Homosexuals Can Forget About Human Rights
Jan 4th, 2010 | 123 responses
I always wonder what those who hold the view that homosexuality is wrong, a crime against God and nature, want. If it’s really that bad shouldn’t it be punished? It seems to me a binary choice, accept it and hold it to all the rights and obligations of society, or…
The title of this post is from Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity, as quoted in this important NYTimes story on the role of Americans in Uganda’s anti-gay push. That “push” has resulted in a proposed bill to impose the death sentence for homosexual behavior, though now — bowing to international pressure — they’re apparently backing down to life in prison.
America’s role came in the form of a series of talks by evangelical Christian “experts” over three days on the threat homosexuals pose to Bible-based values and the traditional African family. Audio recordings [download] document what thousands of Ugandan police officers, teachers and politicians heard from the Americans.
Now they want to backtrack?
The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.
“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.
“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”
Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.
Love the sinner hate the sin should be exposed for the impossible lie that it is. It’s a cover for hateful bigotry that can reasonably lead to ugly violence. Not that Uganda needs much cover.
Box Turtle Bulletin says the NYTimes’ piece was a long time coming. The NYTimes has a companion piece on the isolation, insults, threats and violence experienced by gay people in Uganda along with four audio interviews with Ugandans — a gay activist, a transman, a cab driver, and an anti-gay politician.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights in Africa are limited in comparison to other areas of the world, with the BBC estimating that homosexuality is outlawed in 38 African countries. In 13 nations homosexuality is either legal or there are no laws pertaining to it. In 3 African countries — Mauritania, Sudan, and northern Nigeria — homosexuality is already punishable by death.
For more discussion, see Memeorandum.
LATER — Latoya Peterson at Jezebel:
The “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument only travels so far, particularly as we have seen the horrible effects of creating “others” — stripping people of their humanity through the words used to describe them. When these people crusade against the LGBTQ communities, they are creating a frightening other, a threat to their lives and children. Schmierer illustrates this willful ignorance beautifully, not daring to use the “some of my best friends” line, but still trying to distance himself from the fire of hatred he’s been stoking.
123 Responses to “Homosexuals Can Forget About Human Rights”
I never advocated teaching open sexuality or premarital sex in elementary school. Schools teach about different types of families, and if the question came up, I don't think a teacher should go “la-la-la that doesn't exist!” or say “oogy-boogy gay people are evil!” This is different from teaching something explicitly not allowed to be taught due to that silly little founding document of our country. Again, just like above, you are fighting straw liberals. Nobody is advocating that 5th grade girls get taught the best ways to please a woman.
“The last time I checked, homosexuals don't have a mating ritual – or children that are biologically THEIR own.”
Uh…gay people have pretty much the same mating rituals as straight people. And straight people with newly adopted children still have THEIR kids cooed.
This is incredible. Here I am, face-to-face with another American who wants to torture me, or imprison me, or execute me and my friends just for being who we are, or what we do in private.
Now, Jeff Davis is going to deny that's what he wants. Is his new position going to be that the feds should give me the option of leaving the US, like Uganda should do to its gays as he wrote?
You know JD, christianity doesn’t need to be part of this debate at all. These people are sexually oriented. You and I are normally oriented, (if I may make that assumption about you). This is a matter of a sexual abnormality. A human dysfunction. A mental condition. Science. IMO, morality only comes into play if laws are broken or if there is societal damage. Religion is irrelevant for people who do not believe it and they have a right to keep it irrelevant.
I don’t really care what these gay people do as long as they do it in private under legal circumstances. For me that is tolerant enough to satisfy human rights requirements. I am against legalized marriage simply because it serves to legitimize an abnormality, which damages society, and, leads to additional rights legalizations such as men wearing women’s clothing at work or using women’s restrooms, or, gay men arbitrarily kissing men as a woman might do, ect..
