This enrages me.

[sethypoo]

Most people would agree that God=love.

The Crusades and blood wars and other *human* instances of religion aside, the following site is not in anyway what I believe God would ever, ever condone.

God Hates Fags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

This is one sick site. How anyone could ever do something like this is beyond me. I hate to publicize it by posting it here, but I feel something needs to be done. I know about freedom of speech and all of that, but this seems to be a little much. The 1st Amendment is one of America's finest laws, but with it comes a certain amount of caution, since certain forms of speech are in fact illegal (libel, crying "fire" in a theater, and hateful speech). This site looks as though it falls neatly under the "hateful" category.

[pooky]

Actually, hate speach is protected speach. You might be confusing hate speach with hate crimes. Committing some other crime against a person (i.e. assault) for an obviously bigoted or hateful reason results in a harsher punishment than might otherwise be given out. But speach in iteslf is still protected. While I may not agree with the people who would publish such a site, I would defend their right to do so.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by sethypoo
\I hate to publicize it by posting it here, but I feel something needs to be done. I know about freedom of speech and all of that, but this seems to be a little much. The 1st Amendment is one of America's finest laws, but with it comes a certain amount of caution, since certain forms of speech are in fact illegal (libel, crying "fire" in a theater, and hateful speech). This site looks as though it falls neatly under the "hateful" category.

You're veering into dangerous territory. I'm not sure which sickens me more, the contents of that website or restricting free speech because it's "a little much." :rolleyes:

[sethypoo]

In response to pooky: I don't know, I just remember my AP Civics course, and how hate speech was not protected.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by sethypoo
In response to pooky: I don't know, I just remember my AP Civics course, and how hate speech was not protected.

Well this article begs to differ

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-965983.html

Also,

Amendment I

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.

Nothing in the first admendment say anything about "hate speech" being different.

I am not condoning the website, but in the US you have to realize that people are going to have different views. If you want to disagree with them, then setup the "God Hates Fag Haters.com" website.

Freedom of speech is all or nothing, we can't change it just because it offends "you". (you is used in the general form)

[evoluzione]

i just wanna know if the guy that wrote that site has a dog :rolleyes: ... being that they're filthy n' all...hmm, wonder what he thinks of dog owners come to that :rolleyes:

[Powerbook G5]

I've found the more rabid the gay basher, the stronger the likelihood they themselves come out of the closet a few years later.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I've found the more rabid the gay basher, the stronger the likelihood they themselves come out of the closet a few years later.

Maybe it's just a deep hatred for themselves that causes them to lash out??

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Dippo


Nothing in the first admendment say anything about "hate speech" being different.


Nor does it say you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, but we all know that's not ok.

I am not condoning the website, but in the US you have to realize that people are going to have different views. If you want to disagree with them, then setup the "God Hates Fag Haters.com" website.


I wouldn't ever set up a site like that because I don't appreciate or agree with the original site (God hates fags.com).

The reason I started this thread was to bring to light one extreme in the whole gays vs. religion debate that several threads here on MR have gone over. I thought it appropriate, and I didn't mean it to turn into a debate about the 1st Amendment, though I see how some who can't get the point of this thread would take it as such.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Dippo
Maybe it's just a deep hatred for themselves that causes them to lash out??

I have a friend who went through the same thing Powerbook G5 said. He hated gays with a passion, but in the end (after a year of gay bashing) he turned gay himself, and is now very happy with life in general. He even found a church that accepts him.

[whocares]

Free speach is a difficult concept to understand.

As long as nobody gets hurt, well you can say anything you like, though lies should be avoided (see the "fire in a theatre" post).
But when speach starts repressing people's freedom (like being racists, homophobic, etc) you're venturing on slipery ground. Is it still my freedom to say something if it's walking all over someone else's freedom (the right to be different)?

Here is drawn a thin line between democracy and dictatorship.

[themadchemist]

Hmmm...I believe it's satire, is it not? After all, if you click enter (after barely being able to stomach that first Intro page), you'll see a link to 'God Hates America.' Now what good, God-fearing Baptist home page would ever, I mean ever, link to a site that preached such content as that?

This, like most disgustingly extremist sites, is a commentary on the sad state of the minds of many in this country.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by themadchemist
Hmmm...I believe it's satire, is it not? After all, if you click enter (after barely being able to stomach that first Intro page), you'll see a link to 'God Hates America.' Now what good, God-fearing Baptist home page would ever, I mean ever, link to a site that preached such content as that?

This, like most disgustingly extremist sites, is a commentary on the sad state of the minds of many in this country.

Did you not go to the pictures and look at the little kids holding up the signs??

!CAUTION! Not for those with weak stomaches. (http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2003/UN_Fags_9-8-2003.jpg)

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by whocares
Free speach is a difficult concept to understand.

As long as nobody gets hurt, well you can say anything you like, though lies should be avoided (see the "fire in a theatre" post).
But when speach starts repressing people's freedom (like being racists, homophobic, etc) you're venturing on slipery ground. Is it still my freedom to say something if it's walking all over someone else's freedom (the right to be different)?

Here is drawn a thin line between democracy and dictatorship.

Thank you so much for that post. I appreciate intelligence!

Freedom of speech is hard to understand and follow at times. This site is protected, but that doesn't mean I can't #$%@ and moan about it!:D

[latergator116]

argh, this is a little off topic.... I can't beleive those pictures on "godhatesfags.com". That is just sick that they brainwash little children to hate "fags" and probably blacks and jews for that matter.:mad:

Also, what does getting AIDS have to do with being a "fag"?

[yamabushi]

Stop giving the site traffic. It only encourages them.

[rainman::|:|]

Well. i'm as expert on the phelps clan as anyone can be, i've followed their ministry for years, and was once personally picketed (they even burned a flag on the steps of the Iowa capitol building during that one, i felt honored). And as recently as November, I embraced and kissed my partner just feet from a group of them. The brief overview is this.

Fred Phelps Sr. is a hateful old man that has spent his life in the pursuit of a Personal Relationship with Christ through spousal and child abuse. He is a true baptist revival minister, warped by a good degree of mental illness that seems genetic. I think Phelps Sr. is the only one in his family (read: church) that does not believe what he preaches. I think he gets off on being incredibly cruel, getting attention, and mostly getting money. His kids and grandkids have been brainwashed in the truest sense of the word, to be dismal hollow shells of human beings that follow his every word. They do seem to believe the message they're sending... Which makes them more dangerous.

Unfortunately, his children must be treated as victims, as the child abuse they endured was unimaginable-- they never stood a chance. And they seem to live in a constant hell now, driven by Fred Sr. Two of the Phelps children escaped the tightly-secured cult, and have recounted their childhood:

Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Exposé (http://blank.org/addict/)

It's very long but an excellent look into situations of extreme mental illness and abuse.

