Why do people say bigotry is natural?

Doesn't matter. What matters is that you sure as Hell don't do it by insisting that acceptance of your perversion be codified into law.

They are not nearly as much victims as they are victimizers.

So as far as you're concerned, if I called somebody like Fred Phelps a bigot I'd be persecuting him. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

Perversion is subjective and laws keep us from hurting each other while transsexuals are not hurting anyone.

How so?

Nope... nice assumption though.

 

Then surely you will find it child's play to explain why calling someone a bigot isn't name calling, or why doing so is not persecution but calling someone a pervert is.

 

Welcome to humanity... it happens all the time... Conservatives and Liberals... Theists and Atheists... haves and have nots... same sex marriage and traditional marriage...etc.

It says more than that. especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group. "God hates (*)(*)(*)(*)" would be bigotry. Saying "I stand against the LGBT movement on moral grounds", would be a principled opinion and not hateful.

Just playing devil's advocate.

We do not seem to agree on what "self mutilation" is. Self implies we do to ourselves. A child who habitually cuts themselves with a razor blade is involved in an act of "self" mutilation. A doctor preforming an operation is not self mutilation unless the doctor was working on them self... and even then its not mutilation.

And what I have seen of you is a lot of assumptions of me which are all inaccurate. Perhaps you believe that you can read minds... but you cannot... although I do find it entertaining to watch you try.

Again its a human thing and no one group has a monopoly on being bossy.

If its such a small minority then why does the majority allow it? Again you make the conservatives sound feeble. As for cultural decay, its subjective and not all caused by liberals. Lots of porn using Christian conservatives out there... and then there is the pot smoking ones... and the ones that cheat on their wives... etc. Conservatives are just as lustful and loving of their vices as liberals... but gotta like those blinders you have on.

America is 80% self identified Christian where there is a 50% divorce rate (so much for the institution of marriage), heinous murder rates, prolific porn use, and huge drug problems... yey for Christianity and conservatives... /facepalm... let me guess... its all the liberals fault... squawk... Polly want a cracker...

I was referring to your saying "you can't have respect for anything". That is where you are creating your own reality. I respect many things... its just that I pick and choose what I respect. My respect has to be earned and is not freely given.

As for baby in the bathwater... I checked the water, there was no baby... just lots of turds.

Its a two way street. Let me reword that: The radical Right have sent decades of messages intending to delegitimize everything about Western progressive values and to encourage people to reject them all in part due to "hypocrisy."

Each side does their best to have influence over the masses... its called a democracy. If ya don't like it too bad... cause that is just the way it is.

Actually what I celebrate is the honesty of it all as immorality and vice is nothing new... it was just kept well hidden in the past. America is a progressive country... slavery was once legal and now its not... women were once not allowed to vote, and now they are... African Americans were once segregated, now they are not... gays were once left to the fringes of society and now are becoming more accepted.

Again, welcome to America, where its We The People and not We The Conservatives or We The Liberals.

I say respect is earned and not freely given.

Its not due to parent hostility... that is only your assumption... my reason is because I did/do not agree with their teachings. But you know what I did learn? I learned how not to raise a child... so their less than stellar example made me a better parent.

You sound like a "honor thy father and thy mother" kinda person. Honor is like respect, it must be earned and is not freely given by me.

No, they must have good teaching and demonstrate them by example. No baby in the water... just turds.

Again with the factually incorrect assumptions. Go practice your ESP elsewhere... because you are inept at it.

All a matter of perspective.

 

"God hates (*)(*)(*)(*)" is bigotry... Saying "I stand against the LGBT movement on moral grounds", would be a principled opinion and not bigotry. Pointing out bigotry is not persecution... saying "God hates (*)(*)(*)(*)" is. Bigots love to persecute then get all offended when it is pointed out to them. But then I am betting that a bigot never sees themselves as a bigot.

It amazes me that I even have to explain this to you.

 

Sure you doworked for black people for women, Jewish people Irish people, and so on. Getting homosexuality codified in law will work exactly the same way. Why wouldn't it? Just because you don't like it being done that way doesn't mean it doesn't get done that way. The people were given a chance to accept it willingly but they refused, now it must be forced. You shouldn't be against it. It's your problem

This damned street gangs of transgender people and gaysrunning around just beating up everybody.

 

Here is where we differ. Using religion as a cover for behaving in an antagonistic manner toward gay people is the worst kind of bigotry and is in no way principled, IMO.

 

Which has nothing to do with anything I said, obviously...

... just as this has nothing to do with the implication in your post #44 - not that it takes a rocket surgeon to figure out why you're now pretending you said something different.

To be sure...but often they hide their discomfiture behind weaselly evasion - just like you're doing right now. What a coincidence.

That's hardly a bet when you can confirm it with a look in the mirror.

 

Why do you keep repeating yourself and veering off the topic of my original point in this regard?

The gay lobby disagree with you. All are lumped into the psychoticbigothaterswhoneedashrink group.

