NationStates Jolt Archive

Ein Deutscher']The holocaust and the denial of gay rights are indeed comparable. During the holocaust gays were also hunted and killed. During the holocaust it went so far as to kill plenty minorities, among them also jews. Jews were treated like 2nd class citizens, their property taken away from them and ultimately their life.

While gays today are not killed anymore - at least in the western world - the status as it is can be compared to the holocaust and it is totally unacceptable.

I never denied that, I was just saying that making such comparisons is very harmful to your argument. Pracus went on to say that he/she never made such comparisons.

yeah then people can marry their dogs too. Hurrah! Well why not? I mean if it's ok with homosexuals, what makes dogs any different?
-snip pointless drivel-
:rolleyes:
Because humans can consent. it is quite obvious that humans can, and dogs cannot. There is a very clear line there.

I always thought the standard definition for making a comparison was to point out the similarities.

I feel like arguing it today because I am feeling argumentative, and because I was right, am still right, and will continue to be right. Meanwhile you continue to deny that you did make a comparison between the two issues, and effectively ignoring any point I am trying to make.

Hello, Ignore List!!!


Give it up. Your continued harassment of Pracus on this point is only demonstrating how unreasonable you are willing to be.

Pracus has explained the original statement, explained the context, and offered apologies for mispeaking. Your refuse to accept either explanation or apology.

Instead, you attempt to use every attempt at explanation or apology as further basis for argument. When you push for an explanation, it makes little or no sense to then dismiss parts of the explanation as a "weak" argument for gay rights that shouldn't be made because it is politically unwise. The explanation statements were not arguments on the original topic - they were an explanation for which you pushed.

Pracus is more than justified in ignoring you in the future. Others of us may also choose to ignore you if you do not stop this.

You owe Pracus an apology for hijacking passionate discussion for your own mindgames.

yeah then people can marry their dogs too. Hurrah! Well why not? I mean if it's ok with homosexuals, what makes dogs any different?
wait...so homosexuals are no better than dogs?


and by the way, the 'slippery slope' argument is completely flawed, look at the places where homosexual marriage is legal and the huge moral degredation people were warning about hasnt happened

I never denied that, I was just saying that making such comparisons is very harmful to your argument. Pracus went on to say that he/she never made such comparisons.
How is it harmful to an argument? It's totally valid. :rolleyes:

oh Pracus, sometimes i just want to fluffle the hell out of you...

Go right ahead. As little time as I have for any form of dating and relationships these days (as well as the physical perks that go alone with a serious relationship) a fluffle from an intelligent straight woman sounds pretty darned appealing :)

You owe Pracus an apology for hijacking passionate discussion for your own mindgames.

I'm giving up, but no one is getting an apology.

Almost every explanation he/she gave included an explanation of the similarities between the holocaust and the gay rights movement. I understand the similarities, but would hope no one would point them out because it is a sensational argument. Apparently that was lost on everybody.

I just want to leave saying that Godwin's Law applies to all arguments and every side of an argument.

(And Lord Mats-wana never made a comparison between the holocaust and the gay rights movement, only the public perception of them.)

Ein Deutscher']How is it harmful to an argument? It's totally valid. :rolleyes:

Even if there are similarities it the sensational aspect of the comparison distracts from your point.

It is like comparing Hitler to Bush, there are definitely similarities, but the grand scale between the two make comparisons nearly useless, while making you sound self-involved and out of touch.

Even if there are similarities it the sensational aspect of the comparison distracts from your point.

It is like comparing Hitler to Bush, there are definitely similarities, but the grand scale between the two make comparisons nearly useless, while making you sound self-involved and out of touch.

Too many people constantly want to make that comparison. Really, some people need to go back and read a few history books. I'd really only be able to compare Stalin to Hitler, or Hitler to Tamerlane, or something else along those lines. Comparing Bush to some nefarious historical personage is giving him far too much credit. I suppose it assauges the egos of those who oppose him - to cast him as a larger than life demon - but he just isn't all that. His opponents just suck at being politicians.

Even if there are similarities it the sensational aspect of the comparison distracts from your point.

It is like comparing Hitler to Bush, there are definitely similarities, but the grand scale between the two make comparisons nearly useless, while making you sound self-involved and out of touch.
The comparison is not between the scale of the two events but rather their nature. They are equal in nature. Thus why it is imperative to end homophobia everywhere. Otherwise, things like the holocaust, can repeat themselves. And what makes someone "sound self-involved and out of touch" is in the eye or the ear of the beholder. Totally ignoring that both things are comparable instead seems to be a grand show of ignorance.

Ein Deutscher']The comparison is not between the scale of the two events but rather their nature. They are equal in nature. Thus why it is imperative to end homophobia everywhere. Otherwise, things like the holocaust, can repeat themselves. And what makes someone "sound self-involved and out of touch" is in the eye or the ear of the beholder. Totally ignoring that both things are comparable instead seems to be a grand show of ignorance.

I don't hear Bush advocating anything similar to the Nuremburg Laws.

and the gays are the ones who want to get to the last step the most. homophobes don't seem to realize how much the gay community does NOT want to have this be an issue any more.
Agreed. There will always be attention seeks of every sexuality...but most of us don't WANT to stick out and be the 'weird' ones...well, not THAT stuck out:)

I don't hear Bush advocating anything similar to the Nuremburg Laws.
Not yet. But as you see, there are some who would like to see this happen. Besides, this is an international matter, not US-exclusive. And in some countries gays are being killed for being homosexual.

Ein Deutscher']The comparison is not between the scale of the two events but rather their nature. They are equal in nature.

The holocaust, like any genocide is a hatred to the point that you want them off of the earth. The present level of homophobia in the US is ignorance towards another person's lifestyle and the lack of acceptance. So even though they are rooted in the same thing, ignorance, even comparisons to their nature are faulty to an extent.

Thus why it is imperative to end homophobia everywhere. Otherwise, things like the holocaust, can repeat themselves. And what makes someone "sound self-involved and out of touch" is in the eye or the ear of the beholder.

Here we agree.

Totally ignoring that both things are comparable instead seems to be a grand show of ignorance.

Everything is comparable at some degree. That doesn't make it a relevant point.

Perhaps the reason is the fact that George Dubya wants to pass a law BANNING Gay marriage, thereby soiling the constitution with his homophobic far right christian views.

To Bush: :upyours: From Reticuli

Ein Deutscher']Not yet. But as you see, there are some who would like to see this happen. Besides, this is an international matter, not US-exclusive. And in some countries gays are being killed for being homosexual.
There's a saying here, "If Matthew Shephard had been carrying a gun, he would be alive today."

Ein Deutscher']Not yet. But as you see, there are some who would like to see this happen.

The percentage of the population who want to see that happen cannot be over 1% and has absolutely no representation in the government.

Besides, this is an international matter, not US-exclusive. And in some countries gays are being killed for being homosexual.

It is a very prevalent world wide problem.

There's a saying here, "If Matthew Shephard had been carrying a gun, he would be alive today."
If homophobia weren't as bad as it is, from the western nations predominantly in the US, Matthew Shephard would also still be alive. This is exactly the same as killing a jew for not liking his nose.

Okay this is just something that randomly popped into my mind, so forgive me if its sorta moving off topic a little.

Anyways, I was talking to my sister the other day and reading one of Phelps' newsletters to her about his coming to Ole Miss to protest Judy Shepherd's speaking. She made an interesting point that he is damned lucky that there is no militant wing of the gay rights movement. She wasn't meaning to be stereotypical, but in a way I can kind of see the truth in her point. As a group, we tend to be extremely non-violent, totally unlike what has been seen in other movements that were successful in America (such as the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights movement). Now, I'm not saying that violence is what solved those issues in the past for there is really no way to know. But perhaps being passive aggressive IS part of the issue. After the Stonewall riots we saw some change for the positive, but now things are stalling again. I'm not proposing violence or rioting, but maybe it is time for us to be more agressive. . . . we could found the Pink Panthers ;)

because homosexuals face discrimination and bigotry almost on a level heterosexuals can only imagine

so 'gay pride' is something that will happen until homosexuals are fully accepted as no different as a member of society to heterosexuals
*yawn*
Right. I'm a poor redneck from Tennessee in a rich Yankee neighborhood on the coast of South Carolina. You try meeting the girlfriends father when he own the apartment complex that you live in. Or your favorite bar. Or for that matter, go to a restaurant and try getting a seat here. Or buying a car. Or just talking to some of these snobby rich fellers while you are at the club, or listen to them crack on you while you are at work. But I keep my mouth shut, get drunk every night, and enjoy my life anyways. Nobody's life is perfect. It just seems that the queers bitch about their lives more. I don't rip on 'em. I work with 'em, and they are cool enough. I don't see anybody around me crackin on 'em. In fact, I think "gay-bashing" itself is mostly hype, seeing as how the only people who ever see it happen are gays. No straight feller ever came on here and said "Hey, I saw these straight guys beat the shit out of this homosexual feller the other day. It was mean." But some queer guy DOES come on and say "People picked on me all my life for who I was."

Yea, no shit Sherlock. Happens to everyone. I got picked on for being poor and talkin slow. Get over it.

I'd like to enter into evidence the above post labeled Exhibit A on how heterosexuals have no clue of the pain they inflict or of what goes on in the lives of "queers".

Okay this is just something that randomly popped into my mind, so forgive me if its sorta moving off topic a little.

Anyways, I was talking to my sister the other day and reading one of Phelps' newsletters to her about his coming to Ole Miss to protest Judy Shepherd's speaking. She made an interesting point that he is damned lucky that there is no militant wing of the gay rights movement. She wasn't meaning to be stereotypical, but in a way I can kind of see the truth in her point. As a group, we tend to be extremely non-violent, totally unlike what has been seen in other movements that were successful in America (such as the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights movement). Now, I'm not saying that violence is what solved those issues in the past for there is really no way to know. But perhaps being passive aggressive IS part of the issue. After the Stonewall riots we saw some change for the positive, but now things are stalling again. I'm not proposing violence or rioting, but maybe it is time for us to be more agressive. . . . we could found the Pink Panthers ;)


Now, I'd just like to point out something here. Only maybe 10% of the population at the very very most is gay. And of the other 90% or more, most of them don't mind you fellas because you are harmless. I bet you if you actually did found a militant wing in the US, you'd see increased opposition to your movement. Not to mention that you'd be inviting most of the South to come back with a brand new version of the KKK. Not that I'd be involved with that sort of thing, don't get me wrong, but the numbers wouldn't be on your side, and somehow I find it hard to believe that the "Pink Panthers" would be very handy with guns.

EDIT: I know it was mostly joking, but I just wanted to be the voice of reason in case someone decided they liked the idea.