Fred runs a fine line with free speech. If his ministry was devoted to just preaching against homosexuality, it would be one thing-- of course he has the right to do that. But, he makes a mockery of the judicial system with frivilous lawsuits (almost all of the numerous children are/were attorneys before being disbarred for unethical conduct), has been involved in the aforementioned child abuse, and uses the bible as a defense to urge violence against the gay community. These things can't be ignored.

fortunately, Phelps does everything in his power to discredit himself, including the ever-popular funeral picketing, the website godhatesamerica.com (http://www.godhatesamerica.com), and slogans like "FDNY FAGS" and "THANK GOD FOR 9/11". If i weren't so sure of the nonexistance of the "gay agenda", i'd think he was working for us, to promote sympathy for our cause. Needless to say, Topeka has rejected his antics by opening their arms to the gay population. Seems Fred is killing tourism.

paul

[kettle]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I've found the more rabid the gay basher, the stronger the likelihood they themselves come out of the closet a few years later.

that's as stupid as saying the more pleasant the Gay person the more likely they are to actually turn out to be straight.

or

the more rapid about "animal rights" a gay person is the more likely they are to turn out to be a closet animal torturer.

If I ever beat the living daylights out of a Gay person it will be because they were STUPID and the only reason I would know they were gay is because odds are they wouldn't stop whining about gay rights afterwards.

I wonder how many Gay people have beaten up straight people? (especially the closet (gay/straight) ones, they're the worst. :) )

I object to many "Gay" rights. That does not put me in the ONE other catagory that seems to be classed as Homophobic/Gay Basher. Please would all the judgemental gay people stop being so judgemental about things, unless you secretly just like arguing about stuff, in which case I just like fighting with people who are judgemental (all of them, in a nonjudgemental kind of way), just enough as to not get me into too much bother legally or physically. :)

I love this world.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by kettle
that's as stupid as saying the more pleasant the Gay person the more likely they are to actually turn out to be straight.

or

the more rapid about "animal rights" a gay person is the more likely they are to turn out to be a closet animal torturer.

There's a different correlation between being "pleasant" or having concern for animals and living a life with a powerful emotion like hate weighing you down.

If I ever beat the living daylights out of a Gay person it will be because they were STUPID

You beat up stupid people? That's criminal. The only reason I could think to physically harm another person is for self-defence (unless I'm playing hockey, when it's often done on principle/revenge/for the team/protecting the goalie).

and the only reason I would know they were gay is because odds are they wouldn't stop whining about gay rights afterwards.

I wonder how many Gay people have beaten up straight people? (especially the closet (gay/straight) ones, they're the worst. :) )

You strike me as being a hateful character.

I object to many "Gay" rights. That does not put me in the ONE other catagory that seems to be classed as Homophobic/Gay Basher.

Why would you object to the equal legal and human rights of anyone?

[kettle]

Why would you object to the equal legal and human rights of anyone?

wow, you just don't want to get it.

You're just trying to win an argument that has no winners. This is not a case where anybody can claim greater intelligence. Do you really think there would be so much passion in the world over this subject if it were so simple a question.

Obviously, I don't go around being violent toward others, I can't believe you needed to score a point with that, the one with the highest score won't win. This questions only painless answer is tolerance. The world is natural and if it's going to change it will change. You will not educate people who do not want to be educated. You can force them to agree without killing them, but you will not change them unless you remove them from the game.

Again, this is not a case of with us or aginst us. That is not a true picture of the opinions involved.

Things that are stretched have a habit of slapping back.

wouldn't life be more simple if we all agreed. etc. etc.

Please do not split hairs over points of elasticity, it will be a hollow victory.

[funkywhat2]

These guys came to my school district to protest the gay-straight alliance in one of the schools. There were like six people there, and a buch of them were little kids. It was kinda funny that they thought that people in NY would even think of siding with them.

There was some counter-protest ,but I didn't go. Maybe I should have. :confused:

[Fukui]

Originally posted by kettle
that's as stupid as saying the more pleasant the Gay person the more likely they are to actually turn out to be straight.

or

the more rapid about "animal rights" a gay person is the more likely they are to turn out to be a closet animal torturer.

Actually, yes...

Usually people are so against something because they feel some type of "threat" from it, usually a threat is to oneself is the thing that causes the most violence. To illuminate, a person that is violently opposed to gays being around them is probably because they are vulnerable to those type of people. Just like I don't like it when people smoke around me, because personally, I have the temptation to join them, so I always complain about thier smoking...its just human nature.

P.S People also frequently are outwardly the opposite to how they trully are on the inside, this is to keep societly from learning how they really are (for some reason or another), the rabid animal tourturer who is also an animal rights activist is very valid. How about drug police that take the very drugs they busted? Happens all the time.

[kettle]

Actually, yes...

Usually people are so against something because they feel some type of "threat" from it,

hope I don't wind up in front of you with a jury.

What's the quote?

"Oh, it's quite normal to dress in your wife's clothes, I know I like to"

So if I'm only slightly concerned with the progress of Gay rights, that must make me a little bit gay.:)

he he, I must be a closet liberal too.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by kettle
hope I don't wind up in front of you with a jury.

What's the quote?

"Oh, it's quite normal to dress in your wife's clothes, I know I like to"

So if I'm only slightly concerned with the progress of Gay rights, that must make me a little bit gay.:)

he he, I must be a closet liberal too.
No, Not necessarily. I said people feel threatened by it, that means in "some way." I also said, usually its because of something personal to themselves. I didn't say you were.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by sethypoo
I hate to publicize it by posting it here, but I feel something needs to be done. I know about freedom of speech and all of that, but this seems to be a little much.

If you're in the US, you do get to express any point of view, even if it's ugly.

Where that 1st amendment stuff gets neat is that everyone gets the same protection to say what they want; including offering counterpoints to the ugly stuff.

Really, would you rather have people like that driven underground, or have them out in the daylight where you can see what they're up to?

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by iMeowbot

Really, would you rather have people like that driven underground, or have them out in the daylight where you can see what they're up to?

You're right, out in the daylight is better.

[vniow]

I notice that there's no site at www.godhatesdykes.com, I demand equality!

[latergator116]

Originally posted by vniow
I notice that there's no site at www.godhatesdykes.com, I demand equality!

Don't worry, they're probably working on that one. ;)

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
There sure are a lot of gay threads on this discussion board. Is this a gay board?


You don't have to be homosexual to be interested in protecting the rights of homosexuals. In fact, if this were a so-called 'gay board,' I don't think our 'gay threads' would be as interesting. The debate! The hatred! The brute violence! Ya gotta love it. :D

Originally posted by kettle

You're just trying to win an argument that has no winners. This is not a case where anybody can claim greater intelligence. Do you really think there would be so much passion in the world over this subject if it were so simple a question.