You refuse to accept conservative Christians, so again by that definition you are a bigot also, which is why I said the word is meaningless. If you have a staunch belief in something, you are by definition a "bigot." However, the Left like to use the word as defined in the TV show All in the Family.

Kindly stick to the topic and address what I'm saying if you have something to comment about.

Well that's lovely, so how does begging someone to come over to you and lop off your genitalia now suddenly not a bad thing?

self-mu·ti·la·tion

noun

noun: self-mutilation

the mutilation of oneself, especially as a symptom of mental or emotional disturbance

I'm basing it on two things. 1) My familiarity with the New Left and the garbage they teach to especially young people, and 2) Your own words about yourself. Your own words indicate that your choice to rebel against conservatism and religion were your "hypocrite parents." I saw personal anger, resentment, and rebellion, not, "Through a long thought out process, I concluded..." Instead I get a litany of family conflict and resentment.

What did your disillusionment with your parents produce? A morally permissive attitude. How is that an improvement?

Cultural decay has been marketed by the Left for decades. It wasn't Republicans out there preaching drug experimentation, loosening sexual standards, and free love. How on earth can you conflate or compare that to a Republican dude masturbating in the bathroom over Penthouse? You need to learn to distinguish personal vice from a program of social engineering.

Liberalized culture, the cheapening of marriage. Again, conservatives weren't the ones that have spent the last several decades saying kids out of wedlock are OK. Conservative groups were fighting that filth. Liberals were accepting it and saying, "You go, girl!" Then they wonder why since the 1960s, welfare rolls have bloated.

Smart work!

I was referring to your reasons for abandoning the views of your elders. Why you keep going off on these tangents is beyond me. Let me say it again: You called them "hypocrites." If you're going to take that standard, you have to abandon EVERYTHING because everyone has flaws.

There's my point. Due to your parental conflict and anger over your childhood, you have distanced yourself with anything having to do with your parents. That's not a valid reason to reject or embrace something.

Clearly it's not about hypocrisy, since you ignore mountains of liberal hypocrisy. This is about your personal anger. "Progressive values" are pure trash and should be rejected with little exception. "Progressive values" are why single parenthood and welfare dependency are through the ceiling. When you promote that kind of lifestyle is OK and work to remove the stigma, this is what you get.

And what is the common "Progressive value" as a remedy? Blame society.

Folly is internalizing values of a political movement as a valid moral compass. You have clearly made this mistake. You can deny it but you're too party line for me to think otherwise.

"Progressive values" include trying to get rid of democracy. That these people are making a point of demonizing their opponents to such an extreme they actively try to take away one's ability to feed their family over something as simple as a verbal slight should tell you about their closeted goals. They aren't democratic.

Too bad you mistake a guided, planned campaign of social transformation according to the blueprint of the New Left as democracy. This is anything but.

"Progressive" is a junk term. "Progressives" in the early 20th century were KKK members. "Progressives" in the mid to late 20th century were often Marxists who hid behind the term. That you claim all those things for "Progressives" is not only a sign of ignorance, but a sign of arrogance.

And blacks are segregated -- self-segregated. They aren't against all segregation; just the kind they do not enact themselves.

That you cannot distinguish your revolutionary views from your parental conflicts and the worth of your heritage is a sign that you are not only very immature, but quite the narcissist. "I'll throw out the history of my family and my people because I got ticked at my hypocrite parents! Down with the man!"

You again are unable to distinguish between the value of your elders and your heritage with the failings of parents. I don't have that problem.

Clearly that's not the case since you embrace the Left. They're raging hypocrites. I quit the Left over 10 years ago because of it.

I ask why you are as you are and I get a laundry list of parental resentment. That's not ESP - those are your words.

My parents suck!! blarrrrrgggh!!!!

It means you're so far left you likely think anyone to the right of Obama or Hillary is "right wing." I had that perspective - when I was a flaming Leftist. It means you don't know what a real right-winger looks like. Try Buchanan.

 

Just the intolerant expecting people to tolerate them. Bit silly if you ask me, tolerating bullies...

I don't usually use comics to express my point, but I think this one does a good job of it.

 

I

This part in particular is what I am disturbed by. 50s morality also thought that keeping black people in ghettos was okay. 50s morality kept women from talking about various sexual abuses that occurred in the workplace and other areas of daily life. 50s morality kept people from discussing risks and rewards associated with sex in a rational and honest way. The content of Empress' post and the reality of the situation at that point in history are so diametrically opposed it's absolutely ludicrous.

Couple this with the FACT that teen pregnancy is plummeting, as is teen drug usage, and the FACT that 80% of the current generation of teenagers have jobs and will maintain jobs throughout their lifetime, the reality of the current situation becomes much, much clearer.

 

I don't see Christians doing this.

What I see is one specific group that is consider sinful in the Bible - homosexuals - getting together in lobbying groups and attacking Christians, thus invoking a response in kind.

Where are the gluttons, wine bibbers, and fornicators up in arms about Christians? No - it's the gays.

And if you're going to cry about intolerance, then don't be intolerant yourself or you have nothing to cry about.

 

In your opinion, what's the difference between believing that homosexuality is sinful, is being bigoted about it?