Now, I'd just like to point out something here. Only maybe 10% of the population at the very very most is gay. And of the other 90% or more, most of them don't mind you fellas because you are harmless. I bet you if you actually did found a militant wing in the US, you'd see increased opposition to your movement. Not to mention that you'd be inviting most of the South to come back with a brand new version of the KKK. Not that I'd be involved with that sort of thing, don't get me wrong, but the numbers wouldn't be on your side, and somehow I find it hard to believe that the "Pink Panthers" would be very handy with guns.

EDIT: I know it was mostly joking, but I just wanted to be the voice of reason in case someone decided they liked the idea.

Actually I wasn't totally joking. BUt I also wasn't supporting violence of the type that was perpetuated by the Black Panthers. I was just saying that maybe its time we take the battle back and fight more vocally instead of just itting back and reacting. Proactivity.

You may note that Pracus does not, in fact, compare the plight of gays to the Holocaust.


Now hold up. You obviously didn't see that he WAS comparing the two. He said in that quote that the Holocaust was over, basically meaning that at least the Jews were better of now, seeing as how the Holocaust is over. He then said that Gays are still in the same boat, after referring to the Holocaust. Thus he seems to be implying that although Jews have achieved equality, Gays haven't. The whole issue with gas chambers and whatnot is rather irrelevant since gays weren't the only minority targeted. It was more like ALL minorities were targeted by Hitler.

Actually I wasn't totally joking. BUt I also wasn't supporting violence of the type that was perpetuated by the Black Panthers. I was just saying that maybe its time we take the battle back and fight more vocally instead of just itting back and reacting. Proactivity.
But what I'd say to that is that homosexuals are already the most vocal minority in existence, and they have succeeded in this at the expense of getting on the nerves of lots of people who would probably have been indifferent before. The mosquito that buzzes in your ear in't nearly as annoying as the swarm that follows a good rain.

But what I'd say to that is that homosexuals are already the most vocal minority in existence, and they have succeeded in this at the expense of getting on the nerves of lots of people who would probably have been indifferent before. The mosquito that buzzes in your ear in't nearly as annoying as the swarm that follows a good rain.


So we should just sit back, shut up and be thankful for being treated like second class citizens. That seems to be what you are implying, maybe I've misunderstood you though (cause god knows I've been misunderstood lately) so I'd appreciate clarification.

You'll have to wait on a response form me though as I'm off to lunch with some dear friends.

I'd like to enter into evidence the above post labeled Exhibit A on how heterosexuals have no clue of the pain they inflict or of what goes on in the lives of "queers".
And I'd like to admit this post to the exhibition of whiny homosexuals that think THEY are the only ones who feel pain and are "sensitive" to the words and actions of others. You think someone hurt your feeling or beat you up because you were gay? I got news for you kid. You would most likely have ben picked on anyway. Thats how it is when you are young. In school, everyone got picked on by someone. I got my butt kicked many a time, and I learned to defend myself. I surrounded myself with a group of like-minded individuals so I wouldn't have to take on a group. And I get along fine with the queers I know, and I can say "queer" because when you work with a couple waiters for 2 years who are both gay you get to take certain liberties. Seeing as how they refer to me as a "hick", I'd say fair is fair. We don't mind, because we are OK with who we are. Maybe that is YOUR real problem.

Too self-conscious?

So we should just sit back, shut up and be thankful for being treated like second class citizens. That seems to be what you are implying, maybe I've misunderstood you though (cause god knows I've been misunderstood lately) so I'd appreciate clarification.

You'll have to wait on a response form me though as I'm off to lunch with some dear friends.
No. YOU think you are being treated like second-class citizens. The truth is that none of you realize that whatever makes you YOU is going to have somebody looking down on you. I'm a poor kid in a rich neighborhood. I have my apartment and an old beat up truck. I worked for my father til I went off to school. The truth is that most people are second-class citizens unless they are filthy rich. Everyone looks at the people around them and thinks that those other people have something they don't.

You can get a civil union, and marriages aren't really that great amigo. They cost more money than any person should ever have to spend on a relationship with a 50% rate of failure. So whats the big deal? Some guys make fun of you? Happens to me too. Suck it up. Life's tough, and not just for you. I just don't cry about it. I go on with my life, and I save my money and I enjoy every moment. Perhaps if you quit worrying about what you didn't have and thought for one moment about what you DO have, you might realize you aren't so bad off. And besides, legally speaking you just can't get a marriage, and even then thats not true in some states. Sounds to me like that doesn't make you a second-class citizen. I know plenty of married couples, and I'm rather close to throwing on the old ball and chain myself. In my opinion, not getting married is a good thing.

You haven't been following along, so this is neither helpful nor relevant.

I disagree with your characterization of what Pracus said. Your qualifiers ("basically meaning" "seems to be implying") make clear that any comparison must be read into the statement.

Even under your characterization, however, it was a weak comparison at most. You ignore the context. It was in direct response to someone who was talking about the Holocaust and suggesting gays should be quiet. It was also not what Vitos Ordination claims is improper: Pracus did not argue for the need for gay rights based on similarities to the Holocaust.

Moreover, Pracus immediately retracted the implication of a comparison and only returned to the subject when pressed to defend the original statement.

What I have, and am, complaining about was Vittos Ordination's continuing to harp on the subject for pages and pages of this thread -- despite the facts that Pracus never committed the error which was VO's supposed target and that Pracus clarified any misunderstanding.

I've now probably done more harm than good. I apologize, Pracus.

Vittos Ordination agreed to cease. If everyone else will too, it appears that is the best for which we can hope.
Sure, fine, whatever. This isn't even really related to anything I care much about, and it only vaguely relates to this discussion in general. It really has nothing to do with anything else I've said, so sure, consider it dropped.

No. YOU think you are being treated like second-class citizens. The truth is that none of you realize that whatever makes you YOU is going to have somebody looking down on you. I'm a poor kid in a rich neighborhood. I have my apartment and an old beat up truck. I worked for my father til I went off to school. The truth is that most people are second-class citizens unless they are filthy rich. Everyone looks at the people around them and thinks that those other people have something they don't.

You can get a civil union, and marriages aren't really that great amigo. They cost more money than any person should ever have to spend on a relationship with a 50% rate of failure. So whats the big deal? Some guys make fun of you? Happens to me too. Suck it up. Life's tough, and not just for you. I just don't cry about it. I go on with my life, and I save my money and I enjoy every moment. Perhaps if you quit worrying about what you didn't have and thought for one moment about what you DO have, you might realize you aren't so bad off. And besides, legally speaking you just can't get a marriage, and even then thats not true in some states. Sounds to me like that doesn't make you a second-class citizen. I know plenty of married couples, and I'm rather close to throwing on the old ball and chain myself. In my opinion, not getting married is a good thing.

You are in serious need of some perspective. It appears there is nothing that can be said to persuade you, but let's make a few things clear:

Gays face legal discrimination. You don't.

Gays face widespread social discrimination. You don't.

Gays' sex lives have recently been criminal in most states. Your sex life has not.

Gays face systematic physical abuse for their sexual orientation. You don't.
(For example, according to the FBI's conservative statistics, there were 1,415 crimes committed in 2003 that were motivated by hatred against gays and bi-sexuals. There were 15 against heterosexuals.)

Whether you think it is a good thing or not (and if you don't then you shouldn't get married) you have the right to marry. Gay's don't.

Just because "everyone" gets beaten from time to time, Gays should accept being discriminated against? Openly? By the government and by society? Dream on. :rolleyes:

I hope that you will reconsider your actions later.

I hate to continue this, because Pracus has sufferred enough, but your holier-than-thou attitude is really irritating me.

Your characterization of what occurred is erroneous. You were the one to originally directly compare the gay rights movement with the Holocaust.

(1) Lord Zulu Mats-Wana is the one who brought the Holocaust up.
(2) Lord Zulu Mats-Wana made the initial link between the Holocaust and "gay rites" (sp? pun?)

Lord Zulu Mats-Wana was the first to bring up the holocaust, however, he made no comparison between the rights violations of the two. He only compared the way that he felt both Jews and homosexuals were using the events far too much to advance their cause.

Pracus replied:

You may note that Pracus does not, in fact, compare the plight of gays to the Holocaust.

What could Pracus's last sentence possibly be other than a comparison of the civil rights violations that occurred during the holocaust and the current oppression of gay rights in the US?

Even if Pracus did misword it, that would mean that he/she believes that Jews no longer face worldwide discrimination.

You, however, jumped to this:

This was both insensitive and was the first direct comparison of the plight of gays with the Holocaust.

Pracus, nonetheless, immediately retracted the poor choice of words in the original statement:

Maybe it was insensitive, and I apologize if I offended you.

It was not a comparison between the holocaust and gay rights, it was a contrast between the two in response to what I thought was a comparison.

From there, you began your repeated posts (1) accusing Pracus of comparing the Holocaust and the gay rights movement, (2) condemning any comparison of the Holocaust and the gay rights movement, and (3) demanding Pracus explain.

No, from here I posted:

Yes, yes, I understand now, and I am sorry about the misunderstanding.

But then in response to a post by Eichen, Pracus made another comparison between the two, saying that they were in the same category (albeit the holocaust was much, much worse). Which I took to mean that he/she completely missed the point I was trying to get across about comparing ANYTHING to the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, or Hitler.

As for the rest 1) Pracus did make comparisons, and I can't grasp why the two of you are denying it. 2) Tt is my opinion that any comparison made to the holocaust is made out of hyperbole, represents no facts, and is mainly made to invoke emotion and sympathy. 3) I never once asked Pracus to explain, I am not dense and do not need to be told where the similarities are. I even went so far as to say that I understand the basis for his/her statement, but Pracus got defensive and either outright denied making any comparisons, or tried to defend his/her statements with more comparisons.

You finally admit there are similarities between plight of gays and the Holocaust. (Not to mention that gays were a target of the Holocaust -- which you like to ignore.) I agree with you that arguing about the Holocaust is not an effective way to champion gay rights.

On page 10, immediately after she responded to Eichen's post, I responded with this:

Because you keep making the comparisons, which is a bad, bad idea. I understand where you are coming from, and they are similar, but the comparisons do more to distract from your argument than they add to it.

How is that different from what you just said?


But you were the one denying any similarities and pressing for Pracus to discuss the topics. Pracus never equated the Holocaust and the plight of gays, but -- when pressed -- merely asserted their were certain similarities (that Pracus stated were dwarfed by the differences particularly of scale).

See my post from page 10.

As you agree this was true -- and Pracus had never advanced a comparison to the Holocaust as an argument in favor of gay rights -- you were the one in error.

What was the point in making the comparison then?

Godwin's Law is not all its cracked up to be -- particularly as you appear to misapply it here.

How does Godwin's Law not apply here?

Please just think about what occurred. I know you can defend your basic point -- neither Pracus or I disagree with it. The way you went about arguing it, however, was both counter-productive and insensitive.