Well, I think today we consider slavery a pretty easy phenomenon to characterize...Hmm, I wonder why people got all upset and fought a war about it a century ago? Maybe it was more ethical then, and that's why it wasn't an easy question to answer. Things are relative. In 100 years (hopefully sooner), people will be arguing about some other horrible abuse of human rights and will cite the obvious immorality of persecuting homosexuals as a perfect example of open-and-shut ethical problems.

Oh, and about godhatesamerica.com. Wow, paul, you're right, that guy is a nutcase. O.K., I wasn't particularly surprised by his other little venture. It seemed to be the kind of rhetoric you often here from the Baptist extremists, but this other one, wow, that was almost surreal. It seemed that it had to be a joke, because the argument seemed to be so paradoxical that if made, it would make the very universe collapse. Hmph, I guess not.

I'll rescind my previous statement that godhatesamerica.com can be used as evidence that godhatesfags.com is fake. I didn't go to godhatesamerica.com because I assumed it would be even more obviously farcical. But somehow, though it seems ridiculous, one can tell that it isn't a joke.

Yeah, Phelps is quite evil. And to make matters worse, he hires shoddy web designers. Look at godhatesamerica.com. It looks like it out to be on geocities or something. :rolleyes:

[Powerbook G5]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
There sure are a lot of gay threads on this discussion board. Is this a gay board?

At any rate, I have to put my two cents in:

Originally posted by Powerbook G5


just like the hate mongers have propoganda...so do gays. There are no studies and there is no proof as to the accuracy of this comment...which is nothing more than an urban myth perpetuated to dissuade hetrosexual men and women from having an ant-gay thought process.


As for the hate mongers...they are no better and perpetuate propoganda as well. YOu know...the more I think about it, the more I see similaritites between the two groups!

My roommate last year was a strong anti-gay homophobe. Our suitemate was bi so at times my other roommate and I had to moderate and maintain peace because he was so abusive and a real asshole to our suitemate. I mean, we are talking strongly against anything to do with gays or guys being "soft" in general. All I can say was that it was quite interesting to see him holding hands with another guy at the beginning of this year...

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
There sure are a lot of gay threads on this discussion board. Is this a gay board?

just like the hate mongers have propoganda...so do gays. There are no studies and there is no proof as to the accuracy of this comment...which is nothing more than an urban myth perpetuated to dissuade hetrosexual men and women from having an ant-gay thought process.

As for the hate mongers...they are no better and perpetuate propoganda as well. YOu know...the more I think about it, the more I see similaritites between the two groups!

Okay then. PowerbookG5 said *HE FOUND*. he was saying that in his experience, this held true. If you're going to tell him what he can and cannot surmise from his own experiences, you're a communist.

i love using people's own arguing style against them :)

At any rate, i don't care if you're anti-gay, or racist, or chauvenistic. As long as you don't try and inflict these beliefs through the legal system, you're free to believe whatever bigotry you wish. But if you want other people to live their lives according to your opinion, and you expect them to be OK with it, you have a lot to learn.

Believe what you want to about gays. i really don't care. when gay marriage is legalized, and gays have the rights that they deserve, and the world DOESN'T end in a blaze of evil, you'll have to come to terms with the truth.

paul

[kettle]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Believe what you want to about gays. i really don't care. when gay marriage is legalized, and gays have the rights that they deserve, and the world DOESN'T end in a blaze of evil, you'll have to come to terms with the truth.

I also say - "Believe what you want to about gays. i really don't care. when gay marriage is legalized, and gays have the rights that they deserve, and the world DOESN'T end in a blaze of evil," etc. etc.

I will be campaigning for the human right of an exclusively hetrosexual partnership modeled around the ideal of providing a sound basis for the procreation of the human species.

Remember if a Gay/lesbian person has the desire to produce offspring, they should remember they probably have functional reproductive organs, with this in mind they could do the right thing and put their effort into satisfactory parenting rather than being overly specific as to what gets an individuals rocks off.

[trebblekicked]

five posts until this ends up in the wasteland. any takers?

FWIW, kettle, i do not think excluding others from legally recognized marriage based on sexual preference is a human right. nor do i think marriage is an institution created for the procreation of the human race. i'm not going to touch your third comment.

[slowtreme]

It's funny to see a thread on "Macrumors" where many users have sigs pointing out hate or flaws toward Microsoft, while complaining that other people should not be able to express thier own dislikes.

I guess it's only ok to hate something, when it's you doing the hating.

[SoAP]

As a Christian, I don't condone the gay lifestyle. However, I think that they should not have put up www.godhatesfags.com. That is so untrue, they are warping the Bible's words into their own. Heh, it's amazing nowadays how people can change the Bible to say just about whatever they want it to say.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
you're a communist.


hey cool, me too!

[rainman::|:|]

you keep campaigning for heterosexual-only-marriage, and i'll keep calling you a bigot. it'll work out well. both of us will be saying inane, pointless things.

if you're so concerned with increasing the population of the earth, go over to india and take a look around. then tell them that they need more children.

i'm not afraid to say that people who want to keep gays from getting legal rights are no better than nazis, the KKK, or woman-haters. only you have a slightly less unacceptable aim, in the eyes of today's society.

guys, don't be "lukewarm christians". if you're going to be anti-gay, go all the way, godhatesfags makes good biblical arguements as to why God really does hate people, why matthew shepard really is burning in hell, etc. if you're going to believe the bible literally, don't hedge your bets. have the balls to stand up for what you believe in.

paul

[rueyeet]

Originally posted by kettle
"Oh, it's quite normal to dress in your wife's clothes, I know I like to"

Personally, I don't see the problem, as long as you have her permission to borrow her stuff. :)

Originally posted by downwithmax
Heh, it's amazing nowadays how people can change the Bible to say just about whatever they want it to say. Just nowadays? People have been selectively quoting the Bible for centuries to justify anything and everything--including the Church.

All I know is, beware the person who gets up in front of the crowd and says, "Hate with me." Hatred is easy, and too many use it to rally followers around them in the pursuit of power.

Originally posted by kettle
I will be campaigning for the human right of an exclusively hetrosexual partnership modeled around the ideal of providing a sound basis for the procreation of the human species.

Remember if a Gay/lesbian person has the desire to produce offspring, they should remember they probably have functional reproductive organs, with this in mind they could do the right thing and put their effort into satisfactory parenting rather than being overly specific as to what gets an individuals rocks off. That's what artificial insemination, cooperative friends, and adoption are for. There's no reason whatsoever that a gay or lesbian couple can't raise perfectly good children. Proper parenting is not exclusive to a heterosexual partnership unless you are planning to raise your kids as religious fundamentalists.

Besides, there are too many people as it is. :)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
Ok, *I FIND* that there is a certain aire of sexual perversion when it comes to gay relationships and it is an amoral practice devised only to satisfy one sexually. My old college roommate used sleep with whomever and whatever...therefore, according to you, I can surmise that *ALL* gays are amoral....right?

i love using people's own arguing style against them :) :o



Sure you can assume that. Unless, of course, you've had experience that suggest otherwise (ie. knowing any gay people that didn't sleep around like a teenage Cybil Sheppard would negate your hypothesis.) If you don't know any like that, then you can say such things. I would however, advise you to make an effort to meet some, there are lots of monogomous homosexual couples out there, and many many others wishing they were in such a relationship.