Gays men must always be reminded that they are not women and never will be women regardless of surgeries, or technology and that they can never hide their true sex legally from anyone ever. Similar laws and conditions should prevail for Lesbians also.
The right to engage is such depravity consensually should not be denied. However the right to shove into the faces of others should never be allowed either.
“Plus I don't talk to myself, and neither do I”
LOL
I've really been trying to stay out the fight, but you're confusing me now. Could you please quote what part of JD's comments make you think that he's trying to do any of that.
DaMav interjects:
“Plus I don't talk to myself, and neither do I”
Teh Funny award of the day! Love it!
Jeff Davis wrote 8 comments above:
“I am against Uganda's policies – death or life imprisonment. Both are wrong.”
He does not condemn imprisonment for 1. just being gay or 2. “acting gay” or 3. gay sex.
He approves of imprisonment of gays for a term of LESS than life, for example 1-100 years.
He approves of the physical and mental pain (torture) implicicit in any unjust imprisonment.
If I am killed resisting unjust imprisonment, my death is, ethically, a murder. If I am a Jew who kills a Nazi Gestopo who tries to arrest me, ethically, I am not guilty of murder.
If Jeff Davis's Commanding Officer learns of his extremist comments, he will get a dishonorable discharge for making statements contrary to the good of the Service, and for anti-social behavior.
youre in the ether of 'when did you stop beating your wife' range sortaR.
ProfEl asked you to QUOTE not surmise. And your actual meaning about commanding officer is what exactly…..?
“Do I wish that sort of hatred upon Homosexuals? Have I EVER? No I have not.”
Don't try to bactrack, coward. You know full well what happens when you call perfectly harmless behavior “immoral” and designate a clique as “detrimental”. The reason I attack you with such vitriol is because you are trying to harm people who have doen you no harm intentionally. I attack you with the same vigor I would do anyone who tries to assault me on the street without warning. I act in self-defense, you act out of bigotry or induced insanity.
” I have given countless examples of where I stand up for homosexuals.”
Yet you think Uganda is fine and dandy, apparently. I think we should have a law where Christians are shipped off to a tiny island if they try to bring their religion outside of churches (actually, I don't, because I am not a pathetic coward with extreme entitlement issues, like so many Christians). All I'm saying is that if you make me choose between religious freedom and my own freedom, I'm going to have to use every means at my disposal to destroy that nasty choice that is forced on me.
” I have many gay friends that respect my feelings on this issue.”
No you don't. If they were real friends, they would have told you your grasp of reality and decency was slipping.
“I have always stood against violence or hateful speech against homosexuals (and have on many occasions made that clear to anyone who says otherwise out there in the cruel world). I talk the talk and walk the walk.”
Not impressed. I'm going to denigrate you and your soul with every word available the instant you call me immoral or detrimental to society. Your words *directly and *invariably* create a climate where life becomes more difficult for me. I crack down hard on that over the internet and with brutality when I overhear it on the street. That doesn't make me a fascist – it makes me a human being who is aware of its place in the world. I know a sharpened rock and a nasty gaze when I see it, and I know eliminationist rhetoric when I hear it. Christians best watch their tounges around me.
” Just stop asking the rest of America to accept it as regular behavior – one to be celebrated, embraced, and justified.”
You can think whatever you want about it. But for some reason, my ilk end up dying or being driven to suicide in high school. When are you loving Christians going to do anything about that? You apparently want a society where gays and heterosexuals don't get in each other's business. Guess what – the heterosexuals are the ones who are breaking the deal with their casual talk of us being immoral. Talk to your own side – pride parades aren't attacks, but self-defense against Christian fundamentalism and self-righteousness.
” I've got several degrees from academia. I also have a good grasp on Biblical matters within my faith. “
Anyone can be an academic, bigshot. And theological learning is worthless – it's just literary studies with a superiority complex. All Christians who say homosexuality is immoral are hypocrites – because these christians do not work for the kind of fundamentalist, extreme society that the bai-bull says is the only acceptable one. It's all or nothing with the bai-bull – how can it be the word of god if you christians give yourself the power to choose which lines to follow? So lame, lazy and self-entitled.