I never flamed, trolled, or made any insensitive comment outside of my first response, which may or may not be offensive depending on how you look at it. My only mistake is not recognizing that the point I was trying to make was not getting across and giving up. It was Pracus who got defensive whenever I assume that he/she thought I was accusing him/her of being insensitive to the Jew's struggle through the Holocaust.

Now hold up. You obviously didn't see that he WAS comparing the two. He said in that quote that the Holocaust was over, basically meaning that at least the Jews were better of now, seeing as how the Holocaust is over. He then said that Gays are still in the same boat, after referring to the Holocaust. Thus he seems to be implying that although Jews have achieved equality, Gays haven't. The whole issue with gas chambers and whatnot is rather irrelevant since gays weren't the only minority targeted. It was more like ALL minorities were targeted by Hitler.

Don't bother. Although there is no other way to understand Pracus's original statement, it obviously meant something else that we aren't catching.

As for this little line of argument, here, I think it is very relevant to the topic at hand. The underlying sentiment of the thread starter is the self-importance that homosexuals give themselves. While I don't really agree with what the thread starter said, I believe Pracus's comments are the exact sort of thing that he was referencing.

EDIT: And a question to anybody who actually reads this far, how does everyone feel the social standing of homosexuals compares to the social standing of atheists?

Why is it important for some gays to announce that they are gay. Or coming out of the closet! I'm gay! We must have special rights for gays! Who really cares. Why are gay issues centers of some gay thinking. You are the same as us heterosexuals. You just happen to like the same sex. Other than that you have all the same aspirations and social whims as the rest of society. What do I care? Really I do get tired of the special interest that some gays crave. Am I missing something here? Or am I just being to over sensitive to all the hype?


I have often wondered the same thing. "I'm gay, I'm gay". Do you want a ****ing medal or something? I have no problem with gays, or civil union, but the hype being made today over gays has gotten out of hand, due to a large part by the extreme right that wants to ban civil unions, and by the left that wants to legalize gay marriage. It's sad that they face discrimination, but if they can't handle it then maybe they shouldn't be so damn ostentacious about it.

Heterosexuals proclaim their heterosexuality a lot more than homosexuals proclaim their homosexuality.

It's just that heterosexuals only notice when gay people do it.

Well said!

come one and all to my wonderfull forum @

http://s9.invisionfree.com/gobbothegoblin

I was just about to let the matter drop entirely -- and say so in a deletion of my posts. And then you had to add these little digs.

Reading your response to my accusations had caused me to view your actions in a better light. I still think you were in error, but I respected your intent. Your latest statements, however, have seriously damaged my regard for you.

Regardless of how it can be interpreted, Pracus immediately explained what was intended by the statement. Apologized for the choice of words. Apologized for any misunderstanding. Has repeatedly stated that the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, but would not deny altogether that similarities between the Holocaust and gay rights exist. You admit this is true, but merely politically inexpediant to argue. Pracus agreed. (And, yes, when someone thinks they are accused of being insenstive to the Holocaust, then tend to be defensive. They also get defensive when you say they are being "ridiculous" and "self-absorbed.")

Read post 123, Pracus says in explaining his post:

"I said that at least the holocaust is over, gays are still being persecuted and it hasn't improved--while the jewish situation has, something for which I am very thankful."

HadesRulesMuch said:

"He said in that quote that the Holocaust was over, basically meaning that at least the Jews were better of now, seeing as how the Holocaust is over. He then said that Gays are still in the same boat, after referring to the Holocaust. Thus he seems to be implying that although Jews have achieved equality, Gays haven't."

So it seems that HRM was dead on with the meaning of Pracus's statement.

For all your vaunted concerned about Godwin's Law and sensitivity, you never once confronted Lord Zulu Mats-Wana's original broaching of the topic that stated that Jews complain too much about the Holocaust. Instead, you jumped on Pracus.

Lord Zulu Mats-Wana never compared anything to the Holocaust. He only compared the Jew's complaints about the holocaust, and the effects of their complaints, so there was no direct comparison. That and I could barely read his posts.

I'm going to stop now. I really, really hope you will too.

You cannot call my posts into question and then ask me not to respond.

EDIT: And sorry if I was being short, it seemed to me like I was getting jumped on even though my statements have been valid.

snip

I have deleted my recent posts on this matter.

I have lost a lot of respect for you, Vittos Ordination. You appear not to care, which is your perogative. As you insist that you must always have the last word, you will no doubt respond. I no longer care, but hope you will be more sensitive to Pracus than you have been.

Pracus, I apologize again for stirring the pot. I should have followed your example and simply been silent. But you do get a hug, if you'll accept it. :fluffle:

I have deleted my recent posts on this matter.

I have lost a lot of respect for you, Vittos Ordination. You appear not to care, which is your perogative. As you insist that you must always have the last word, you will no doubt respond. I no longer care, but hope you will be more sensitive to Pracus than you have been.

Pracus, I apologize again for stirring the pot. I should have followed your example and simply been silent. But you do get a hug, if you'll accept it. :fluffle:

I am sure that you had no respect for me before this thread, either. I have done nothing to loose respect in my opinion.

I stated what I thought, backed it up, and not changed my opinion in any way.

Meanwhile, your last two posts have been nothing but you expressing your lack of respect for me. You have done nothing to address my posts, which included showing, through Pracus's own words, that HRM was correct in his interpretation of the post that started this whole mess.

As for Pracus, I am sure that he can handle this, as I have done nothing to call his nature nor his intelligence into question. I do not believe that he made light of the Holocaust nor made too much of the gay rights movement, I only thought his method of expressing his opinion was faulty. I respect Pracus, he definitely has his heart in the right place, but I think he got too defensive to take the true nature and meaning of my posts to heart.

And whether this is the last word or not, I will quit. I have given up all hope of rescueing my points and posts from total misconstruence.

Yes, please let it just end. Too many words and explanations and defenses have been thrown around here for any of us to understand what was intitally going on and what has been said. It is obvious that we all have our points of view and, in all likelyhood, we are all right. . .we just rean't hearing what others are saying. So let it drop.

It's odd that I say this because I'm a fairly histrionic fellow, but enough is enough. Thank you to those who defended me, its nice to know that I can still communicate at least somewhat effectively. To those of you who have not understood what I said, I hold no blame on you whatsoever but rather blame my own inability to express myself adequately. That being said, just let it end!

These are the FBI's hate crime statistics from 2003. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
As you can see, more than 1000 anti-homosexual hate cimes were commited that year. This is comparible to the number of hate crimes commited against other groups despite the very low percentage of openly homosexual individuals in America.

yeah then people can marry their dogs too. Hurrah! Well why not? I mean if it's ok with homosexuals, what makes dogs any different? In fact, why not have a complete moral and standardical breakdown of everything in society, so people can do whatever they want. Why restrict anything? You're right. People should be able to do whatever they want. Why shouldnt murderers be able to live in the bedroom next to your children? Why cant they just get a slap on the wrist and sent home next door? I mean it all sounds good. Think about it, they are put down too and subjected to so many bad things and societal scrutiny. They dont get their own TV shows, or message boards to boast of their pride. Hmmm perhaps you should consider just how much freedom you want and think about the fundimental basics society needs in order to maintain other people's basic civil rights. And get over yourselves.
Wow, it sounds like this guy's slippery slope is near vertical!

I'm a poor redneck from Tennessee...
Did you seriously just admit to being a redneck?

I find it hard to believe that the "Pink Panthers" would be very handy with guns.
I imagine that the homosexual, weapons expert NS poster "My Gun Not Yours" would disagree.

So whats the big deal? Some guys make fun of you? Happens to me too. Suck it up. Life's tough, and not just for you. I just don't cry about it. I go on with my life, and I save my money and I enjoy every moment. Perhaps if you quit worrying about what you didn't have and thought for one moment about what you DO have, you might realize you aren't so bad off. And besides, legally speaking you just can't get a marriage, and even then thats not true in some states. Sounds to me like that doesn't make you a second-class citizen. I know plenty of married couples, and I'm rather close to throwing on the old ball and chain myself. In my opinion, not getting married is a good thing.
What has any of this got to do with homosexuals?

And a question to anybody who actually reads this far, how does everyone feel the social standing of homosexuals compares to the social standing of atheists?
I have never been discriminated against for being an atheist, nor have I ever heard of anyone who has. Homosexuals however are widely discriminated against.

...snip...


I imagine that the homosexual, weapons expert NS poster "My Gun Not Yours" would disagree.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to aim a gun.


What has any of this got to do with homosexuals?


I have never been discriminated against for being an atheist, nor have I ever heard of anyone who has. Homosexuals however are widely discriminated against.

Where? Show me where? I've never seen it. I've seen a lot of heterosexuals abused and discriminated against, but not homosexuals.

Regarding the perception of inequal rights: it's one thing to push the barrel upright so it doesn't wobble, but when you try to push it over and dump it on someone else, expect them to say something.

1. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to aim a gun.

2. Where? Show me where? I've never seen it. I've seen a lot of heterosexuals abused and discriminated against, but not homosexuals.

3. Regarding the perception of inequal rights: it's one thing to push the barrel upright so it doesn't wobble, but when you try to push it over and dump it on someone else, expect them to say something.
1. Agreed.

2. I shouldn't have to show you and you are being facetious if you think that homophobia doesn't exist. The fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry is proof of discrimination against them.

3. I agree. Fortunately, this is not happening with the gay rights issue.

These are the FBI's hate crime statistics from 2003. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
As you can see, more than 1000 anti-homosexual hate cimes were commited that year. This is comparible to the number of hate crimes commited against other groups despite the very low percentage of openly homosexual individuals in America.
Personally, I think hate crimes are a bunch of hooey. Violence is violence, and should be punished the same unlilaterally. If you bash or kill someone, your sentence should be the same if you killed some guy because you thought he was looking at you the wrong way, or if he was from an ethnic/sexual minority. I'm not advocating these crimes in any way, I simply think that sentencing should be uniorm. Not to mention that a hate crime could be inferred where none was intended - say, if I get into a braawl with a guy in a pub, and he turns out to be gay. What's to say I wont be charged with a hate crime, even if it was a simple pub fight with no emphasis on sexulaity.
However, incitement to victimize certain groups, such as espused by some supremacist groups, certainly needs to be punished severely.
My 2 cents - agree or don't agree as you see fit.