And paul no more thinks Fred Phelps is representative of the entire Christian faith that you do that the stereotypical flamboyant homosexual is what all gay people are like. Or at least I hope you think that. But he can tell the difference between a tolerant Christian and a bigoted one. Phelps falls in the latter catagory. You would do well to make the same kind of distinction.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
Mactastic,

You know, I was just making a point. I don't think all gays are whoring around for simple sexual gratification.

It's funny though, its okay for Powerbook to say that all anti-gay people are closet homosexuals but when I say something...I am immediately demonized.

YOu guys are funny...when you agree with someone, you let them make the most ridiculuous statements...but if you disagree...well, lets just say that my point was proven when you will give Powerbooks stereotypical (and suspect) story creedence and tell me that I need to meet more gay people.

What's the problem? Powerbook said something and you 'demonized' him. Have you not been saying what you want around here? And refuting what you see as problems with the opposing argument? Sorry if you think I should shut up just because the quota of people on one side of the argument had been filled.

And, well there is some evidence that homophobic men are more aroused by gay porn than non-homophobes, so I let Powerbook's statement go because I've seen such proof. If you have proof that homophobes are aroused less or the same as others, I'd loke to see it. Apologies I can't pull up the link for you at the moment, but it's been posted to one or more of the continual 'is it ok to be gay' threads here. Someone will find it for you I'm sure.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
If your gay...be gay. Whoopie woo! Don't force your lifestyle on me...or try to propogandize your effort with half truths, biased studies and flat out lies.

And if you are straight, don't force your lifestyle on others. And don't propagandize with half truths, biased...... hey did you just call me a gay liar?

[ColoJohnBoy]

You asked for it.....

By Shankar Vedantam, Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

WASHINGTON--Aug. 1--Heterosexual men who say they hate gays are likely to have homosexual leanings themselves, a new study suggests. "These guys despise in others what they see in themselves," said Henry E. Adams, research professor of psychology at the University of Georgia at Athens, who conducted the research.

In the study, reported in Thursday's edition of The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Adams compared two groups of men who said they were heterosexual. One was homophobic, defined as having an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and also a dread of being close to them. The other group was not.

When scientists exposed both groups to heterosexual, gay and lesbian erotic videos, over half the men in the homophobic group showed arousal to videos showing gay sex, while less than a quarter of the non-homophobic group were similarly aroused.

Adams said the idea that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal dated back to Sigmund Freud, but no one had studied it before. While the study was based on a group of college students, and the results are not conclusive, the research provides insight into the complexity of human sexuality.

To conduct the experiment, researchers calculated participants' arousal by measuring the circumference of their penises. Both homophobic and non-homophobic groups showed similar levels of arousal when shown the heterosexual and lesbian sex videos. They differed only when shown gay sex.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by kettle

I will be campaigning for the human right of an exclusively hetrosexual partnership modeled around the ideal of providing a sound basis for the procreation of the human species.


And that is well within your rights. But then also campaign for the elimination of any civil benefits of such partnerships.

That is what the same sex marriage issue is about. Why with the marriage penalty tax that married couples pay, why should anyone want the right to pay more taxes?

Simple, the probate/inheritance laws, mortgage lending rules, healthcare rules, and the such need to be changed so that married people by your definition do not receive any civil benefits from that union.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
DId you just call me a str8 liar?

Nope. But you might want to have a look at what ColoJohnBoy posted (thanks for finding that by the way) before you dismiss my statements as half truths when the data comes from a peer-reviewed journal.

[Captnroger]

The mother and her two young daughters that started this site showed up on the Howard Stern show awhile back. My impression was that they were too blind with Bible-speak to know what they were talking about. I believe their intentions were good, but they sure pick the wrong way to go about it.

Personally I think it's SICK, and as a parent, was disgusted by the whole thing.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Wonder what someone's handle here would have been if we were having a discussion based on the ideas and attitudes that existed by in the 40's, 50's, and 60's?

Far too easy I guess to fear someone different from yourself, than to try to find common ground and respect for each other. And to have laws apply equally to all.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by DannyWhite

Seems to me as if gays are doing the same thing as the hate mongers...twisting information and manufacturing junk science to force mainstream society to give them special rights.

What special rights are we looking for?

Is it special rights to want the ability to partake in probate/inheritance laws in equal fashion? Is it special rights to want to be in a committed relationship and receive the same considerations in a mortgage? Is it special rights to want our partner to decide medical care when one can't, without undue stress of other family getting in the way?

Or are theses laws already enjoyed by the public, yet denied to some?

I guess it was special rights that women wanted at the turn of the century to vote. I guess it was special rights that African Americans wanted not be slaves, not to be forced to be second class citizens.

Thankfully with public debate we have seen the error of our prior thinking on past issues. Remember it was only property owners that were allowed to vote after the founding of the US.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
What special rights are we looking for?

Is it special rights to want the ability to partake in probate/inheritance laws in equal fashion? Is it special rights to want to be in a committed relationship and receive the same considerations in a mortgage? Is it special rights to want our partner to decide medical care when one can't, without undue stress of other family getting in the way?

Or are theses laws already enjoyed by the public, yet denied to some?

I guess it was special rights that women wanted at the turn of the century to vote. I guess it was special rights that African Americans wanted not be slaves, not to be forced to be second class citizens.

Thankfully with public debate we have seen the error of our prior thinking on past issues. Remember it was only property owners that were allowed to vote after the founding of the US. I wish there was an applause smilie...

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
That is more of a term paper than a study. My guess is that the psuedo-"researcher" is probably gay, looking for a way to spread propoganda.

But the key is what i quoted...the results are not conclusive

Seems to me as if gays are doing the same thing as the hate mongers...twisting information and manufacturing junk science to force mainstream society to give them special rights. Please, come up with a better example than that. How about something conclusive or something from a better source. Hey, I might even consider this source if you were to include the study rather than a 500 word blurb that was probably published only to fill space in a newspaper.

Here's the study, look it up for yourself.

"Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

I hope your screen name is not some kind of tribute. I maybe one of the few on the boards old enough to remember the other Danny White, and none too kindly.

[Taft]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
1st of all...HOW DARE YOU compare someones choice to choose sexual satisfaction and sodomy to TRUE minorities whose plight wasn't defined by a conscience choice to participate in a lifestyle that is arguably amoral and self satisfying. There is no comparison and it is a juvenile attempt to cloud the issue.

Because your assertion that it is a choice is not universally accepted. In fact, many people believe that homosexuals do not have a choice in who they are naturally attracted to.