“Once again… You're definition of bigotry is skewed to your warped view (of course). I don't like theives, lyers, backstabbers – yet does that make me a bigot toward them? Of course not.”
I wonder if these imaginary gay friends of yours know that you – based only on your infantile christian obsessions – think it is OK to dislike gay people because apparently their love and sex is equal to criminal activity in your eyes. You are such a disgusting and careless person.
“But is it too much to ask to have people keep it private, instead of parading it on the street, in movies, and everywhere else? “
So will we now ban all expressions of heterosexual intimacy outside of people's homes and pehaps theatres/cinemas/museums? Shall we go the way of Iran?
As long as there are people like Falwell or you around, there will be pride parades. Stop being such a pathetic, self-obsessed little christian and get over it.
“. If YOUR belief system is taught in school, why should MINE not be? Your belief system includes “other kinds of families”, open sexuality, premarital sex.”
It's based on philosophy – the art of thinking well. If we are all humans, and our love and sex have no metaphysical differences, they are equal. Christian thoughts on the matter are useless, since there must be total separation between church and state.
SCIENCE shows no actual inferiority or inequality between your “idea” of a family and same-sex aprental couples etc. Therefore, your feelings and thoughts are irrelevant.
It's the parts of humanity that wants us to use our imaginations and emotions when shaping society, rather than our senses and reason, that harm the species and endanger it. All you people calling homosexuality “abnormal” have weaknesses inside you that make you liabilities, not only for gay people but for society. A person who is ready to boast of his own convictions, no matter how emotional, subjective and unreasonable they are, is a danger to the world and a pubescent fool who damages society.
Currently going to school full time and working full time which has cut into my debate time in ugly ways. Just a few years…..lol. Thats why I tend to ebb in flow as far as the amount of my comments, every two months or so I am back in school.
Really? There is no answer to your obvious religious bigotry, but your philosophy masquerading as science is a provable contradiction.
this research demonstrated that women practicing monogamy in traditional marriages experience a greater degree of sexual satisfaction than either married women involved in extramarital affairs or single, sexually active women.[4]
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/observant-m…
But several major research studies show that church ladies (and the men who sleep with them) are among the most sexually satisfied people on the face of the earth.
http://www.ptm.org/01PT/JulAug/revenge.htm
“women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides.”
http://www.palmettofamily.org/Reports/Marriage/…
More to the point, here's a more up-to-date survey of sexual activity vs. divorce rates:
http://floridafamilies.org/pdfs/CMFSI_2005-03_P…
Religion and divorce rates:
http://brewright.blogspot.com/2006/12/christian…
A host of marriage and sex statistics, including this little gem:
“A study in Pediatrics found that teens who watched high amounts of television with sexual content were twice as likely as those who watched minimal amounts to initiate sexual intercourse during the following year.”
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS06B01
Before you claim SCIENCE!, you better have some ready.
I think that moral code is when we begin to run into problems because this country is supposed to be about liberty not about imposing moral codes, in fact that is one of the reasons people originally came here. Having said that in one of your other comments I noticed something interesting. It is not the gay guy down the street that is trying to push his sexuality in your face but the media. In doing so the media plays up gay stereotypes just like they play up redneck ones, in other words what they portray represents cartoons not people and if the media represented the reality of America I feel we would all be better off. If you want to fight that I am with you as I think they do much more harm by scaring people and freaking them out than they do good but in making laws against minority groups I will always fall on the side I am currently on. Stereotypes are not people and cartoonish images I agree are harmful for society as a whole but when you make laws you are going after people. You are destroying lives and the lives of those that love them. I will not condone that in silence and I will judge it every time no matter where it happens. “First they came for the homosexuals…” should be all that needs to be said. Also the other things that you say the left is trying to get you to embrace is insane. I could use all of them against the GOP as well since what have they done to stop any of it but talk? Murder, violence, lying, thievery…what are we doing in Iraq tickling them with feathers? Yes I know thats a war and yes I know that is offensive but so is labeling the left as a criminal enabling party when it is in no way shape or form that any more than the other party. Its like the baby killer label, one sides adores aerial bombing and the other abortion and guess what…both kill babies. Such statements are meant to incite and divide, if you actually wish to find any common ground it would best to avoid them.