Personally, I think hate crimes are a bunch of hooey. Violence is violence, and should be punished the same unlilaterally. If you bash or kill someone, your sentence should be the same if you killed some guy because you thought he was looking at you the wrong way, or if he was from an ethnic/sexual minority. I'm not advocating these crimes in any way, I simply think that sentencing should be uniorm. Not to mention that a hate crime could be inferred where none was intended - say, if I get into a braawl with a guy in a pub, and he turns out to be gay. What's to say I wont be charged with a hate crime, even if it was a simple pub fight with no emphasis on sexulaity.
However, incitement to victimize certain groups, such as espused by some supremacist groups, certainly needs to be punished severely.
My 2 cents - agree or don't agree as you see fit.
i agree...i don't believe "hate" should be punished, because "hate" is an emotion rather than an action. hating a given group of people is not illegal, nor should it be, but ACTING against other people is a crime. we are all entitled to our feelings, but we are obligated to restrict how we act upon them.

I do think tolerance is more important than acceptance. And yes, tolerance is a very shallow commitment. So be it. A person should have no right to harm anyone else regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But they don't have to like them. They don't have to want to be around them. Now hopefully I won't immediately be called a closed minded bigot.

My girlfriend is bisexual. My best friend is gay. I've been active in trying to promote diversity and tolerance. However, I feel tolerance should be the key goal.

For example, as many of you know, I'm an eclectic pagan. Around where I live, pagans have a bad reputation. A lot of people don't like pagans here. Frankly, I don't care. I don't care if half my bloody town thinks I'm rat scum condemned to hell. As long as they don't lay a finger on me. They're entitled to their own opinions, regardless of how screwed up I may think they are. If they want to come confront me about my religion, they can. We'll have a nice chat. Maybe we'll both learn something. But I'm not gonna tell them they have to give me a cheery smile and hug because I'm special in my own special way. *big fake grin* The minute anyone lays a violent hand on anyone else, the gloves come off, of course. If anyone tried to harass my girlfriend or my friend, I'd make sure the person thoroughly regretted it. But we have to allow freedom of thought at the same time.

So your gay. So what.

I'm Gay???!!


Geez, the wife's not gonna like this!


Do I have ta git a makeover now?

I do think tolerance is more important than acceptance. And yes, tolerance is a very shallow commitment. So be it. A person should have no right to harm anyone else regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But they don't have to like them. They don't have to want to be around them. Now hopefully I won't immediately be called a closed minded bigot.


I don't think you will find many gay people who disagree with you. Tolerance is all we ask for--just leave us alone and don't treat us as inferior. You don't have to like us or what we do. Just admit we aren't hurting you, give us equal rights, and leave us alone. It doesn't make you a bigot to recognize that--just a sensible person.

I don't think you will find many gay people who disagree with you. Tolerance is all we ask for--just leave us alone and don't treat us as inferior. You don't have to like us or what we do. Just admit we aren't hurting you, give us equal rights, and leave us alone. It doesn't make you a bigot to recognize that--just a sensible person.

I don't believe that any group has the right to force a religion to change its beliefs. While it's one thing to change laws, and give everyone a fair shake at things like marriage, I don't believe that it should be possible for gays to force themselves on a church that doesn't want to accept them. As a "for instance" you would not be welcome at Neo Cannen's church, as long as you were gay.

Better just to come down to my church, if you're feeling religious. If you did force your way into Neo's church, you would be hurting someone.

It doesn't make you a bigot to recognize that--just a sensible person.

Thank you, dun think I've ever been called sensible before. ;) My last post was actually in reference to one on the second or third page I believe. Talking about how tolerance is a shallow commitment. Plus my own little way of venting, cuz sometimes my girlfriend becomes the bleeding heart, lets make laws to force everyone to love everyone type. :D

Just admit we aren't hurting you, give us equal rights, and leave us alone. It doesn't make you a bigot to recognize that--just a sensible person.
indeed. i would love it if the nutty Godders would stop being such cry babies about this, and would get it through their heads that they don't get to claim they are being "hurt" by other consenting adults having loving relationships. i'm disgusted by religious marriages, but i don't claim they "hurt" me or that they somehow make my relationship less special; this is because i am not a total twit, and i am able to recognize that i have no Constitutionally-guaranteed protection against being ticked off from time to time.

indeed. i would love it if the nutty Godders would stop being such cry babies about this, and would get it through their heads that they don't get to claim they are being "hurt" by other consenting adults having loving relationships. i'm disgusted by religious marriages, but i don't claim they "hurt" me or that they somehow make my relationship less special; this is because i am not a total twit, and i am able to recognize that i have no Constitutionally-guaranteed protection against being ticked off from time to time.

Heh heh, as long as its not the nutty Goddessers;). A lot of pagans support loving relationships between individuals regardless of orientation.

I personally don't see the discrimination and bigotry you say there is. I suppose there is some. I won't say there isn't any. But in my Bar's/clubs that I own. They come in dressed in drag and have a good time with the regular customers. I personally never had to break up a fight over this. Or have I known of a situation where there was a problem because of someone being "gay". I deal with the public on a continous basis. I just don't see this as being a big problem.

:rolleyes: oh yeah it doesn't happen at all... thats why there are famous cases where gays are known to have been beat to death because of their sexual orientation. I had to shake my head sadly the other day when I saw a sticker on someones pickup that said "STRIAGHT PRIDE", which is fine that they are proud to be straight but why oh why do they have to announce it? SO they're straight... so what? WHo cares unless they are trying to say something against homosexuality right?

I don't believe that any group has the right to force a religion to change its beliefs. While it's one thing to change laws, and give everyone a fair shake at things like marriage, I don't believe that it should be possible for gays to force themselves on a church that doesn't want to accept them. As a "for instance" you would not be welcome at Neo Cannen's church, as long as you were gay.

Better just to come down to my church, if you're feeling religious. If you did force your way into Neo's church, you would be hurting someone.

My apologies if I implied that a church should have to accept us. I was referring to civil marriage in my previous post--marriage that is from the government and is associated with the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. No church should have to perform a marriage in which they do not believe. I would fight for freedom of religion fo rthose churches. Ironically, many of them would fight to deny me my civil rights.

My apologies if I implied that a church should have to accept us. I was referring to civil marriage in my previous post--marriage that is from the government and is associated with the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. No church should have to perform a marriage in which they do not believe. I would fight for freedom of religion fo rthose churches. Ironically, many of them would fight to deny me my civil rights.

Unitarians are friendly, and would help you fight for your rights.

Unitarians are friendly, and would help you fight for your rights.

I know. So are reconciling Methodist, many of the PUSA, most Episcopals, and a variety of others.

I have never been discriminated against for being an atheist, nor have I ever heard of anyone who has. Homosexuals however are widely discriminated against.

I would say that there is a wide spread in the active discrimination between the two, but I would say that that is because the government has a much bigger respect for religion than sexuality. (although, there is a very large percentage of the US actively fighting against atheistic and secular views)

It does seem that in the US the stigma that atheists face is very similar to that of homosexuals, and to some people atheism may be worse. The only thing that helps atheists is that its opposition is confused by it, whereas the opponents of homosexuality are outright disgusted by it.

So your gay? Your? YOUR? It would be: So you're gay.

It's hard for gay people to "come out of the closet" because in this society being gay is considered a bad thing, even though it's not. This means that it is also hard for someone to admit it to themselves and accept it.

So your gay? Your? YOUR? It would be: So you're gay.

*clings to the nearest gay person* Nope...my gay.

*clings to the nearest gay person* Nope...my gay.


ouch! get off me, you just shoved your finger up my nose!

It does seem that in the US the stigma that atheists face is very similar to that of homosexuals, and to some people atheism may be worse.
Really? Here in Europe, even Ireland, there is nothing "wrong" with being an atheist. We're a minority, but we get along just fine with religious people.

Are atheists actually widely discriminated against in America?

Really? Here in Europe, even Ireland, there is nothing "wrong" with being an atheist. We're a minority, but we get along just fine with religious people.

Are atheists actually widely discriminated against in America?

By individuals and certain groups? Most certainly. By the government? Not as bad as with homosexuals, but there are still tensions. For instance, I walked into my county courthouse a few months ago to get a license plate for my new used car. Amazing Grace was playing over the loudspeakers and there was a pamphlet on the desk signed by the Circuit Clerk (an elected official in my area) endorsing a certain church.

Now, while it doesn't personally upset me, I do get upset on behalf of my friends who are more hardcore atheistic than I--their money went to pay for that sound system and that is THEIR courthouse too. Why couldn't they play soft Jazz or Public Radio or something? Why is it that religion has to use public facilities when it has private ones? Ehhh, I'll end my pseudo-rant now.

By individuals and certain groups? Most certainly. By the government? Not as bad as with homosexuals, but there are still tensions. For instance, I walked into my county courthouse a few months ago to get a license plate for my new used car. Amazing Grace was playing over the loudspeakers and there was a pamphlet on the desk signed by the Circuit Clerk (an elected official in my area) endorsing a certain church.

Now, while it doesn't personally upset me, I do get upset on behalf of my friends who are more hardcore atheistic than I--their money went to pay for that sound system and that is THEIR courthouse too. Why couldn't they play soft Jazz or Public Radio or something? Why is it that religion has to use public facilities when it has private ones? Ehhh, I'll end my pseudo-rant now.
That's weird. In the equivalent here, if the radio was on it would probably be playing some random pop station. Pamphlets would usually be for government stuff, but nobody would freak out if there was one advertising a church charity event or something.

It doesn't sound like atheists are discriminated against, but it sounds like American Christians do not treat religion as a private thing as most European Christians do.

These are the FBI's hate crime statistics from 2003. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf
As you can see, more than 1000 anti-homosexual hate cimes were commited that year. This is comparible to the number of hate crimes commited against other groups despite the very low percentage of openly homosexual individuals in America.
I bring this up to point out the fact that homosexuals are just as much of an oppressed minority as any other.

That's weird. In the equivalent here, if the radio was on it would probably be playing some random pop station. Pamphlets would usually be for government stuff, but nobody would freak out if there was one advertising a church charity event or something.

It doesn't sound like atheists are discriminated against, but it sounds like American Christians do not treat religion as a private thing as most European Christians do.

I don't think most atheists would mind if a church had placed pamphlets in the courthouse as long as it was open to any group. However, having a testimony placed there by the elected official running the portion of the courthouse could be perceived as discriminatory. Personally, my bigger problem was with Christian music lpaying over the loudspeakers.

But no, discrimination by the government is particularly bad for atheists. Now, there are certainly Christians (and members of other religions) who discriminate on an individual basis against anyone who doesn't agree with them--but that's just the way its going to be anywhere.

Now, there are certainly Christians (and members of other religions) who discriminate on an individual basis against anyone who doesn't agree with them--but that's just the way its going to be anywhere.
Indeed, I'm sure we can agree that the Earth, not just America, is littered with closed-minded assholes of all kinds.