I DARE TO compare the plight of homosexuals to other minorities/oppressed people. I do so because I feel they are being discriminated due to their very nature. And as no-one has ever shown me proof of homosexual behavior being damaging to society or anyone taking part or effected by that behavior, I ask what right you have to deny those persons rights given to all other people.

It is very similar to discrimination based on religious beliefs. It would be all to easy to say, "a belief is a choice. You choose to believe in God A, so you will be denied these rights."

You don't need to be married in sin to experience equality. For inheritance laws...that is what a will is for. And if you think that inheritance laws favor heterosexuals...you are crazy.

Heterosexual partners united in marriage do not need an explicit will to assign their inheritance to their legal spouse. Without marriage (or some civil union equivilent), homosexuals are not treated equally in these regards under the law.

Medical...power of attorney

Same as above. A heterosexual married couple does not need special (and potentially costly) documents and interactions with lawyers in order to make medical decisions about their spouse in necessary circumstances. Without marriage (or some civil union equivilent), homosexuals are not treated equally in these regards under the law.

Mortgage...conventional loans

See above.

Other family getting in the way...sounds like a personal issue to me.

Often times it is. But again, a heterosexual married couple does not need special documents to keep family from interfering in their spouse's medical or financial decisions in those cases where they are incapacitated or die.

You make it sound like gays can't leave their belongings to their lovers or buy a house or make decisions on behalf of their lover...that is not true...and I detest the fact that you try to claim that it is.

You are right: with enough effort, time with an attorney and money spent, a gay couple can acheive approximately the same situation as a married person. This does not change the fact that the government doesn't assign these rights to homosexual partners in the same way they do heterosexual marriages. They treat homosexuals differently by limited their legal status to something other than "married."


Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by DannyWhite
As for the book report done at the University of GA...(a five page thesis---come on) , give me a link and I will give it a chance.

I find your attempts to dismiss this research by labelling it a "book report" humerous. As you may or may not know, most journals do not publish theses in their entirety. Rather they choose to publish the abstracts of the theses (something like a summary). If you want to read the entire contents of a particular thesis (including the study's data, and information about control groups, etc.), you must contact that thesis' author (or controlling educational body).

Basically, get a clue. The fact that the study takes up only 5 pages in a journal indicates nothing.

If you would like to see a summary of the study that was conducted at the University of Georgia, go here: http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

Then again, everyone knows that the American Psychological Association are a bunch of pro-gay, anti-family lefties. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Chip NoVaMac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DannyWhite
1st of all...HOW DARE YOU compare someones choice to choose sexual satisfaction and sodomy to TRUE minorities whose plight wasn't defined by a conscience choice to participate in a lifestyle that is arguably amoral and self satisfying. There is no comparison and it is a juvenile attempt to cloud the issue.

Not a juvenile attempt.

First, blacks were not even considered to "human", they were property to be owned. Even after they were freed, it took a long while for that notion to die, and rights that had been given to others to be given to them.

I state this because there is scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is "natural" and not something that is always chosen.

There have been many studies that have shown same sex attraction to biology driven. It has been witnessed by researchers in over 450 species. So it may not always be for self gratification. You may be confusing situations in where Homosexual behavior is forced by the environment, like in prisons.

Since homosexual activity is shown in so many species, can one really consider it to be amoral? Or is it a fact of nature? Just a point of information. We both know where each other stands on that issue.

You may have one point in your argument in that the human species can exercise more free will over our actions.

I could choose to be single without a commitment to either a man or woman. For if I choose a man I am amoral by your feelings and definition. If I choose a woman, then I lie to myself and to her for the sake of someone to share my life with. But then is that just as amoral?

You don't need to be married in sin to experience equality. For inheritance laws...that is what a will is for. And if you think that inheritance laws favor heterosexuals...you are crazy.

No need for hostility. Yes there are wills. But it is expensive to fight a will that is being contested. And many that share your view that homosexuality is wrong, that will fight the legitimate will of a family member to make a point.

And because of the complexity of ensuring that same sex partnership receive what is requested in a will, there is greater cost.

But you also use the phrase married in sin , which indicates to me you see marriage as a religious institution. Our Constitution grants us freedom of religion; but should it not grant us freedom from religion?

Medical...power of attorney

Same issue as with wills.

Other family getting in the way...sounds like a personal issue to me.

Not a personal attack, but I could see possibility you taking and fighting the will that a gay son or daughter left to their long term companion. I say this because of the passion that you have on this topic.

You make it sound like gays can't leave their belongings to their lovers or buy a house or make decisions on behalf of their lover...that is not true...and I detest the fact that you try to claim that it is.

Yes we can do all the above; but not with the same ease or equity under the laws of this land that many others in "marriage" can. We are all created equal under the eyes of the law, and prejudices and religious convictions can not stand in the way of that.

What I and others have written were not meant to attack you or get so you mad as to lose the civility of some of your previous posts. Just calm rational points that you can either accept or reject.

[Taft]

BTW, I don't necessarily believe that all--or even most--people who are "homophobes" are closet homosexuals. (By homophobe, I mean someone with a strong aversion to homosexuals and homosexual behavior or references. This does not include all those who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong from a theological perspective. As you previously said, just because two people disagree doesn't mean that they hate each other.)

I will, however, say that I believe most hatred to be a result of a fear or personal vulnerability. This might be a result of pent up homosexual tendencies. But it might just as well be due to misconceptions about homosexuals and their behavior. Or maybe it is just a fear that they might be persuaded into homosexual activity if confronted by a homosexual person. It might be a result of abuse/programming as a child. It might be a result of taking religious teachings too far (or getting your religious education from hateful people). Etc. Etc.

I don't think that every homophobe is a closet-case homosexual. But I certainly think that is one of many possibilities.
Taft

[vniow]

Where did all of DannyWhite's posts go?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sorry for the nearly identical posts Taft. You did put so much better that I. Thanks

Now a quick aside:

Originally posted by Taft

Same as above. A heterosexual married couple does not need special (and potentially costly) documents and interactions with lawyers in order to make medical decisions about their spouse in necessary circumstances. Without marriage (or some civil union equivilent), homosexuals are not treated equally in these regards under the law.

Taft [/B]

Unless you have to have Jeb Bush as Governer. (The Terri Schiavo case). Fortunately these cases are far and few between, that most states respect the rights of the spouse.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks to the moderators for not killing the thread all together.

I think for the most part we have acted civilly, and the discussion has been informative (even for myself).

Thanks again.

[Rower_CPU]

DannyWhite was dcb back again to troll the gay discussion threads.

They have been banned and the posts deleted.

