppose that's because Agnostic-Christians and Agnostic-Atheists are generally referred to as either Christians or Atheists...as the Agnostic part is sort of just a side thing. Makes sense, though, and I'm actually a little glad there's enough of those people that are more reasonable about it that they have their own noun.

I suppose that more and more Christians (and other religious folk) feel the need to justify their beliefs now that atheism is on the rise. Admitting you're wrong about something like your religion isn't something most people are willing to do. It's a very personal thing. Some people let their religion go eventually, but usually not after a hefty discussion with an atheist.

As far as agnosticism is concerned.. I wouldn't call myself an agnostic. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure there isn't some sort of a deity, but I am saying that I'm about 99% sure there isn't one. Sure, it's possible, but there's no reason to believe there has to be. It's no more likely than there being an omnipotent teapot or something ridiculous like that. I'm as certain as I reasonably can be.

 

[DYin01]

If the Atheist truly did not believe, he would not bother to deny.

^_^ Prachtett's Golems ftw.

Following that line of reasoning anyone who denied they were gay is actually gay?

Wow logic's a *****.

Yeah, that shit don't fly.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

It's this sort of s*** that makes me hate religion. I'm fine with it until it starts impeding progress in science and society. Homophobia is an outdated mentality that someone thought to put in the Bible along with all the other now outdated but then acceptable practices of that society, so what should be a simple matter of "Oh, well those people were a bit intolerant, lets get over it" becomes "Well God said so, and He knows best!" It's just a primitive society cementing their s*** ideals further than they should be able to.

Secondly, gays hardly ever protest against heterosexuals. All they're asking now is the chance to coexist in soiciety, they're not forcing homosexuality upon anyone, they're not even forcing anyone to see it. They are content with just being able to do everything that heterosexuals can. Homophobics on the other hand can't even stand knowing that homosexuals exist in the world. It's like opposing green apples. You could rally to have them taken off shelves and put a stop to all distribution of them, or...you could just not buy or eat them. Especially with marriage, it's a private thing, you're probably not going to see homosexual couples with banners saying "We're married and there's not s*** you can do about it" or singing about heterosexuals going to hell...maybe anti-gays are afraid they'll be invited to the wedding.

Just...pisses me off, is all.

 

[Furioso]

I love how the people who use religion against homosexuality simply choose to ignore some of the other stuff the Bible tells you to do, I'm pretty sure someone once showed me where the Bible says slavery is ok

 

[Worstcase]

I could slew around a few quotes, like Napoleon's "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich," but I don't think it would fit the given context. Plus, people get mad.

Whyyyyy the sudden influx of homophobes though? I swear it wasn't this bad a few years ago.

Probably because society as a whole has finaly become much more acceptant of homosexuality.

I personaly see shit like this as the dying breaths of an old and simply wrong way of thinking, I have high hopes that once that child get to leave his parents household he will see that his parents were simply missinformed people and discard their worthless ideas.

 

[Monoclebear]

Snip

Just for info you shouldn't bother with that Therumancer guy he is just one persistent Troll. He goes into a thread, takes a stance that is guaranteed to offend people* and simply doesn't provide evidence for any of his claims. The thing with him is that does that in way which can't get him banned. Just don't get your jimmies rustled.

*(another example than this thread is this one: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.361694-The-Un-Sexy-Dating-Game?page=1 , he seriously says that people who have an disability through accidents shouldn't be allowed to have children because it would be bad for the collective genepool. Not because he thinks that theire genes got worse through the accident but because if theire genes were ''good'' they wouldn't have been in an accident in the first place)

On Topic: Oh man, I am so happy that here were I live are far less of these crazy religious fanatics than in the US. Probably because germany is already over its ''let's-be-horrible-people''-phase. Just for clearity, I don't want to imply that all americans are religious fanatics.