Are atheists actually widely discriminated against in America?
depends on how you mean "discriminated against." religious groups and religious persons enjoy many 'perks' that secular individuals do not have access to. i don't know if that counts as discrimination, but it sure feels like it sometimes.

for instance, if you try to wear a weird hat to school that conflicts with your school's dress code, you can get half the country screaming in defense of your "rights" if you claim that you need to wear that hat because of your religion. but if you tell people that you need to wear it because you truly and deeply believe that the evil invisible leprechauns will eat you if you don't...well, just see where that gets you.

never mind that there is exactly as much evidence for invisible leprechauns as there is for God. never mind that the number of people who believe in a religion isn't our criterion for recognizing the rights of that religion. if you claim a crazy SECULAR belief you get much less slack than if you claim a crazy belief that you attribute to something RELIGIOUS. hell, if you claimed that your leprechaun theory was rooted in deep religious tradition you probably COULD get a bunch of people screaming in defense of your rights! you just can't admit that it's not a religious belief, because--in America--a religious belief is important while a secular belief isn't as much so.

ouch! get off me, you just shoved your finger up my nose!

*eeps and falls on his arse*sinuses feeling more clear?

*eeps and falls on his arse*sinuses feeling more clear?

They would if it wasn't for the blood pooling in them ;)

Indeed, I'm sure we can agree that the Earth, not just America, is littered with closed-minded assholes of all kinds.

Even closed minded atheists.

They would if it wasn't for the blood pooling in them ;)

*hugs Pracus* Ack, did I accidentally just commit a hate crime?

Hate it when that happens...

;)

*hugs Pracus* Ack, did I accidentally just commit a hate crime?

Hate it when that happens...


It's okay. I'm a med student so I know what to do with a severe nosebleed. . . . now I just have to find some liquid cocaine. . . .

about the orignal post.. I totaly agree, recently two goths decided to "come out" at my school... well everytime someone looks at them anytime in the day we get them saying something like "Go away im like everyone else"

eh.. not really, everyone else hasnt been shuned from socity for years on end even exacuted.. everyone else doesnt come to school in all black with 6 foot spikes in all derictions... everyone else doesnt have their noise periced to the navle... and on top of it all everyone else doesnt make out to the point where a bucket is needed under them be it gay or not

like everyone else... take a look around

It's okay. I'm a med student so I know what to do with a severe nosebleed. . . . now I just have to find some liquid cocaine. . . .
no, no, no! freebase for a burn wound, not for bleeding! for a nosebleed it's half a sheet of acid.

I would say that there is a wide spread in the active discrimination between the two, but I would say that that is because the government has a much bigger respect for religion than sexuality. (although, there is a very large percentage of the US actively fighting against atheistic and secular views)

It does seem that in the US the stigma that atheists face is very similar to that of homosexuals, and to some people atheism may be worse. The only thing that helps atheists is that its opposition is confused by it, whereas the opponents of homosexuality are outright disgusted by it.

Athiests face a stigma similar to homosexuals in the US? Please. Talk about a specious comparison ...

Athiests face no legal discrimination. To the contrary, it is illegal.

I am an athiest and, with the exception of some dabbling in non-Christian religions, I have always been a hard athiest.

Not only am I denied no civil rights because I am an Athiest, I am denied no privileges or immunities. I can (and have) get married. I can adopt children. Etc. Again, anything to the contrary would be illegal.

Have I sometimes been made to feel uncomfortable because I am an Athiest? Yes. Some of that was also illegal, but happened anyway. It was a drop in the ocean compared to what was faced by those I have known who were homosexual.

Are athiests targeted for hate crimes? Let's see. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf), there were 13 hate crimes motived by "anti-Athiesm/Agnosticism/etc." in 2003 versus 1415 hate crimes targeting gays or bisexuals. I'm no math wiz, but I believe that means a homosexual was 109 times more likely to be victimized for his/her sexual orientation than an Athiest or Agnostic was to be victimized for his/her beliefs.

(And, BTW, for those that love to say they don't believe in hate crimes -- that a "crime is a crime," etc. Almost all crimes have an intent element. The exact same actions may be different crimes depending on the intent (i.e., what intent can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.) There is nothing new about punishing the same actions differently depending on the intent of the actor.)

Anyway, any comparison between the "plight" of Athiests and the struggle for gay rights is misguided and insulting. It trivializes systematic oppression as similar to what is (at worst) mere lack of popularity.

Are athiests targeted for hate crimes? Let's see. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf), there were 13 hate crimes motived by "anti-Athiesm/Agnosticism/etc." in 2003 versus 1415 hate crimes targeting gays or bisexuals. I'm no math wiz, but I believe that means a homosexual was 109 times more likely to be victimized for his/her sexual orientation than an Athiest or Agnostic was to be victimized for his/her beliefs.

actually, you also have to adjust to account for the fact that close to 20% of Americans are atheist/agnostic/secular, while generous estimates of the "out" homosexual population sit around 2-5%. so the disparity is even greater.

(And, BTW, for those that love to say they don't believe in hate crimes -- that a "crime is a crime," etc. Almost all crimes have an intent element. The exact same actions may be different crimes depending on the intent (i.e., what intent can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.) There is nothing new about punishing the same actions differently depending on the intent of the actor.)

I always want to ask people opposed to hate crimes if they are aware that there are already different classes of murder in pretty much all states? Murder 1, Murder 2, Murder 3, Manslaughter, Depraved Indifference, Homocidal Negligence. . . it goes on and on. And it all has to do with the motive and means behind it. And then there is the fact that hate crimes statues protect white straight males (the people I usually hear bitching about hate crime legislation) as well!

Bottle, you would probably know this or be able to make an approximation or know where to find a source:

What percentage of Americans are straight Christians? Or just Christians? And of straight Christians, what percentage actually oppose homosexuality in their congregations?

DISCLAIMER: This post is merely asking for information and is not meant to imply in any way that all those opposed to homosexuality are Christians or that all Christians are homophobic. So please don't repond to show me the "error of my ways". That is all.

I don't mind straights, as long as they act gay in public

Really, I think Gay Pride is taken a little to far. The only reason I see in announcing that one if gay if so other gay in the area will know it. I myself am bisexual. And at one point I was balls to the wall postal on gay pride. Until I looked at a GP parade and noticed "Wow... what a bunch of fags..."
Everyone looked a little more then freakish. Maybe flaming homo-hippy-fags need to just tone it all down. Other then the need to attract the attention of other homosexuals, there's really no need to flaunt you gayness.
Even if I'm currently dating a guy, I still wear my "Have A Sister?" t-shirt. But I'm not going over the top screaming that my last relationship was 3 years with a chick and that I think Drew Barrymore is hot.
It's just how you present yourself in the end, I guess. I mean, those men out there who are just naturally flamboyant or women who just come off as butchy and actually are or because that's just who they are. But is the 2Q2BSTR8 bumper sticker and rainbow fuzzy dice all over their 2003 VW bugs really needed?

For a better "example" check outTwo the Ranting Gryphon (http://www.ranting-gryphon.com) and listen to his rant about Gay Pride.

EDIT: I'm not gay bashing. I just like the word fag. I'm just saying that peole who are overly-gay can be a little creepy. I was at a time overly gay pride and rainbow happy. I just took a step back and took notice that this rainbow screaming super queen act may be the reason that some people have a hard time excepting homosexuals. Cuz, we can be down right freaky at time. Do deny it, cuz I've done it.
Peace Love and John Lennon. :fluffle:

I don't mind straights, as long as they act gay in public

:D You, sir, are a genius. Have a cigar (or a cookie.) :D

Really, I think Gay Pride is taken a little to far. The only reason I see in announcing that one if gay if so other gay in the area will know it. I myself am bisexual. And at one point I was balls to the wall postal on gay pride. Until I looked at a GP parade and noticed "Wow... what a bunch of fags..."
Everyone looked a little more then freakish. Maybe flaming homo-hippy-fags need to just tone it all down. Other then the need to attract the attention of other homosexuals, there's really no need to flaunt you gayness.
Even if I'm currently dating a guy, I still wear my "Have A Sister?" t-shirt. But I'm not going over the top screaming that my last relationship was 3 years with a chick and that I think Drew Barrymore is hot.
It's just how you present yourself in the end, I guess. I mean, those men out there who are just naturally flamboyant or women who just come off as butchy and actually are or because that's just who they are. But is the 2Q2BSTR8 bumper sticker and rainbow fuzzy dice all over their 2003 VW bugs really needed?

For a better "example" check outTwo the Ranting Gryphon (http://www.ranting-gryphon.com) and listen to his rant about Gay Pride.

On the other hand ...

We have Exhibit C.

I don't mind straights, as long as they act gay in public

Ha ha. You made me smile. A+

On the other hand ...

We have Exhibit C.

And what do you mean by that? (don't take this as an attack/flame. I'm just asking.)

this is the longest thread ive ever seen. its been going on since two days ago, and its still on topic. wow. (if u want, i htink i posted some stuff on pages 9-11, just for proof

What percentage of Americans are straight Christians? Or just Christians? And of straight Christians, what percentage actually oppose homosexuality in their congregations?

i'm going on some slightly out-dated numbers, but here's what i've got:

about 75% of Americans belong to some Christian denomination, which includes both Catholic and Protestant sects. about 23% of Americans are Catholic, and the Catholic Church specifically maintains a formal position of homophobia, so that makes at least a third of the Christians who oppose homosexuality in their congregations. estimates of Protestant tollerance for homosexuality are really wide-ranging, but the numbers tend to center around a quarter to a third of Protestant congregations supporting gay rights. at least half of the Protestant congregations in America can be positively labeled as "anti-gay," but beyond that you start running into some wiggle room in definitions. for example, if a congregation accepts homosexuality as a life choice but does not believe gays deserve equal legal rights, does that count as "opposing" homosexuality?

as for how many Christians are gay or straight, i don't think anybody will ever know the honest answer...a religious system predicated on denial doesn't really lend itself to honest self-evaluations.

And what do you mean by that? (don't take this as an attack/flame. I'm just asking.)

[deleted in edit]

EDIT: Having re-read your post a few times, my initial reaction was an overreaction. Your post was difficult to read and used some language I considered red flags. I still disagree with your opinion, but I apologize for misunderstanding and mischaracterizing it. I am sorry.

this is the longest thread ive ever seen. its been going on since two days ago, and its still on topic. wow. (if u want, i htink i posted some stuff on pages 9-11, just for proof

We remember you. :)

You inadvertantly kicked off the Holocaust sideshow. I won't hold it against you. But don't do it again! ;)

Um, I'm not sure how to explain without you taking it as an attack/flame.

To me, your post was indicative of at least some gay bashing. The unfriendly reference to "fags" is a clue.

Try reading the thread. It may open your eyes. It may not, but its in hope of opening some minds that some of us have been posting here.
Blacks use the word ****** all the time as a way to own the word, and to transfer the power it holds into their own hands.

