Stumble This | You should also watch “Unwrap the chocolate bar and slowly put it in your mouth...” |
Filmed from Dr. James Dobson's American Family Association website, this shows how hate of homosexuals is alive and well in some mainstream Christian groups. I just sifted Hitler's 'Triumph Of The Will', and I realize that some propaganda techniques never die. This time it's the gays who are persecuting God-fearing Christians instead of Jews. Think about the children!
"...activist that hate everything you stand for." (cue picture of the bible)
"Once homosexual activists get into power, they're not that tolerant of other people." (not so tolerate of people trying to fuck them.. um, I mean, fuck them out of their rights.)
"They're coming to your town." (as if there could be sleeper cell queers! FTW!)
Oh, wow... great post, PirateWillard!
The mayor is one of them ! Oh god, we are doomed ...
Seriously, don't you have laws against "community hate propaganda" like we have here ? It may look like a "liberticide" law, but it preserves us from this crap.
It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.
Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged. Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.
Agreed.
It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.
Agreed.
Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged.
Agreed.
Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.
Agr.. Wait. What?
You, my friend, are a racist fucknut.
ok QM, I'll bite and fill in the blank:
1) a police officer
2) a child
3) raped and beaten
4) tortured to death
5) killed in an act of mass murder
6) killed in an act of genocide
7) killed in an act of treason
8) etc.
Yeah, we handle all sorts of exceptional crimes in exceptional ways.
It's not enough that murder is illegal, it has to be deemed EXTRA HORRIBLE 'cause the victim was ______ in addition to being human.
Bigotry against Christians is now tolerated and even encouraged. Not so with the poo-pushers and their homophilia-at-gunpoint.
------------------------------------------------
Okay, seriously what the hell?
The reason the crime is treated as "EXTRA HORRIBLE" is because of something called a hate crime. Attacking a black person simply because he/she is black is deemed to be "EXTRA HORRIBLE" by our society, hence the hate crime laws.
Now, as for the other "special" rights, I ask you what are they? The right to get married to the person you love? The right to adopt children? The right to open and freely talk about your family in the work place, and to be able to put pictures of them on your desk without fearing you will be ostracised? You need to reevaluate what you think is "special" and what is "fundamental".
Now as for bigotry against Christians being tolerated, I think you are seriously mistaken. I only have a problem with those who force their religion onto others, but I would never be bigotted against them. Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, so I hardly see how it would be tolerated to be bigotted against it. Also, the whole reason for any kind of activists for things like homosexuality is to promote equality, fairness, and the ideal that no one should be discriminated against, so anyone who would discriminate against Christians are hypocrits.
They're already in your town and they're producing your internet videos! Ooh-nooos!
Turns out it doesn't mean they're freaks... who knew!
The reason the crime is treated as "EXTRA HORRIBLE" is because of something called a hate crime. Attacking a black person simply because he/she is black is deemed to be "EXTRA HORRIBLE" by our society, hence the hate crime laws.
A crime is a crime. Hate crime laws just reinforce the same racism and bigotry they're supposed to punish. See the following South Park episode.
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/UEj2ihisKU0/
It's never about "equal" rights with activists, it's always about "special" rights, quotas, privileges, funding. Not just gays. Any activists.
This is the perfect example of why hate crime laws are bad.
FYI: Columbus has the largest gay population between coasts in USA
Did Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez or Ghandi want special privileges? No, they just wanted to be treated like everyone else.
You've bought into racist propaganda.
When a hate crime is committed, there are two things that happen: The actual crime and an attempt to intimidate a group of people.
Example: A gang member tags his name on a Jewish temple. A KKK member tags 'Die fucking Jews" on the side of a Jewish temple.
Are you seriously going to tell me that those are the same crimes?
BTW, I would never call you stupid for disagreeing with me.
Capiche?
what you are talking about are a particular monkey's filter, and their ability to process information, and express their damaged imprints, and how this relates to perceived acceptable, societal norms.
People are fucking idiots, if you give them the room-not just Christains, not just gays, everybody's process is defiled. Everyone's opinion, is on equal footing in this thread....only those who chose to find what is laughable in such masturbation, came out ok-
When one is able to understand the motivations behind perspectives, they may then perhaps have a valid opinion based on objective observation-
Dystopianfuture has some excellent points should you actually choose to think about it logically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
Hate crimes are intended to intimidate a group in addition to the victim. In fact, some of the most well known hate crimes were actually more directed at the group than the individual. A great example is the death of Emmett Till, if you don't know this, then here is a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
So, you can see. The crime is actually beyond the simple infringement of the law, it is additionally a crime against the group. The social contract we make when we become a part of a society dictates that this is a separate event and should be punished accordingly.
In the case of gay people, they want the basic rights granted to other social groups. Ask yourself,
Is there a secular(e.g. non-religion) based answer for why gay people should not be able to marry?
My guess is you can't. And if you can't, then it should be legal. To be frank, I think marriage has a religious connotation, and as a result the state should only be allowed to grant civil unions regardless of your race or sexual preference. If your problem is with the word, then you are just arguing semantics, and you are failing to see my point.