[slowtreme]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
I guess it was special rights that women wanted at the turn of the century to vote. I guess it was special rights that African Americans wanted not be slaves, not to be forced to be second class citizens. I hope you are not implying that the gay community is not allowed to vote, or that you were brought over from Africa to farm tabacco and cotton? We are talking about a lifestyle and partner choice. Frankly Marrige laws are horrable and really have no place in the US, a country based on seperation of church and state. (A huge misnomer)

No two people of any sexual preferance should get any "perks" just for shacking up. Why should 2 guys rooming in the same house not get the same tax and healthcare benefits as 2 guys living in a house that happen to be having sex with each other? Or 2 women, or a guy and a girl. Sex or no sex, they should all be equal. There should be ZERO legislation that defines special circumstances for people of the same sex that happen to have sex together.

What I'd like to know is how can we feel good about Laws that OutLaw things that are already illegal?

Hate Crime laws... Outlawing the beating of a minority (any type) and special penalties for it. Isn't ALL assult illegal, should someone that beats the crap out of me, a regular joe american, get less time in jail than someone who beat up a guy that happened to be black or gay?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
DannyWhite was dcb back again to troll the gay discussion threads.

They have been banned and the posts deleted.

That explains the use of the name of Harvey Milk's murderer as a screen name. A rather disgusting thing to do.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by slowtreme
Hate Crime laws... Outlawing the beating of a minority (any type) and special penalties for it. Isn't ALL assult illegal, should someone that beats the crap out of me, a regular joe american, get less time in jail than someone who beat up a guy that happened to be black or gay?

You misunderstand the laws on hate crimes. If someone is singled out because of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and a crime is committed against them the perpetrators of that crime are eligible for special punishment because of the nature of the crime. You don't have to be black or gay for the criminals to be punished under these laws. The first test case was around an incident where a young white man was beaten by black youths.

Why should we have laws like this if there are already laws that penalize the underlying crime? Because society at large has an interest in punishing crimes that tear at the basic fabric of its stability. We punish those who shoot police officers with extra penalties and we can, and should, punish those who because of bigotry strike out at their fellow citizens with violence.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I hope you are not implying that the gay community is not allowed to vote, or that you were brought over from Africa to farm tabacco and cotton? We are talking about a lifestyle and partner choice. Frankly Marrige laws are horrable and really have no place in the US, a country based on seperation of church and state. (A huge misnomer)

No, these were rights denied to others under well intentioned or widely held beliefs. Just as homosexuality is considered to a lifestyle or a choice today. It was only till the 70's that Homosexuality was considered a mental disease issue.

No two people of any sexual preferance should get any "perks" just for shacking up. Why should 2 guys rooming in the same house not get the same tax and healthcare benefits as 2 guys living in a house that happen to be having sex with each other? Or 2 women, or a guy and a girl. Sex or no sex, they should all be equal. There should be ZERO legislation that defines special circumstances for people of the same sex that happen to have sex together.

If you look at Vermont or the possibility of Massachusetts; a same sex couple would have to follow the divorce laws of those states. Meaning that they would go through the same separation and divorce procedures. Also a petitioner could make a request for alimony. Given these legal requirements it is unlikely one would take and seek such status lightly.

And again we have the word ispecial come up. The rights that men and woman receive when they go down to the courthouse and a license and choose their choice of "marriage" are all that same sex couples are looking for.

In my case, my partner of 11 years and I are looking at spending in excess of $3000-5000 in legal fees to get what many other "straight" couples have gotten, even though they divorced in fewer years than my partner and I have enjoyed.

Even then there would be no guarantee that some judge that forgot that the South lost the war, and feels that blacks should ride in the back of the bus decides what's best.

Hate Crime laws... Outlawing the beating of a minority (any type) and special penalties for it. Isn't ALL assult illegal, should someone that beats the crap out of me, a regular joe american, get less time in jail than someone who beat up a guy that happened to be black or gay?

I agree with that. In fact all violent crimes should receive the penalties that Hate crimes do. At the same time ones religion, race, or even sexuality of the victim should not be used to aid in the defense of the perp. Hate Crime laws exist because not everyone can leave their prejudices outside of the jury room.

[mactastic]

Damn, I wish we could erase all the quotes of his too... That's really low to use that name to troll with too.

[FatTony]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Why should we have laws like this if there are already laws that penalize the underlying crime? Because society at large has an interest in punishing crimes that tear at the basic fabric of its stability. We punish those who shoot police officers with extra penalties and we can, and should, punish those who because of bigotry strike out at their fellow citizens with violence.

I'm pretty liberal, but I still have problems with special penalties for crimes that meet certain specs. This treads too close to so many issues for me. Free thought and judicial discretion seem to be threatened with this type of legislation. I haven't made up my mind to oppose hate crime legislation, yet. I would like to hear more debate on it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by FatTony
I'm pretty liberal, but I still have problems with special penalties for crimes that meet certain specs. This treads too close to so many issues for me. Free thought and judicial discretion seem to be threatened with this type of legislation. I haven't made up my mind to oppose hate crime legislation, yet. I would like to hear more debate on it.

First, it is important to remember that someone has to commit a crime and be convicted of the underlying offense in order to be convicted of a hate crime. No one is being put in jail just for their ideas, no matter how reprehensible.

Second, it is already a practice in law to give special punishment to criminals who do crimes that are specially harmful to society. That is why if you shoot a police officer you are eligible for special circumstances in the penalty phase of a trial. This is not much of a stretch to add special penalties for crimes that are committed based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. For the Supreme Court ruling on these laws look to Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html) for further explanation.

The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.

Finally, there remains to be considered Mitchell's argument that the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because of its "chilling effect" on free speech. Mitchell argues (and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed) that the statute is "overbroad" because evidence of the defendant's prior speech or associations may be used to prove that the defendant intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim's protected status. Consequently, the argument goes, the statute impermissibly chills free expression with respect to such matters by those concerned about the possibility of enhanced sentences if they should in the future commit a criminal offense covered by the statute. We find no merit in this contention.

The sort of chill envisioned here is far more attenuated and unlikely than that contemplated in traditional "overbreadth" cases. We must conjure up a vision of a Wisconsin citizen suppressing his unpopular bigoted opinions for fear that if he later commits an offense covered by the statute, these opinions will be offered at trial to establish that he selected his victim on account of the victim's protected status, thus qualifying him for penalty enhancement. To stay within the realm of rationality, we must surely put to one side minor misdemeanor offenses covered by the statute, such as negligent operation of a motorvehicle (Wis. Stat. § 941.01 (1989-1990)); for it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a situation where such offenses would be racially motivated. We are left, then, with the prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of such beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a more serious offense against person or property. This is simply too speculative a hypothesis to support Mitchell's overbreadth claim.

The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.

[Counterfit]

As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16. Is that William Blackstone, the founder and first inhabitant of Cumberland RI? The same guy who had the river named after him? If the name of the river sounds familiar to anyone, it's because our good buddy Slater built his mill there, and started the Industrial Revolution in the US.




Oh right, topic, um...
The guy that runs that site should stop!
How's that? :p

[pseudobrit]

It's not like taking someone's state of mind into account when applying the criminal justice system is anything new to be afraid of.