I use the word fag all the time. I think you have to consider the source.

whats with bush and the anti gay thing? he's retarded and if he's for god, he'd let ppl live the way they want to!!! they can't help feeling what they feel ...i'm heterosexual but i stand by homosexuals. deal with it!

whats with bush and the anti gay thing? he's retarded and if he's for god, he'd let ppl live the way they want to!!! they can't help feeling what they feel ...i'm heterosexual but i stand by homosexuals. deal with it! :sniper:

Blacks use the word ****** all the time as a way to own the word, and to transfer the power it holds into their own hands.

I use the word fag all the time. I think you have to consider the source.


actually blacks use the word nigga. . .slightly different. Further, it is all in the way it the word is used. I'm not sure that hte person being responded to was meaning to be derogatory, but I can see where one could read that.

Duh. Hence my statement: "The unfriendly reference to "fags" is a clue." :headbang:

Read the source for youself. Nary a hint of gay bashing? Really?

I don't know if you would all it gay bashing persay. To me it seems more like he washing bashing people who announce loudly and proudly that they are gay and behave in a stereotypical gay manner--such as queens and butch, bike-riding lesbians--instead of behaving in the stereotypical straight manner.

I've found that a lot of people--even in the gay community--cannot accept those that don;t behave in the steretypical societal roles. Perhaps it is because they happen to fit the mold and could NEVEr imagine not fitting the mold unless CONSCIOUSLY deciding to be different. People have a hard time understanding that others simply ARE different. Maybe that queen acts and dresses that way because that is WHO she is. Maybe that lesbian just likes Harleys and being able to kick most football players asses. They aren't acting the stereotype out of choice--but becuase that's simply who they are.

Yeah, I don't like this Gay Pride stuff, either.

There's this group in my area, called the GayGayGay. Their slogan is, "Gay Power!" and they wear these weird, pink hoods. Well, recently, they've been going around, burning pictures of Attorney General Ashcroft on the front lawns of several heteronormative politicians.

(Heteronormative is a word you won't find in a dictionary. It's basically a euphemism for "homophobic.")

They actually believe that homosexuals are genetically superior than everyone else and that eventually, we'll all evolve to be homosexuals. (I think I heard Jerry Falwell mention that he believes in this too, though, oddly enough.)

Well, anyway, now they want to allow these hatemongering gays to have RALLIES?! It's disgraceful.

I don't know if you would all it gay bashing persay. To me it seems more like he washing bashing people who announce loudly and proudly that they are gay and behave in a stereotypical gay manner--such as queens and butch, bike-riding lesbians--instead of behaving in the stereotypical straight manner.

I've found that a lot of people--even in the gay community--cannot accept those that don;t behave in the steretypical societal roles. Perhaps it is because they happen to fit the mold and could NEVEr imagine not fitting the mold unless CONSCIOUSLY deciding to be different. People have a hard time understanding that others simply ARE different. Maybe that queen acts and dresses that way because that is WHO she is. Maybe that lesbian just likes Harleys and being able to kick most football players asses. They aren't acting the stereotype out of choice--but becuase that's simply who they are.

Yeah but calling them the term used to describe fire starting wood (and people when they were burned at the stake for being homosexual) is a bit harsh (though I see the irony in it now). Still, I cringe when I hear the word.

Blacks use the word ****** all the time as a way to own the word, and to transfer the power it holds into their own hands.

I use the word fag all the time. I think you have to consider the source.

Duh. Hence my statement: "The unfriendly reference to 'fags' is a clue." I don't think the usage was particularly hostile, but I also don't think it was owning the word.

Being a member of a minority group (and bisexual is not necessarily the same) does not necessarily mean that one is not prejudiced. Blacks can be racist against blacks. Women can be misogynist. (Think Phyllis Schafly.)

I recognize the source identifies herself as bisexual. That doesn't necessarily excuse what was said. On a second and third reading, I still think the author is wrong, but overreacted.

hahahahahhahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha.... this is the funniest forum i have ever read listen u can tell the world u are gay if u wish that does not mean its gonna change anything i mean i dont have a problem with people that are gay but really do u think u will get anything big out of this serious our goverment is not gonna change because someone decided to say that he is gay hell yr liable to be shot for doing i mean u can talk about gay rights bla bla bla but u are not doing anything to help yrselfs so all i can say is what ever. man i love being straight

Being gay myself, I don't think I could personally associate myself with much of the stereotypical gay pride stuff; I'm content to fade into the background. Then again, I'm from one of the most socially conservative states in the US. Please don't take this as a conservative/liberal thing, though. I don't let anyone know that I'm gay unless there is some need for them to know. I could have been kicked out of school (kindergarten through 12th grade) if anyone had known. I can be fired from my job right now for being gay since there is no protection clause based on sexual orientation (believe me, I checked) despite the fact that the corporation that I work for is one of the largest government contractors, which also goes to show how much recognition the government gives to homosexuals.

It is for these reasons that I can see people who are out there and all gay pride-ish. Some of us aren't currently in the positions to try to earn our rights, so someone has to do it for all of us. Though I don't think I could personally be one of those people, I appreciate their presence.

[deleted in edit]

EDIT: Having re-read your post a few times, my initial reaction was an overreaction. Your post was difficult to read and used some language I considered red flags. I still disagree with your opinion, but I apologize for misunderstanding and mischaracterizing it. I am sorry.

No need to apologize. I can come off as a little brazen at times and possibly obnoxious, so I understand what you’re going at. So I’ll apologize.
And as for some of the words I chose, I feel that as a person who identified herself as being gay at one point and now fully accepting of myself as a bisexual person that I can use such words as almost a right. But that’s just my own opinion. Like a black person can refer to one another with the “N” word.

hahahahahhahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha.... this is the funniest forum i have ever read listen u can tell the world u are gay if u wish that does not mean its gonna change anything i mean i dont have a problem with people that are gay but really do u think u will get anything big out of this serious our goverment is not gonna change because someone decided to say that he is gay hell yr liable to be shot for doing i mean u can talk about gay rights bla bla bla but u are not doing anything to help yrselfs so all i can say is what ever. man i love being straight

I cannot believe you edited this for a spelling mistake! :D LOL :D

Athiests face a stigma similar to homosexuals in the US? Please. Talk about a specious comparison ...

Athiests face no legal discrimination. To the contrary, it is illegal.

I am an athiest and, with the exception of some dabbling in non-Christian religions, I have always been a hard athiest.

Not only am I denied no civil rights because I am an Athiest, I am denied no privileges or immunities. I can (and have) get married. I can adopt children. Etc. Again, anything to the contrary would be illegal.

I said there was a wide disparity between active discrimination between the two. I said that the government has respect for religion, but not for sexuality.

Have I sometimes been made to feel uncomfortable because I am an Athiest? Yes. Some of that was also illegal, but happened anyway. It was a drop in the ocean compared to what was faced by those I have known who were homosexual.

While I freely admit that discrimination against gays is much more pronounced and open than that against atheists, I will also say that a significant percentage of the people I am around day in, day out would have an altered opinion of someone upon finding out of someone's atheism. They would also form detrimental prejudices and stereotypes that would extend beyond making someone feel uncomfortable.

Are athiests targeted for hate crimes? Let's see. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf), there were 13 hate crimes motived by "anti-Athiesm/Agnosticism/etc." in 2003 versus 1415 hate crimes targeting gays or bisexuals. I'm no math wiz, but I believe that means a homosexual was 109 times more likely to be victimized for his/her sexual orientation than an Athiest or Agnostic was to be victimized for his/her beliefs.

Yes, crime against homosexuals is far, far more prevalent. I think that often stems from many men's seeming need to reaffirm their own "manliness" by exploiting any perceived lack of "manliness" in others. It is a problem that will fade as society becomes less ignorant.

(And, BTW, for those that love to say they don't believe in hate crimes -- that a "crime is a crime," etc. Almost all crimes have an intent element. The exact same actions may be different crimes depending on the intent (i.e., what intent can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.) There is nothing new about punishing the same actions differently depending on the intent of the actor.)

This is for another thread, but you are confusing motive with intent. Intent is what you plan to do to someone, motive is why you do it.

Anyway, any comparison between the "plight" of Athiests and the struggle for gay rights is misguided and insulting. It trivializes systematic oppression as similar to what is (at worst) mere lack of popularity.

Being gay myself, I don't think I could personally associate myself with much of the stereotypical gay pride stuff; I'm content to fade into the background. Then again, I'm from one of the most socially conservative states in the US. Please don't take this as a conservative/liberal thing, though. I don't let anyone know that I'm gay unless there is some need for them to know. I could have been kicked out of school (kindergarten through 12th grade) if anyone had known. I can be fired from my job right now for being gay since there is no protection clause based on sexual orientation (believe me, I checked) despite the fact that the corporation that I work for is one of the largest government contractors, which also goes to show how much recognition the government gives to homosexuals.

It is for these reasons that I can see people who are out there and all gay pride-ish. Some of us aren't currently in the positions to try to earn our rights, so someone has to do it for all of us. Though I don't think I could personally be one of those people, I appreciate their presence.
i really like this post.

i guess i am one of the people "out there" for you, though i don't do much of the stereotypical gay stuff. i do march in parades and help with activities for awareness in the gay community, but mostly i'm just a normal person. i never make any effort to hide my sexual orientation, but i find that there are very few situations in which the subject comes up...it's not like most people walk around asking strangers or coworkers who they like shagging, after all. i'm just opennly and comfortably bisexual. i figure that the best way i can help gay rights is by being a successful, generous, positive, and mild-mannered example. :)

I cannot believe you edited this for a spelling mistake! :D LOL :D
that's a total classic.

YOU'RE!!!

You can take your dog to the store, but you're not going.

;)

It would lend credibility to your arguement if you used the right your/you're.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Hey Marrakech II, did you know that you used "your" when you should have used "you're"? Don't know if anyone else noticed but I thought you would like to know.

Hey Marrakech II, did you know that you used "your" when you should have used "you're"? Don't know if anyone else noticed but I thought you would like to know.

I should hope by now that the posters are just using sarcasm as this has been pointed out umpteen times.

I should hope by now that the posters are just using sarcasm as this has been pointed out umpteen times.

Yeah, I noticed the onslaught of grammar nazis and thought I should jump on the bandwagon.

This may sound like a stupid, and/or harsh question, but I'm curious-

Without all the leaps and advancements humankind has made towards surviving longer,
IF it was just plain nature and us-
Would there be as many/any REAL homosexuals?

Oh, I'm gonna catch Hell for this.

Or, would natural selection have wiped them out?

Any science pros, please help.

:confused:

This may sound like a stupid, and/or harsh question, but I'm curious-

Without all the leaps and advancements humankind has made towards surviving longer,
IF it was just plain nature and us-
Would there be as many/any REAL homosexuals?

Oh, I'm gonna catch Hell for this.

Or, would natural selection have wiped them out?

Any science pros, please help.