One thing is clear. People are loathe to part with their beliefs, no matter how wrong or indefensible. This is a human failing that goes deeper than any learned moral structure or bias. The largest obstacles to progress in this country are the same ones that have always held up progress of ANY kind, namely fear and ignorance. I'd throw greed in there too, but that doesn't seem to be as large a component with this particular issue… unless you want to call it greed when one group tries to limit access of another group to the same privileges it enjoys.
And that goes for giving up their beliefs that deviant sexualities can be equated with normal sexuality.
Any learned behavior will be vigorously defended against when boundaries are set for it. Particularly when it comes to sexual compulsive behavior or any other physical addiction and this goes for hypersexualtiy amongst heteros as well.
The vast majority of people resist the idea of this type of “progress”. There are some things that progress, like cancer, that aren't desired for the good of humankind.
I'll reiterate. The “group” GLBT is an incomplete assembly of sexual deviants, who learned their behavior at some point in life after birth and up until around puberty. Their sexual-leanings are usually fixated by then, and so, they mistake them for “inborn” because their addiction to them for endorphin release is compulsive by then. Rewarding this condition with the stamp of normalcy [via marriage] is rewriting reality.
Some people are in favor of that. Some are not. In fact, the majority of non-hating, non-bigoted people opposed to GLBT [but not polygamist] marriage are opposed actually to the rewriting of reality.
“I'll reiterate. The “group” GLBT is an incomplete assembly of sexual deviants, who learned their behavior at some point in life after birth and up until around puberty.”
I'll explain it for you – you learned an erroneous and abhorrent cognitive scheme toward LGBT people that you've become emotionally attached to. This is why, despite the pain and suffering your words bring, you can't keep yourself from uttering them. Out of pride and out of emotional attachment, you are addicted to soft bigotry and belittling of others. You have a mental fixation.
“Their sexual-leanings are usually fixated by then, and so, they mistake them for “inborn” because their addiction to them for endorphin release is compulsive by then.”
It's the other way around – we've existed since the dawn of man, but your christian tribe has taught you to antagonize us, and like a dog of the pack, you are now addicted to being cruel or unpleasant towards people who are of a different tribe. You are a liability to society.
If you want to call my love abnormal or immoral, then you give up the right to expect me to help you when your house is burning or when I see you getting mugged or hurt in the street. You've broken the human contract with me, and I don't have to intervene if someone tries to steal from you or otherwise hurt you. You don't deserve my loyalty or human sympathy in any way. I won't hurt you, but I won't care if someone else or a natural disaster does.
If you treat people as lesser or less moral, they will act that way. It's time homosexuals appreciate just what a threat christianity is to them.
You might as well say that being black or prefering Othello over Uno is immoral. You are evil people and I won't bat an eyelid if someone tries to lynch you or burn your house down. You are non-existent to me.
Hey Prof –
I thought sortaR was talking about Father_Time. If you go above, he does clearly imply that gay people should be killed if that's the law, and if they object, they're “spoiled little girls”. He's really quite a charming fellow.
JD did talk about how it would be 'humane' to let gays leave Uganda, which, as I explain above, isn't practically any different.