Otherwise, there would be no difference between a crime where someone plots, plans & successfully kills someone in cold blood and a fatal car accident involving reckless driving.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit


Otherwise, there would be no difference between a crime where someone plots, plans & successfully kills someone in cold blood and a fatal car accident involving reckless driving.



Not to go off topic, yet you raise a point I have thought about. In the above example of yours is there any difference? Surely the driver of that car must know that their actions could lead to a death. Sure they did not go out and plan to kill someone. Yet someone can be charged with murder for going in to a store and randomly firing a gun and killing someone. For it would be argued that they knew their actions could lead to a death.

The reason I support harsher penalties for the reckless driver is that in most areas there are not enough police to enforce traffic laws. Tougher penalties may act as a deterrent.

Same way I support child endangerment charges for a driver with children in a car with them, when that driver commits a serious violation of the traffic laws.

[pseudobrit]

My underlying point was that as far as the law is concerned there is a difference, and I agree with the law.

It is worse to plan to murder and do it than it is to kill in the heat of the moment just as that murder is worse than killing someone by accident.

I'm just pointing out that taking into account somone's state of mind while they commit a crime is nothing new, hence I can support hate crime legislation.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by rueyeet
Besides, there are too many people as it is. :)

That is why I think society will slowly shift its bisexual tendencies from the more heterosexual side to the more homosexual side. We only have room for so many people!

[Counterfit]

That'll only happen if we don't kill each other first.

[Krizoitz]

...that people on these message boards can go around bashing ALL Christians because of the few hateful acts of a few, yet if a couple people were to start posting anti-gay comments I gauruntee that they would be banned in a minute.

Now I am in no way defending the creator of this site, I disagree with his conclusions completely. But it is a little frustrating to see that relgious bashing is somehow socially acceptable these days.

I guess its ok to attack someone because of there beliefs unless you agree with them right?

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by sethypoo
In response to pooky: I don't know, I just remember my AP Civics course, and how hate speech was not protected.

The precedent that has been set is that hateful speech is protected as long as it does not present a forseeable and iminent danger. Writing a newsletter article saying you think gays are wrong is protected. Showing up at a gay rights parade with a group of anti-gay activists and then using a speech to incite them to riot is illegal. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal because it presents an iminent threat.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by latergator116
Also, what does getting AIDS have to do with being a "fag"?
Actually there is a connection between increased risk of aids and homosexual sex (among males atleast). Because of the nature of gay sex among men (anal tearing) it exposes the partner to increased likelihood of infection. This is the biological reason why AIDs spread quickly through the gay community, especially in the early years before it was understood. This is not to say that it is ONLY a gay disease of course or that being gay makes you more likely to get it, just that that type of sexual activity leads to an increased risk. Of course it would be the same in any type of anal sex between any combination of partners.

[trebblekicked]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
...that people on these message boards can go around bashing ALL Christians because of the few hateful acts of a few, yet if a couple people were to start posting anti-gay comments I gauruntee that they would be banned in a minute.

Now I am in no way defending the creator of this site, I disagree with his conclusions completely. But it is a little frustrating to see that relgious bashing is somehow socially acceptable these days.

I guess its ok to attack someone because of there beliefs unless you agree with them right?

the two dominant discussions in this thread were:

A) the phelp's clan's religion based hatred web site: godhatesfags.com

and

B) dannywhite, a "christian" who trolls these boards to start fights with gays and those who support them.

i'd remind you that there was nothing hateful about christians in this thread. it was simply a thread about hateful christians.

religion and these boards don't mix well, typically because of how passionate both sides are. think about it; person A believes this with all their heart and soul. person B thinks it's hooey. it's seldom just left at that.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
Our Constitution grants us freedom of religion; but should it not grant us freedom from religion?

So what you are saying is that we should only be allowed to express our views if they aren't religious? Ultimately anyones views boil down to a set of beliefs, whether they are based on God, science, or anything else there is no way to prove that one is better than the other.

The founding fathers wanted a nation where people would be free to worship however they chose (within reason, i.e. human sacrifice is out). They also wanted a nation where we could express our views freely as well, and that includes religion. Freedom OF religion is just that, it allows us to believe as we will but acknowledges that we sometimes have to hear things we don't agree with. You should no more ask a religious person to give up there right to express there views openly than you should a gay person to express theirs. How is suppressing peoples right to express their religious beliefs openly any different than suppressing a gay couples right to be together openly?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
So what you are saying is that we should only be allowed to express our views if they aren't religious? Ultimately anyones views boil down to a set of beliefs, whether they are based on God, science, or anything else there is no way to prove that one is better than the other.

The founding fathers wanted a nation where people would be free to worship however they chose (within reason, i.e. human sacrifice is out). They also wanted a nation where we could express our views freely as well, and that includes religion. Freedom OF religion is just that, it allows us to believe as we will but acknowledges that we sometimes have to hear things we don't agree with. You should no more ask a religious person to give up there right to express there views openly than you should a gay person to express theirs. How is suppressing peoples right to express their religious beliefs openly any different than suppressing a gay couples right to be together openly?

I am sorry that you misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying we should stifle any ones opinion, religious or otherwise. Our founding fathers also had the idea of separation of church and state.

Even the other day Bush showed a crack in the separation with his "sanctity of marriage" quote. Most would agree that it has strong religious connotations.

In the debate of same sex marriages/unions, the debate should be one of not religious beliefs. Otherwise we would still have "official" slavery. Otherwise we would still not allow for mixed race marriages. It is about the denial of rights to a part of the US society that others enjoy.

No one on the pro side of the same sex marriage issue that I know of wants to force any church to do what they do not want. All that is wanted is that if the government is going to require marriage certificates and give certain rights to those that hold those certificates - then those rights can not under our Constitution be tied to religious beliefs.

That does not mean religious voices can not be heard. It does mean that in certain debates the words of law should take precedent.

If the churches and others like Bush want to protect the "sanctity of marriage" then any governmental benefit from such should be eliminated.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
...that people on these message boards can go around bashing ALL Christians because of the few hateful acts of a few, yet if a couple people were to start posting anti-gay comments I gauruntee that they would be banned in a minute.

Now I am in no way defending the creator of this site, I disagree with his conclusions completely. But it is a little frustrating to see that relgious bashing is somehow socially acceptable these days.

I guess its ok to attack someone because of there beliefs unless you agree with them right?


Hmmm aren't you ignoring your own advice here? There seem to be only a few people bashing all Christians, yet you go off about 'the people on these message boards' as if everyone who disagrees with you are all of one mind. Yes there are Christians who are tolerant of homosexuals. There are even a few on here who have vehement objections to homosexuality that are STILL pleasant and would never judge someone else over it. Just as there are non-Christians who are quite content with their Christian bretheren holding whatever view they want and not demeaning them for it. Yes there are extreme voices, but you seem to be focusing on those on the opposite side of your POV. Extremism comes from both sides. Did you not read some of the hateful things DannyWhite wrote? Do you know where he got that name from?