I hope you see that there are nuances to these issues, and you are willing to make compromises.
1) a police officer
2) a child
3) raped and beaten
4) tortured to death
5) killed in an act of mass murder
6) killed in an act of genocide
7) killed in an act of treason
8) etc.
Yeah, we handle all sorts of exceptional crimes in exceptional ways.
That's true, but in these cases we don't second guess the motivation behind the crimes in order to make the punishment "worser".
Hate crime = thought crime. Please do not pretend otherwise "for the good of the community".
I just read the entire article on Emmett Till and I don't see how those guys deserve more severe punishment than someone who tortured and beat a white kid to death.
Equality applies in both directions. A black man or woman should have all the same rights and freedoms as my pasty, white ass. But likewise, someone who commits a crime against said black man or woman should not be punished more severely than if it was me they had targeted.
Hate crime laws aren't so different from affirmative action. What you end up with is reverse discrimination, not equality.
You're wrong about King, who wanted all kinds of special rights.
And Ghandi hated Black people.
I can't believe you admire such racists! For SHAME!
If you think that there isn't a crime being committed against the group, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Currently, however, the legal consensus of the United States agrees with the perspective that I have attempted to frame.
Can you answer this question:
Is there a secular(e.g. non-religion) based answer for why gay people should not be able to marry?
And Ghandi hated Black people. I can't believe you admire such racists! For SHAME!
Wow. If you aren't down with King and Ghandi, then you most definitely have issues with race. This isn't a personal attack, but rather an observation.
Instead of flinging hasty retorts, why not take an embarrassing moment in a videosift thread and use it as a catalyst for positive change in your life?
I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.
Do you really want other people to do your thinking for you? I hope not.
Why not wrestle with these ideas yourself? Maybe you will come to different conclusions than those Fox News has taught you.
I know these comments are a bit forward, but they are genuine and intended to engage you, not insult you.
PS: I apologize for calling you a fucknut.
Yes. Gay "marriage" lessens the societal value of the system/tradition that's worked for centuries for the effective passing on of genetic code (creating life) and the legal inheritance of property to offspring in an orderly manner.
Without technology, two men or two women are incapable of creating their own offspring, therefore it's only a hedonistic union, not a functional one. It's not a question of "love" or "commitment" (what government contract is?) but the proven ways by which society has flourished.
I'm for civil unions for gays (a framework of legal rights) and I think committed gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
I believe marijuana should be legal for all, but most people still don't. That's majority public opinion at work. I can work to change it, but I have no right to change society overnight to suit my needs via illegal opinions by activist judges or crying about how marijuana (and these days, tobacco) smokers are an "oppressed minority" (though they are). Aren't homosexuality and marijuana smoking both behaviors and choices, influenced, I might add, by chemicals in the body? These are not issues to be taken lightly. Changing public opinion is a glacial process. It should be. Society is the way it is because of centuries of trial and error. If gay "marriage" has any merit, it will survive the deserved resistance against it.
I believe your earlier "racism" barb was the personal attack. By now I'm used to it. As I've said to any and all, if you want to pleasantly debate an issue in depth, stop on by!
As for King and Gandhi, I don't dispute their contributions to the world. However, while you and I are entitled to our opinions of these men, we are not entitled to our own facts. They were flawed, imperfect men...using them as billy clubs on a less knowledgable individual might have worked, but facts is facts, and as this is the internet, no one cares anyway.
I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.
In my younger years I was a liberal and then an anarchist. The libs are still spewing the same emotionally charged half-truths they were a decade ago, and decades before that. They never change their tune.
My later experience combined with new understandings led to my present belief system ("conservatarian") which includes facts and historical learnins where possible. It is a grave error to think righties have their brains switched off; we have to live with facts, including knowledge of our limitations; they are often depressing and often no fun.
The main difference between left and right? The left is forever selling impossible (and costly) solutions while the right illuminates the tradeoffs between one way of doing things and another.
Cute how you try to deflect my criticisms onto others, but I didn't say righties. These comments were custom tailored for you, mushroom.
Most 'righties' as you call them, are not rhetoric-spewing politicos.
MarineGunrock for example, is a reasonable, rational thinker. I might not always agree with him, but his opinions are always thoughtful, often unpredictable, and most importantly, they never sound like warmed-over Hannity.
I realize I'm wasting my life talking to you, so I'll let you have the last word.
Fortunately, saying something doesn't make it true. In this case, I don't think saying that inheritance and 'the passing on of genetic code' are impeded by alllowing gay marriage or civil unions, are logical reason why gay marriage should not illegal.
Homosexuals should be allowed the same rights to inheritance, and other societal benefits as other members of other groups in our society. Tax benefits, insurance, etc. should all be guaranteed under our constitution.
Second, marriage is not necessary for 'the passing on of the genetic code'. We are the only species that I know of that marries. Putting it in old testament terms, Adam and Eve weren't married, but had two boys. So, you see your second reason is not logical.