ProfElwood — maybe if gay people could get married or were allowed to be part of mainstream church communities, some of those links you sent might possibly be relevant to the current discussion. As is, they really aren't. One of the reasons that gay people want to get married is that their needs to be in stable relationships that are accepted by their families and their communities (and by whatever god they believe in) are exactly the same as straight people's needs. We've discussed on at least 2 other threads why I think there are major flaws in your “science” (in scare quotes because statistics are not science), but even disregarding those issues, the links just aren't relevant to gay people.
Sil — Gay people are like cancer? Sheesh! And you wonder why people call you homophobic…
“Rabid hating pro-gay people need to remember that not every single person opposed to gay marriage is also “therefore” in favor of murdering gays. The absurdity of this stretch boggles the sane mind. Only the insane would draw an instant correlation between the two. “
Funny, Sil. The first person to talk about marriage on this thread, which is about a law to kill gay people was you. Everyone else was talking about the law and the connection to US politicians, and YOU start blathering about “one man and one woman”, and criticising Rachel Maddow for bringing light to the Ugandan law, like it doesn't matter at all. So please forgive us all if we get the feeling that keeping the “deviants” out of the chapel here is more important to you than the murder of millions of gay Ugandans. Maybe you don't *want* them killed or imprisoned, but you certainly don't seem to give a hoot if they are. Only the insane would have that set of priorities.
Directly following the quote from SortaRepublican was this:
So I assumed that he was responding to JeffersonDavis. The “let 'em leave” argument one I'll stay out of.
Science is the accumulation of knowledge, which would include “soft” sciences like sociology and psychology. Gays can marry, at least in some states, enter into contractual relationships in all states, and worship in many different religions. As I've stated before, if they want to enjoy the benefits of a stable, legal marriage, I, for one, would welcome them aboard. But his quote, which is directly above my response, clearly was attacking both gay and straight versions of marriage.
Of course only half of Psychology is actually a “soft” science, the analyses side which is what people tend to think of when speaking of psychology but I think B.F. Skinner would take issue with you calling his work unscientific. Same goes for sociology though, micro sociology I would agree with you but macro sociology actually has a good deal of numbers supporting them, of course once you break things into the different theories it gets complicated again but we do have good enough data for average and normal to understand that both of those words mean little except as labels when it comes to humanity. The research/study side of psychology is a science and I have difficulty terming it any other way but I could see that sociology is only as scientific as economics or history which also have giant glaring holes in them with lots of people claiming knowledge that most people know does not actually exist.
I think you might have gotten me and roro80 positions mixed up. She's claiming “statistics are not science”, and I'm saying that they (and history) are, or at least can be. Of course, even in experimental science there are ways to introduce bias, manipulation, and deception, which is why both types have to be subjected to peer review, and a single source should always be viewed with some skepticism.
I particularly liked Pavlov's and B.F. Skinner's work, because they are provable and have practical applications. To some extent, every field science has some philosophical area, where the hard facts just haven't been found yet, but that's normally where we start.
You are right very sorry about the misunderstanding. I just spend all of my time studying those subjects as of late
.
Why stay out of it? Here, let me help: “let em leave” is about as compassionate and useful an antidote to the Ugandan attitude as calamine lotion is to a rattlesnake bite. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
It sounds like you have your priorities straight. How dare you!
A Head's Up
While it's true there are half a dozen topics that make some people hot, and TMV has no problem with people debating, discussing, teaching for all they are worth…
still.. personal attack comments have been removed. Again. Sorry this makes following the thread a bit off. If any comments continue to be personal attacks against other commenters and/or writers here, as has been rife on this article even after more than one caveat given politely and clearly, commenters will be banned by admin. TMV will never be the place for threatening others with violence or wishing others harm.
dr.e
deputy managing editor
Kastanj, well said. I just want to add that government must make the judgement call that it will not be tolerant in promoting the views of the intolerant. We taxpayers will not let our dollars be used to degrade or humiliate some of our fellow citizens by presenting “opposing viewpoints” which call for the murder or isolation of minorities. Majorities, however, do not need such protections.