You need to learn the difference between an attack and a debate. You seem to be having this trouble in more than one thread now.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hmmm aren't you ignoring your own advice here? There seem to be only a few people bashing all Christians, yet you go off about 'the people on these message boards' as if everyone who disagrees with you are all of one mind. Yes there are Christians who are tolerant of homosexuals. There are even a few on here who have vehement objections to homosexuality that are STILL pleasant and would never judge someone else over it. Just as there are non-Christians who are quite content with their Christian bretheren holding whatever view they want and not demeaning them for it. Yes there are extreme voices, but you seem to be focusing on those on the opposite side of your POV. Extremism comes from both sides. Did you not read some of the hateful things DannyWhite wrote? Do you know where he got that name from?

You need to learn the difference between an attack and a debate. You seem to be having this trouble in more than one thread now.

As I have done before I will ask you to please read what I am saying and not what you think I am saying before you attack it. Also misquoting what I say to cast me in a bad light is either lazy or malicious, and I hope its the former. One of the first rules of debating and not simply attacking is to respond to what your opponents have actually said.

What I said was:

Why is it THAT people on these boards...


What you CLAIMED i said was:

Why is it THE people on these boards...


There is a BIG difference, the first implies that there are people who are doing something, the second implies that I am accusing ALL people of doing something which I clearly did not do.

I am well aware that extremism extends from both sides. I also have seen the hateful things that people like DannyWhite have written. Frankly I don't think people like him are a good representation of Christianity. I still feel however that people are grouping all Christians together in this, making comments about how "christians are close minded" etc. I have no problem with debates, the problem I see is that as soon as people look at my post and see anything regarding the bible they immediately assume I am trying to argue that we should all believe what the Bible says on them, and that I am attacking gays. In fact, the first person to actually defend what I had been saying, and not what I had been accused of saying, admitted that he, himself was gay.

I am sick and tired of my and others religious views being hijacked by extremists and used as an excuse to hate people. Jesus is very specific in preaching AGAINST hatred, even for people who sin.

I am also sick and tired of my and others religious views being attacked as being backwards, closeminded, unthought out, etc. People like the guy who created this site are not representative of all Christians.

If you want to debate what I have to say fantastic, I love a good debate, I love to share my views and hear why others think differently than I do. I would really really appreciate though that if you are going to attack what I am saying that you look at the context of why I am saying them (i.e. Biblical quotes in response to a direct question, not as a mean to convince anyone what to believe) or make sure you have read what I AM saying and not what you THINK I am saying.

Does this sound reasonable. Please someone tell me if I have done or said something here that is not.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
As I have done before I will ask you to please read what I am saying and not what you think I am saying before you attack it. Also misquoting what I say to cast me in a bad light is either lazy or malicious, and I hope its the former. One of the first rules of debating and not simply attacking is to respond to what your opponents have actually said.

What I said was:


What you CLAIMED i said was:


There is a BIG difference, the first implies that there are people who are doing something, the second implies that I am accusing ALL people of doing something which I clearly did not do.

I am well aware that extremism extends from both sides. I also have seen the hateful things that people like DannyWhite have written. Frankly I don't think people like him are a good representation of Christianity. I still feel however that people are grouping all Christians together in this, making comments about how "christians are close minded" etc. I have no problem with debates, the problem I see is that as soon as people look at my post and see anything regarding the bible they immediately assume I am trying to argue that we should all believe what the Bible says on them, and that I am attacking gays. In fact, the first person to actually defend what I had been saying, and not what I had been accused of saying, admitted that he, himself was gay.

I am sick and tired of my and others religious views being hijacked by extremists and used as an excuse to hate people. Jesus is very specific in preaching AGAINST hatred, even for people who sin.

I am also sick and tired of my and others religious views being attacked as being backwards, closeminded, unthought out, etc. People like the guy who created this site are not representative of all Christians.

If you want to debate what I have to say fantastic, I love a good debate, I love to share my views and hear why others think differently than I do. I would really really appreciate though that if you are going to attack what I am saying that you look at the context of why I am saying them (i.e. Biblical quotes in response to a direct question, not as a mean to convince anyone what to believe) or make sure you have read what I AM saying and not what you THINK I am saying.

Does this sound reasonable. Please someone tell me if I have done or said something here that is not.

If you didn't mean it the way it came out, them I'm sorry. Your veiws are moderate compared to some, but just as you feel sick of being attacked as backward (I don't recall ever doing that to you, but whatever) you have to realize that others feel sick of hearing that they are an abomination. Now before you get offended again, realize that I understand you AREN'T in that catagory, and that there are many, many shades of grey among Christians in this area. Heck my Catholic family supports gay marriages against the doctrine of their church. But what would your reaction be to the statement 'Why is it that Christians feel they can go around bashing gays all the time because of the behavior of a few of them?' When you read that do you assume I am only talking about SOME Christians, or would you see it as an indictment of all Christians? And before you get off on a tangent about how leftist this site is because you 'guarantee' you would be banned for saying you are against gay marriage, I would point out that people aren't banned from this site for their views if they can express them in a rational, free from personal attack manner. In my time here that has been the standard of judgement for banning, not your political viewpoint. I've seen liberals banned from here for 'expressing their viewpoint' in a manner inconsistent with a friendly atmosphere. If you create work for the mods, you will be banned. Short of that you can have whatever opinion you want.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
So what you are saying is that we should only be allowed to express our views if they aren't religious? Ultimately anyones views boil down to a set of beliefs, whether they are based on God, science, or anything else there is no way to prove that one is better than the other.

The founding fathers wanted a nation where people would be free to worship however they chose (within reason, i.e. human sacrifice is out). They also wanted a nation where we could express our views freely as well, and that includes religion. Freedom OF religion is just that, it allows us to believe as we will but acknowledges that we sometimes have to hear things we don't agree with. You should no more ask a religious person to give up there right to express there views openly than you should a gay person to express theirs. How is suppressing peoples right to express their religious beliefs openly any different than suppressing a gay couples right to be together openly?

I think the reason you encounter some anti-Christian sentiment is simply backlash. For at least the last 100 years Christianity or pseuedo-Christianity as controlled a great deal of american culture and people eventually fight back -- they get sick of the establishment.

I've met people who call themselves Christians who are the most wonderful people you would want to meet. And I've met people who call themselves Christians who make others who also call themselves Christians ashamed of the term.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Krizoitz,

i find it surprising you have been silent. As a democratic society the voices of all are part of that fabric. In my mind there is political debate and social debate (both stretch the bounds of religious debate). Whether we agree or not the social and religious met in the courts. Hopefully (regardless of Bush's agenda) we can have civill debate on the direction that the country should have.