 

I have no opinion on that.

 

Guess you've never heard of the Westboro Baptist Church which is the most blatant example, but there are more subtle pushes against Civil Rights for certain groups of people by plenty of other church organizations. They try to do it more quietly so no one notices, but we definitely noticed when the Mormon church largely funded Prop 8 in California. Also there are entire Christian Organizations dedicated solely to opposing Civil Rights for homosexuals. http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

 

LMAO... As opposed to 2000s morality in which blacks keep themselves segregated, as do most Latinos and Asians. 50s morality meant that the nuclear family was intact and thus few women worked because children were more important than scrubbing someone's toilets and children didn't suffer with a missing parent. 50s morality meant that STD rates were far lower than the 1960s "sexual revolution." We're still dealing with liberalized views on sex in our rates of out of wedlock birth, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency, and childhood poverty.

Imagine the horror. I totally see where you're coming from.

 

For real?

The intellectual fuel for Uganda's grotesque anti-gay laws came from American Christian fundamentalists.

Pastor Charles Worley in America called for the death of "queers".

If you don't see this happening, you aren't paying attention. Clearly.

 

Yes, he was quite the Democrat, wasn't he? You're trying to justify attacking all Christians based on a single attention getter who opted to use outrageous tactics? Please.

None of this post addresses what I said: Christians respond to groups that attack them, which is why we see an ongoing conflict between them and gay groups. There are no groups of drunks or fornicators who have assembled to attack Christians for telling them they're going to hell. They don't care enough to bother, and why should they? Why should gays?

- - - Updated - - -

The latest political hoax is to stand around with signs claiming that religion isn't the reason for "homophobia" as if the Bible, Torah, and Quran say homosexuality is normal, sinless behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you're not addressing my point.

I'd also like to see justification for this claim that you are blaming a small sector of American Christians for Uganda's views. Do you also blame Christians for Iran hanging homosexuals?

 

MOD EDIT>>>INSULT<<<Cost of living increases, the fact that women shouldn't be expected to be solely baby makers, etc. contributed to women in the work place, not anything having to do with "morality." Teen pregnancy has been plummeting since a spike in - you guessed it - the 1950s.

Jeez. Let's get back to them "good ol' days". And maybe those blacks will stop "segregating themselves" since the government will be handily able to do it for them.

 

"Be solely baby makers" is inflammatory feminist rhetoric. Yes, I'm aware of the changes in the economy, but that has nothing to do with your argument. You were specifically looking down on anything resembling 1950s morality, basically saying the US was a prison camp when that morality prevailed. I take issue with that.

Your statement of teen pregnancy is a half-truth. Nearly all teens then who were pregnant were married. I was referring to out of wedlock teen births, and should have made that clearer in my previous post. Since the 1960s, unwed teenaged births have skyrocketed. Now it's about 80% unmarried.

The US government did not "make" Latinos or Asians segregate themselves from whites or each other, thus my point completely passed by you. People are self-segregating.

 

Pretty sure I posted a link to 18 Christian organizations that oppose Civil Rights for gays, or did you miss that? Not to mention the entire LDS church.

Probably because Christians have so many drunks and fornicators among their ranks and have no interest in polarizing them all from Christianity, so they silently and even sometimes loudly attack and oppose Civil Rights for homosexuals since they don't seem to care if this minority is among their ranks.

 

The "civil rights for gays" argument is nonsense. The topic was the inflammatory exchanges between gay groups and Christians to the exclusion of other groups forming in part for the purpose of attacking Christians. There is a feedback loop going on between these two groups. Christians have also opposed out of wedlock births, legalization of Class I narcotics, and the like. Again, it comes back to the gay activist lobby feedback group.

Feedback loop. They also have gays in their ranks as well as single mothers, thus your argument makes no sense. This is at best speculative on your part. You are angry that Christians "loudly attack and oppose" but aren't saying anything about those who "loudly attack and oppose" them, so clearly this isn't even about anyone being "loudly attacked and opposed."

What's wrong with opposing the gay activist agenda, anyway? Yes, I know they proclaim as evil anyone who stands in their way. I am not impressed.

There are no militant organizations of fornicators, gluttons, and alcoholics who are attacking Christians for saying they are sinful.

 

gays already have civil unions in many states. what's the point of legalizing gay marriage?

 

.

If you can point out where I said anything resembling this, not only will I applaud you, but I will also wonder how you managed to edit my posts so they said anything even similar to what you wrote above.

The fact is, the 1950s that you are presenting aren't even close to what actually happened.

And let me get this straight... it's okay for teens to get pregnant as long as they're married?

Ok.

I'm just not even going to respond to that. It's too far out there to even argue.

If by "self-segregating" you mean "Staying close to their families, as Americans have done since the dawn of this country" then you would be correct.

 

How many laws have they actually put forth to oppose these things if I may ask?

Gibberish.

What agenda? You guys always talk about the gay agenda, what is it???

And there are no organizations of those people because Jews, Muslims, Christians or whoever of whatever majority faith are not actively trying to oppress them through the law.