“The first person to talk about marriage on this thread, which is about a law to kill gay people was you”~ Roro
********
Yeah, so? It is implied in the person who calls herself the champion of this issue. Call it a hunch, call it timing. Call it the old “go to extremes to milk sympathy for the cause”. My hope is that this thing in Uganda won't be used to promote gay marriage in the US. Let's just say that I'm a realist though. So yeah, “I” brought the subject up..lol..
“I've supported the legal marriage rights for gay couples, but this “binary choice” argument goes too far.”
The false dichotomy is that (and part of hype of Victimhood, which already is tiresome and annoying). Mischaracterization of conservatives as a generalization goes nowhere, except ironically as an example of actual bigotry (and perhaps hatred), directed at conservatives, an interesting if not amusing example.
Well, you tell me, Sil.
From you:
Also, from you:
So are you freely admitting your own insanity? If so, perhaps we can agree on something after all…
Especially amusing in an Orwellian sense.
It [selectively] sailed right over the top of your head roro. The point I made that you took my quote out of context from was that the stage was already set for that comparison. I merely pointed it out. So,is it insane to point out insanity now? I think that's the gist of the whole “pro-GLBT [but not polygamists] argument actually. “If you point out our insanity, you are insane with hatred”.
Nice spin.
Like I said. I hope that the Ugandan atrocities won't be milked by the GLBT [but not polygamist] crowd, but I am a realist. My realism forces me to head them off at the pass, should they, on the most remotest of chances, be considering such a stunt.
I can tell you though that my stomach turned a little when R. Maddow first started reporting on the matter. After reporting that the C-Street gang might be able to be linked to the atrocities, she sported a wry smile as she restacked her papers when they cut to commercials after reporting it for the first time. That wry smile said more than a thousand words. If she was truly disgusted and wrecked by the human suffering over there, a wry smile would've been the last thing on her face.
Ah yes, Sil, your burning wit and astute political commentary sailed right over my head. Good work.
Also: excellent work, as well, on uncovering RM's “wry smile”. You got 'er. 'Atta girl.
I still have no reply from Jefferson Davis, our neo-Confederate commenter. Therefore, he concedes that he wants to execute or torture or imprison me and all American gays! That's 10% of the US population = 30 million gay Americans scheduled to be butchered on orders of the Religious Right!
Why is my penis so fascinating to the Religious Right? How many faggots did Jesus kill? Whose death did he plot? If not, why not, Evangelicals?
SortaRepublican. You're welcome to debate and discuss. But not attack other commenters and writers. As Ive mentioned, and this will be the last time, read the COMMENTERS RULES and stay within them. Cease the vulgarities here and on other posts. Not sure why you want to keep referring to your private parts or those of other people. But that belongs on some other forum, not here.
Thanks.
dr.e
deputy managing editor
The US Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts of all 50 states have ruled that homosexuality between consenting adults in private is protected conduct under the US Constitution.
Why are calls for my imprisonment or execution not considered “profane or sexist” under your guidelines but my responses to their attacks are?
What vulgarities are you referring to? P.S. I'm a lawyer.
Dear SortaRepub. No one here has called for YOUR personal imprisonment or execution. My post to you stands as stated. For the last time:
>>>SortaRepublican. You're welcome to debate and discuss. But not attack other commenters and writers. As Ive mentioned, and this will be the last time, read the COMMENTERS RULES and stay within them. Cease the vulgarities here and on other posts. Not sure why you want to keep referring to your private parts or those of other people. But that belongs on some other forum, not here.
Thanks.
dr.e
deputy managing editor>>>>>>>>
Nobody enjoys a spirited debate more than I, but there is difference between that and the personal and offensive remarks taking place here. Speaking for myself (and I hope for others) TMV distinguishes itself by having and enforcing rules of conduct that foster honest, often lively discussion without personal bile and hatred. As a result, many of us enjoy a comraderie even with those with whom we may often disagree. I've never seen, at TMV, the kind of hate being spewed here, and I won't belittle myself by repeating some of it.