:confused:

Homosexuals are mentioned in the Bible and before. Shoot, they've been condemned and killed in those times and since. Quite frankly, if they've lasted this long through persecution and execution, and they're still around, alive and kicking, do you really think nature is going to wipe them out? Humans have the ability to do far worse damage than nature and natural selection ever could.

Homosexuality isn't really productive to society. But just don't 'hit on me' and we'll be fine.

Without all the leaps and advancements humankind has made towards surviving longer,
IF it was just plain nature and us-
Would there be as many/any REAL homosexuals?

Oh, I'm gonna catch Hell for this.

Or, would natural selection have wiped them out?

Any science pros, please help.

:confused:
there would definitely be homosexuals. in fact, if we lived PURELY by nature, with none of our consciously-imposed sexual politics, we would probably have MORE individuals expressing homosexual behavior. bisexuality is far more evolutionarily favored in primates like humans, so we all would probably have both homosexual and heterosexual relationships and interactions.

one piece of evidence for you to consider:

the bonobo chimpanzees are, genetically, the human's closest animal relative. among bonobos, female-female sexual contact is the most common form of sexual contact. MORE COMMON THAN MALE-FEMALE CONTACT. male-male, male-female, female-female, and pretty much any group combination you can think of are all found naturally in these apes.

clearly, homosexuality occurs in nature, and is NOT a maladaptive or "counter-productive" trait. homosexual contact increases fitness in many species, which is why it has been observed in dozens of species...if homosexuality were actually counter-productive, it would have been selected out long ago.

Homosexuality isn't really productive to society. But just don't 'hit on me' and we'll be fine.
thats been argued and rubbished many times

Because otherwise people assume you're straight. If you lived in a place where, say, everyone assumed you were a Muslim and treated you like a Muslim, wouldn't you want to bring it to their attention that you're not?

This may sound like a stupid, and/or harsh question, but I'm curious-

Without all the leaps and advancements humankind has made towards surviving longer,
IF it was just plain nature and us-
Would there be as many/any REAL homosexuals?

Oh, I'm gonna catch Hell for this.

Or, would natural selection have wiped them out?

Any science pros, please help.

:confused:

Not necessarily. Though I am loath to compare homosexuality (not a disease) to sickle cell anemia (a genetic disease), doing so offers us valuable insight into why homosexuality could still be around despite natural selection.

Now, to do this we are going to have to operate under the assumption that homosexuality operates under a single gene, multiple allelle mechanism such as sickle cell anemia. In this you have the Dominant heterosexual allelle (H) and the recessive homosexual allelle (h). Since humans have two copies of each gene but may have different allelles for each gene, you can see that it would be possible for someone to be HH, Hh, or hh with people who are HH or Hh being heterosexual (because heterosexuality H is dominant) and only those who are hh being homosexual.

Now, if we operate under teh assumption that being hh greatly reduces the chances of reproducing (which it actually does not, but we are operating under a hypothetical system here) then one would assume that it would slowly be weend from the population. However, this doesn't work because the carriers of the homosexual gene who are heterosexual (Hh) are NOT affected and can still result. Thus the gene can stick around for many many many generations.

Add in that perhaps the Hh combination actually makes the carrier MORE reproductively fit. This occurs in heterozygotes for the Sickle Cell trait--they are more resistant to malaria and therefore more likely to reproduce. In this instance, not only is there no seletction AGAIN heterozygotes, but there is selection FOR them becuase they survive longer and can reproduce more.

So, I hope I explained this well enough. You should hopefully be able to see how an allele could hang around for so long. Even though on the surface it may decrease reproductive fitness, it may in the long run actually INCREASE fitness. Of course, the genetics of human sexuality are FAR more complex than this and likely rely on mutliple genes, multiple allelles at each locus, as well as a complex interplay with the environment during the major formative periods of the nervous system (mostly during fetal development).

Homosexuality isn't really productive to society. But just don't 'hit on me' and we'll be fine.

That sounds like a threat. You know, all you have to do is say "No, sorry I'm straight and really not interested" and the majority of gays are going to back off.

But if it should ever happen to you, maybe it will make you think of what some women go through when men that they aren't attracted to hit on them.

Homosexuality isn't really productive to society. But just don't 'hit on me' and we'll be fine.
In just a single sentence, I can already tell you're just a few shots away from hitting on me after a night at the pub. :p

But if it should ever happen to you, maybe it will make you think of what some women go through when men that they aren't attracted to hit on them.
i have a straight male friend who told me that the reason he doesn't like gay guys hitting on him isn't homophobia, it's that men tend to be more crude when making a pass...as a female, i've got to agree. even though i prefer the company of men as friends and long-term lovers, i usually like the way women hit on me far more than the way men hit on me.

i have a straight male friend who told me that the reason he doesn't like gay guys hitting on him isn't homophobia, it's that men tend to be more crude when making a pass.
You got that right. The heighth of nobility is fumbling with your zipper while asking "Can I suck your dick, please".

You got that right. The heighth of nobility is fumbling with your zipper while asking "Can I suck your dick, please".

Just to defend some of us gay men--I've never hit on anyone that way. I prefer to strike up a conversation and see where it goes. Gentlement DO still exist :)

You got that right. The heighth of nobility is fumbling with your zipper while asking "Can I suck your dick, please".
i think guys are just conditioned to be more aggressive, over all, because they are expected to be forceful and strong if they want to be considered "real men." women can err on the side of caution because they are expected to be more reserved and modest, and thus women are less likely to end up being abrassive and over-bearing when making a pass, but men must try to find that magical and ellusive balance of confidence and calm. i don't envy men that dilema...it's hard enough working up the guts to ask a girl out, as it is!

In just a single sentence, I can already tell you're just a few shots away from hitting on me after a night at the pub. :p

I don't go to pubs :)

Heterosexuals proclaim their heterosexuality a lot more than homosexuals proclaim their homosexuality.

Agree'd.

Why is it important for some gays to announce that they are gay. Or coming out of the closet! I'm gay! We must have special rights for gays! Who really cares. Why are gay issues centers of some gay thinking. You are the same as us heterosexuals. You just happen to like the same sex. Other than that you have all the same aspirations and social whims as the rest of society. What do I care? Really I do get tired of the special interest that some gays crave. Am I missing something here? Or am I just being to over sensitive to all the hype?

well it starts when their straight friends want to take them to a stripper bar. They say its kind of Embarrasing to say no thank you so, in order to avoid this before it happens, they say they're gay. as for special rights I don't know what the hell you've been smoking as I have never seen a gay person demand special rights, outside of Media corrupted crap. speaking of crap, this topic is crap! why the hell is it here?

Just to defend some of us gay men--I've never hit on anyone that way. I prefer to strike up a conversation and see where it goes. Gentlement DO still exist :)
You're lucky. I mostly hang out with straight guys, and get hit on by "straight"guys. Their style is way different than all of the gay guys that have hit on me.
By far less classy, and less drunken.

But, you take what you can get. :D

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.

Ive been hit on by gay men several times and it freaks the piss out of me, mostly cause I am getting hit on by a guy, if it was a smart, good personality woman things would be different, mostly a "Damn I wish gays wouldnt hit on me" kind of thing.

And yes, this topic is crap, lets keep anything gay related where it belongs shall we, I believe the medieval era had it correct.

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.
your charming adherance to traditionalism is nicely complimented by your adorable lack of understanding of natural selection. bravo.

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.

Ive been hit on by gay men several times and it freaks the piss out of me, mostly cause I am getting hit on by a guy, if it was a smart, good personality woman things would be different, mostly a "Damn I wish gays wouldnt hit on me" kind of thing.
most smart, good personality women probably feel the same about you hitting on them

its like...putting yourself in the position of the women when she has to reject people she isnt attracted to, no?

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.

Ive been hit on by gay men several times and it freaks the piss out of me, mostly cause I am getting hit on by a guy, if it was a smart, good personality woman things would be different, mostly a "Damn I wish gays wouldnt hit on me" kind of thing.

And yes, this topic is crap, lets keep anything gay related where it belongs shall we, I believe the medieval era had it correct.
How you doin'? ;)

(C'mon, you were beggin' for it. I'm sure, if I saw a pic, you wouldn't stand a chance there, big guy).

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.


Are you stupid or just uneducated? Natural selection works with ideas too - or it does for humans anyway. More children will be born when people live in a stable society. Therefore, any pre-disposition towards ideas that benifit society in general will be passed on through evolution. Notice how mass sacrifice of children went out of fashion a few millenia ago? That's because societies which practiced it, DIED. Just like dinosaurs died.

In any case it's a moot point because it's BIsexuality that's a mind-set - actual pure homosexuality is a matter of chemical balance in the brain. Which is obviously genetic in some way, although they haven't worked out how yet.

Are you stupid or just uneducated? Natural selection works with ideas too - or it does for humans anyway. More children will be born when people live in a stable society. Therefore, any pre-disposition towards ideas that benifit society in general will be passed on through evolution. Notice how mass sacrifice of children went out of fashion a few millenia ago? That's because societies which practiced it, DIED. Just like dinosaurs died.

In any case it's a moot point because it's BIsexuality that's a mind-set - actual pure homosexuality is a matter of chemical balance in the brain. Which is obviously genetic in some way, although they haven't worked out how yet.


Yeah, definately a good point here.

Are you stupid or just uneducated? Natural selection works with ideas too - or it does for humans anyway. More children will be born when people live in a stable society. Therefore, any pre-disposition towards ideas that benifit society in general will be passed on through evolution. Notice how mass sacrifice of children went out of fashion a few millenia ago? That's because societies which practiced it, DIED. Just like dinosaurs died.

In any case it's a moot point because it's BIsexuality that's a mind-set - actual pure homosexuality is a matter of chemical balance in the brain. Which is obviously genetic in some way, although they haven't worked out how yet.

Societies that sacrificed their babies died due to supernatural intevention (in the form of the ancient Hebrews kicking major ass.)

If homosexuality was genetic, it would have been weeded out due to natural selection a long time ago, between all the purges, diseases, and executions. Plus the fact that homosexuality can NEVER reproduce itself in the form of procreation.

Gentlemen are for women only, let us get that straight first of all, secondly, natural selection only works on real things, homosexuality is a mind set, not a species.

Ive been hit on by gay men several times and it freaks the piss out of me, mostly cause I am getting hit on by a guy, if it was a smart, good personality woman things would be different, mostly a "Damn I wish gays wouldnt hit on me" kind of thing.

And yes, this topic is crap, lets keep anything gay related where it belongs shall we, I believe the medieval era had it correct.

If you were a smart woman with a good personality, you wouldn't say such drivel.

Societies that sacrificed their babies died due to supernatural intevention (in the form of the ancient Hebrews kicking major ass.)

If homosexuality was genetic, it would have been weeded out due to natural selection a long time ago, between all the purges, diseases, and executions. Plus the fact that homosexuality can NEVER reproduce itself in the form of procreation.