If you are for civil unions, then for you it is the religious connotation of the word 'marriage'. In this case, would you agree that states should not be allowed to grant marriages?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is a system that has worked for much longer than centuries for the effective passing on of genetic code. Modern day western marriage has little to do with property inheritance. The purposes of the ritual have changed dramatically even within the past hundred years, with a strong emphasis now on a romanticised emotional bond. This argument (which doesn't appear to be yours, anyway) also doesn't explain how gay marriage "lessens" the societal value of marriage.
Without technology, two men or two women are incapable of creating their own offspring, therefore it's only a hedonistic union, not a functional one.
Is this part of an argument against gay marriage, too? That only a man-and-woman partnership capable of and intent on creating a child naturally should be able to marry, because their relationship is "functional" (i.e. makes babies)? If so, why? What about male-female partnerships that cannot or do not want to reproduce? What about male-female partnerships that reproduce but aren't married? What about male-male or female-female partnerships that use technology to produce children? If marriage is only a culturally enforced process for ensuring reproduction naturally, it sounds ridiculous. I don't think anyone believes modern day western marriage serves this purpose anyway, it has come to be a symbolic ritual representing a romantic union between people who are then afforded legal and social rights.
I'm for civil unions for gays (a framework of legal rights) and I think committed gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
I'm glad to hear that, though frankly civil unions make little sense. The question becomes "What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?", and I've yet to encounter an answer that wasn't absurd.
Hate crime = thought crime. Please do not pretend otherwise "for the good of the community".
Let me put this more explicitly. Many crimes are treated differently due to aggravating circumstances. A particular motive can be an aggravating circumstance. For instance, if I kill someone who is going to testify against me in another criminal trial, that motive is used to prosecute me for a crime with a much tougher sentence than if I had killed the person in a bar brawl. That motive has to be proven though, just like the act of the crime itself. In other words, there is no second guessing of motives, they must be proven when used as a legal basis for a tougher sentence. In the case of hate crime laws, it's not enough to demonstrate that the defendant hates a particular group of people in general. The prosecution must show that the defendant's hatred specifically motivated the crime in question. Same thing for DFT's vandalism example above. The motive for the crime (intimidation, harassment, etc.) is an aggravating factor in the crime and thus cause for more severe punishment. The thoughts behind the act are not themselves a crime, but when criminal acts are committed based on ideas that society finds repugnant, the crime is considered worse.
Fielding the question from a mob-rules standpoint, the issue of gay marriage put to U.S. states had the majority voting a resounding NO. The majority in societies throughout history that we know of, the same, if it was EVER put to a vote. Anything goes, yes, in societies headed the way of decay, and ruin, which...HELLO, anyone take a good look lately, at the retrograde paradigm?
The demographics of gay to straight, are one of many barometers we as a societal species have to gauge our so-called progress or digress. Does the reader perhaps notice, that we do not buy the bill of goods, that imprints, parents, and sensibilities, have nothing to do with someone's sexuality?? It is not solely the crap-shoot of genetics that determines a person's predilections-environment plays a major role.
Marriage? Religions decide. The construct has it's roots and origins there....it is a matter of "This establishment reserves the right to refuse", and the homosexual who wants a piece of it, must whine, scream, kick, that much harder-Who said life was easy?
Besides, the argument of what benefits are unavailable to gay couples as opposed to a married couple, is weak-Insurance? Another construct in which people believe what they are told they need to avail themselves of. Tax breaks? Get creative. There are more holes in that system, more easily maneuverable than any, poor me, convince the world that what I demand I deserve-said it before, and will say it again, "Fuck gay marriage." No stranger here to dysfunctional, ego-addicted brats, gay or straight.
By your own words you would have committed multiple crimes (murder, assault, coercion) and would be punished for each. A hate crime law is not necessary for that to happen. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." Translation: we pander to the victim's peers to keep them appeased by increasing the punishment over the norm.
It's like the Evolutionist vs. the Creationist argument. These are two completely different concepts, people. Abiogenesis vs. Creation; now you have an argument.
Imagine what we could get accomplished if we were all tolerant and didn't have to squabble over what we have no control over? Damnit, I could be in a virtual reality foursome with Anna Faris, Rachel McAdams and Melissa Theuriau by now...
It's socially acceptable to ridicule the geocentric universe, the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but many moderate Christians don't believe in those things. Don't conflate religion with race, ethnicity, or some inherited trait -- religion is a conscious choice, like choosing to believe in the invisible pink unicorn.
The problem is that marriage has legal and social implications that go beyond a religious ceremony. Either you separate the law from the ceremony and give everyone this replacement or you live in a theocracy.
Besides, the argument of what benefits are unavailable to gay couples as opposed to a married couple, is weak-Insurance?
Whether you agree with the rights afforded to the married is a separate issue. This argument is about why a certain group should be barred from access to those rights. The value of those rights may be negligible to you, but that is no reason for them to be denied to same-sex couples.
But serious downvotes to quantumushroom (although I have not actually downvoted it, because, hey, he was expressing his point of view) for a completely non thought out load on nonsense, and big upvotes to berticus for clearly pointing out the ridiculous assertions in qm's post.
To try and suggest that 'marriage' is something that is purely the right of men and women, and letting 'teh gays' marry will somehow bring down the whole fabric of our community is just a complete case of fear and misunderstanding.