There are one or two on this thread who are looking to use hatred and personal attacks as a ploy to shock, attack and intimidate others. That is not acceptable and caused me to leave the thread rather than continue to witness these tactics. On returning to the thread, I found that it continued, despite interjections by commenters and warnings by editorial staff. That other sites invite this sort of uncivil nonsense and TMV does not is one of the reasons I am here, not at those sites.
TMV, as a private venture, has a right to set its rules, and to enforce them. I suggest TMV do exactly that.
“Science. IMO, morality only comes into play if laws are broken or if there is societal damage.”
I know “religion” offends you, FT. This isn't as much about religion from me as you think. The base matter has to do with societal damage as you pointed out. Morality is not necessarily “religious”. But like it or not, the blue print for a “good and moral people” that Thomas Jefferson pointed out, came out of the Torah and the Bible – or at bare minimum out of a unitarian philosophy.
Does that mean you have to bow down to any god? Absolutely not!!! I am all for standing against killing/jailing gays in Uganda. The fight I'm in right now has to do with humanists systematically ripping apart our nation's moral fabric.
And that's the point that you and I agree upon: “the right to shove into the faces of others should never be allowed”. That goes for “my” religion (which I do not attempt to shove into your face – although it may seem that way sometimes). In my opinion, shoving the “humanist religion” in people's faces is no different than shoving religion.
The keystone to all of this is open sexuality that was embraced starting in the 60's. Tidbits may be right about that “train leaving the station”. But I disagree. If we can get people to just leave their sexual habits at home, we might actually be able to come to some sort of compromise.
“about sexuality being private. But, the truth is (my opinion) that train has left the station”
I understand the reality right now, tidbits. But nothing is unrepairable. The damage that open sexuality has done to our culture is enormous. People may mistake keeping sex in the “bedroom” as adopting the opinion that sex is “dirty”. That's not the case in a proper relationship. This is the way the entire nation thought – except for a few players that people avoided. Should open-sexuality be legislated? I'm not sure. I know that it is already legislated to some point – as I cannot walk down the street nude. (I have my impressive portions, but no one needs to see THAT!!!!). LOL
Right now, our culture is extremely shallow and without any sort of moral compass. I'm afraid it will cause our nation to fail or fall. Cultural implosion is no new concept. It has happened throughout history.
And for the record. I LOVE football. If you think the reason anyone tunes in to football is to watch the twits shake their butts, then you are mistaken. No one says, “I like this game and I want “x” team to win, but I think I'll change it to the other bowl game because the cheerleaders show more skin!” I'm sure a few people tune in for that, but the majority still love the sport – or the team.
As far as “selling the product”….. I agree. Using sex to sell should be stopped. The media bombards my kids with this crap, and it takes ever bit of energy I have to counter it – or keep it from coming into my home in the first place. It's not only immoral, but it's sexist, and exploitive.
I have to disagree, MSF. ” I think that moral code is when we begin to run into problems because this country is supposed to be about liberty not about imposing moral codes”
You MUST have a moral code as a nation – in order for it to function. As I've stated before, a moral code does not need to be “regligious”.
Think about it. Humanism has it's own moral code, Christianity has it's own moral code, and Islam has yet another moral code.
Is it any different shoving a humanist moral code than, say, a Christian one? The one thing that the judeo-christian moral code has going for it is that the founding fathers supported it.
As far as “baby killers” and bombing. Killing a baby is killing an innocent being. Bombing a congressionally approved enemy is not killing an innocent. I agree that we should not bomb or fight in such a way that innocents get killed. I personally wish we'd drop “globalism” and bring ALL of our troops back home. But for a woman to go in and rip out a life – where that life has no form of recouse or defense, is wrong. It is likened to an Army shooting innocent unarmed civilians who have done nothing wrong.
That is the difference between war and abortion, my friend.
You know I love ya, but I guess we just have different world views on that.
” I never advocated teaching open sexuality or premarital sex in elementary school.”
Yes you did, and you do.
A man loving a man is not wrong – it's love. It's encouraged in just about every moral code – including humanism. As is a woman loving a woman. It is not until it is sexual, does it become “homosexuality”. Do you notice that “sexuality” is part of the actual name? If you teach any type of sexuality in a school – be it “hetero” or “homo” – you are teaching open sexuality.
“It's based on philosophy – the art of thinking well. If we are all humans,”
Are you attempting to tell me that philosophy is not a belief system?
Science is not a belief system until you IMPOSE it upon culture as academia attempts to do now.
As is the goal of humanism. Humanism is, indeed, a “religion”, complete with its own set of moral guidelines. You, as a humanist, are attempting the very same action for which you supposedly fight against – imposition of belief systems upon others. Well you know what? I don't want your belief system, any more than you want mine.
Yet you think it's perfectly fine to shove yours down my throat. I'm not buying it.
“The largest obstacles to progress in this country are the same ones that have always held up progress of ANY kind, namely fear and ignorance”
Your idea of progress is based upon fear and ignorance to others who may not share your view of “progress”. Our culture's degeneration into a freakshow – in public, the media, in schools – is seen as regression, not progression.
And this is one of the biggest sticking part in my political thought. I remain a democrat. I could possibly be talked into healthcare, economic policy, and even foreign policy from liberals (to a point). If they would simply leave our nation's culture alone and stop attacking it, it would be much easier to be a democrat. The only other game in town (for now) is the GOP. They've gotten many a vote from me in the past for this very reason. No matter what my feelings are for healthcare, economy, etc; the cultural humanism that the DNC has adopted drives me away every time.
“If Jeff Davis's Commanding Officer learns of his extremist comments, he will get a dishonorable discharge for making statements contrary to the good of the Service, and for anti-social behavior.”
Extremist? You make me laugh, little one. My Commanding Officer actually encourages worship within any faith. I would only get a dishonorable discharge if I broke down the chain of command by sleeping with a fellow soldier – gay OR not. Nice try, sunshine.
Your hit-and-run comments are cowardly – since you didn't actually “reply” to me personally.
Once again, ignorant one… I'll state that I am against what Uganda is doing – imprisonment, death, or whatever for gays. But you know what? It's only a matter of time before humanism completely takes over here in America, then me and my fellow “extremists” will be jailed for worshipping in public. Once again. History is full of humanists doing that very thing. Rome is the biggest example that most are familiar with.
“I've really been trying to stay out the fight, but you're confusing me now. Could you please quote what part of JD's comments make you think that he's trying to do any of that?”
Kastanj merely throws darts with no apparent logical path.
Sounds as if Kastanj is trying to convince Kastanj that homosexuality is the “norm” in order to make Kastanj feel better about Kastanj's actions.
“JD did talk about how it would be 'humane' to let gays leave Uganda, which, as I explain above, isn't practically any different”
That's really not what I meant. I merely pointed out that it would “be better”. At least they'd be alive. Is it right for a nation to exhile folks for their beliefs? No. I am against ANY Ugandan policy that punishes gays. I hope that was clear. I do understand their line of thought, but it is flawed. They wish to guard their culture – and do not want it to become like our shallow American culture.
But you have to be careful about one thing. Culture is more powerful than any army. The Taliban operates culturally. They moved in “innocently” into Afghanistan from Pakistan. They slowly married into the tribes, and over time, the culture changed to the point that Afghanistan culture (a 3000 year old proud culture of merchantilism and trading) was gone – and replaced with Taliban/Islamic extremism. It is not different than when humanists use the same tactics to slowly dismantle the American culture and replace it with their own.