I could type paragraph after paragraph refuting this, but I'm feeling lazy. Let me just ask what credentials you have to talk about the genetics of homosexuality or how evolution might effect it?

Societies that sacrificed their babies died due to supernatural intevention (in the form of the ancient Hebrews kicking major ass.)

If homosexuality was genetic, it would have been weeded out due to natural selection a long time ago, between all the purges, diseases, and executions. Plus the fact that homosexuality can NEVER reproduce itself in the form of procreation.


Look there are alot of genetic problems that keep re-occuring. I could list a whole bunch. But to save time I'm sure your intelligent enough to think of a few.

Look there are alot of genetic problems that keep re-occuring. I could list a whole bunch. But to save time I'm sure your intelligent enough to think of a few.


I'm not saying you meant it was, but let's be clear that homosexuality is not a "genetic problem."

Whether or not it is genetic, homosexuality is not a flaw.

TWA, there are homosexual animals. They must make a "choice" of lifestyle too.

First, thanks to everyone for the explanations! Lots of conflicting essays on this topic....
Buko kudos to Pracus! :)


I'm not saying you meant it was, but let's be clear that homosexuality is not a "genetic problem."

Whether or not it is genetic, homosexuality is not a flaw.

TWA, there are homosexual animals. They must make a "choice" of lifestyle too.

n/o to you or anyone here, but isn't that more of an opinion than necessarily fact? (the part about it not being a flaw)

then again, forums are for views and questions and sometimes random topics, so pay me no mind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all of its students.”
“3 kinds of people: Those who can count & those who can't.”
“I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming, terrified, like his passengers.”

n/o to you or anyone here, but isn't that more of an opinion than necessarily fact? (the part about it not being a flaw)

then again, forums are for views and questions and sometimes random topics, so pay me no mind.

I think in terms of nature it would be considered a flaw. It would certainly be detrimental to the prolonging of the species.

But considering that we are a rational people brought together by social contract, not by mating habits, there is absolutely no reason to look at homosexuality as a flaw anymore.

Few gay people want "special rights". I am heterosexual, and I have the right to be married to my wife. It's not special; it's a right. If two adults want to be married, it's their right. End of story.

I live about a block from "Boystown" in Chicago. Most don't make a big deal out of it, in my experience. They tend to live in places where nobody really cares, anyway. Most just want to live their lives as they see fit. Yes, being gay is an issue that many people have to deal with. People are hated, even disowned because of it. So, the process of "coming out of the closet" is just a wee bit different than the process I went through when I started to date women.

Anyway, I'm quite "open" about the fact that I'm heterosexual (my wedding was announced in several newspapers, and I've certainly been known to hold hands, kiss, etc in public) and nobody makes a big deal out of it or cares. So what's the fuss?

I think in terms of nature it would be considered a flaw. It would certainly be detrimental to the prolonging of the species.

But considering that we are a rational people brought together by social contract, not by mating habits, there is absolutely no reason to look at homosexuality as a flaw anymore.

Sometimes things are done to promote the survival of a group. People who are old and beyond the age of childbearing are preserved in human social groups - it gives a survival advantage to the group because of preserved knowledge.

Homosexuality is a good way to have natural birth control - to keep a lid on the overall population of the group. Probably a survival adaptation.

Even closed minded atheists.
Yes I think that would come under "of all kinds".

Sometimes things are done to promote the survival of a group. People who are old and beyond the age of childbearing are preserved in human social groups - it gives a survival advantage to the group because of preserved knowledge.

Homosexuality is a good way to have natural birth control - to keep a lid on the overall population of the group. Probably a survival adaptation.

That could be true, I am neither a biologist nor an archeologist, so I do not know.

The point of my post though, is that defining humans by natural terms is obsolete and invalid and homosexuality is not a flaw by societal terms.

I'm not saying you meant it was, but let's be clear that homosexuality is not a "genetic problem."

Whether or not it is genetic, homosexuality is not a flaw.

TWA, there are homosexual animals. They must make a "choice" of lifestyle too.


If you wan't to say that people are homosexual by birth. Which I do believe this to be true. Humans by design are not made to mate with the same sex. I'm sorry this can't be argued. I am 100% for equal and fair rights for all. Don't mistaken that. But the fact is that it is not normal for this behavior. Call it chemical inbalance or genetic flaw. I know they are different things. But we don't know for sure what it is that makes one this way.

Now there are situations that are a "Choice" those are the people that I would call bi-sexual for the most part. My gay cousin for example doesn't want anything to do with women. He told me he strictly likes men. He is the reason I believe people are born with this. He has been gay his whole life. He didn't make a "Choice". I know I'm going to get arguements to persuade a different view. Go for it. But this is what I believe because in my life this is my experience. I haved lived a long life too.

If you wan't to say that people are homosexual by birth. Which I do believe this to be true. Humans by design are not made to mate with the same sex. I'm sorry this can't be argued. I am 100% for equal and fair rights for all. Don't mistaken that. But the fact is that it is not normal for this behavior. Call it chemical inbalance or genetic flaw. I know they are different things. But we don't know for sure what it is that makes one this way.

Now there are situations that are a "Choice" those are the people that I would call bi-sexual for the most part. My gay cousin for example doesn't want anything to do with women. He told me he strictly likes men. He is the reason I believe people are born with this. He has been gay his whole life. He didn't make a "Choice". I know I'm going to get arguements to persuade a different view. Go for it. But this is what I believe because in my life this is my experience. I haved lived a long life too.

But the idea of "normal" is vague. Who decides what's normal? Human beings weren't "designed" to drive cars, or go on the internet, or build houses, or wear clothes, and all these things are normal.

But the idea of "normal" is vague. Who decides what's normal? Human beings weren't "designed" to drive cars, or go on the internet, or build houses, or wear clothes, and all these things are normal.


Ok, fair enough. When I meant normal. I meant is human designed sexuality. Not thought patterns or anything like that. The sexual orientation is hard wired in all animals.

But the idea of "normal" is vague. Who decides what's normal? Human beings weren't "designed" to drive cars, or go on the internet, or build houses, or wear clothes, and all these things are normal.

Well, normal can be loosely defined as an adjective which describes the behavior of the majority, as such, since most of the world is Heterosexual, being Homosexual is not normal; 8 years ago, having the internet would not be normal, now it is, at least in my locality.

Well, normal can be loosely defined as an adjective which describes the behavior of the majority, as such, since most of the world is Heterosexual, being Homosexual is not normal; 8 years ago, having the internet would not be normal, now it is, at least in my locality.

Driving cars shouldn't be normal. Our ecosystem can never sustain the prolonged use of cars. I'm hoping the oil runs out soon so there will be big wars and whoever's left can all go back to walking and riding bikes.

P.S. Just in case anybody should see me driving to work someday, I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, just making a statement.

HAH! The white male heterosexual christian is the most discriminated against demographic in all of america. I spent 2 years looking for a job and 3 seperate employers told me I was just as qualified as the black guy the muslim and the lesbian who got those jobs, but that they wouldn't hire me because of fear they would be sued for discrimination. If thats not enough read Hating Whitey and other progressive causes by David Horowitz.

Well, normal can be loosely defined as an adjective which describes the behavior of the majority, as such, since most of the world is Heterosexual, being Homosexual is not normal; 8 years ago, having the internet would not be normal, now it is, at least in my locality.

Actually you are confusing the norm (which is the statistical state of being part of the majority) with being normal--something that has yet to truly be defined and instead exists in this nebulous state of what we all think is "normal". For instant, I consider people with blue eyes to be normal--but having blue eyes is not the norm.

HAH! The white male heterosexual christian is the most discriminated against demographic in all of america. I spent 2 years looking for a job and 3 seperate employers told me I was just as qualified as the black guy the muslim and the lesbian who got those jobs, but that they wouldn't hire me because of fear they would be sued for discrimination. If thats not enough read Hating Whitey and other progressive causes by David Horowitz.

The poor white Christian--they have all the money and all the power, yet they are so picked on.

And for the record--I'm against affirmative action of all kinds. I believe that we should all make it on our own merit. However, let me assure you that compared to what gay people, women, blacks, muslims, jews, etc. go through on a daily basis, the white man isn't discriminated against.

HAH! The white male heterosexual christian is the most discriminated against demographic in all of america. I spent 2 years looking for a job and 3 seperate employers told me I was just as qualified as the black guy the muslim and the lesbian who got those jobs, but that they wouldn't hire me because of fear they would be sued for discrimination. If thats not enough read Hating Whitey and other progressive causes by David Horowitz.

This is highly unlikely and, if true, would be illegal. Unlike homosexuals in most states, you cannot be legally discriminated against because you are white, male, or Christian. So, in what state were you told you weren't hired because a lesbian would sue?

I'm surprised any employer would be stupid enough to tell you what you claim. If they did, they admitted a violation of state and federal laws.

Regardless, you claim is stastically absurd. Whites, males, and Christians do suffer from occasional discrimination, but it is stastically nonexistent compared to discrimination against minorities and women.

And don't get me started on that disgace to humanity that is David Horowitz.

The poor white Christian--they have all the money and all the power, yet they are so picked on.

And for the record--I'm against affirmative action of all kinds. I believe that we should all make it on our own merit. However, let me assure you that compared to what gay people, women, blacks, muslims, jews, etc. go through on a daily basis, the white man isn't discriminated against.


Look, I personally don't wan't to get in a pissing contest on who gets discriminated more than the next group. I see levels of discrimination against every level of society. Now some more than others. But an arguement for discrimination can be presented for whomever you are.

Look, I personally don't wan't to get in a pissing contest on who gets discriminated more than the next group. I see levels of discrimination against every level of society. Now some more than others. But an arguement for discrimination can be presented for whomever you are.


I agree. But straight white christians are hardly the most discriminated against group and no argument will convince me they are. I lived life for years (publicly) as a straight white christian. . .and received no discrimination.

I agree. But straight white christians are hardly the most discriminated against group and no argument will convince me they are. I lived life for years (publicly) as a straight white christian. . .and received no discrimination.


Did you say Christian and nothing of note on discrimination? Well I am sure I could think of many. Just google it for some examples. But glad to hear you haven't knowingly been discriminated against. Maybe there is hope.

Did you say Christian and nothing of note on discrimination? Well I am sure I could think of many. Just google it for some examples. But glad to hear you haven't knowingly been discriminated against. Maybe there is hope.

Nope, Christians control America. I was never discriminated against when I was. Now, once I came out and became a secular humanist--in rolled the crap.

Nope, Christians control America. I was never discriminated against when I was. Now, once I came out and became a secular humanist--in rolled the crap.

Well let me throw out just a few Christian discrimination problems around where I live in the state of Washington. Last year there was a big flap on Christmas tree's in public Library's. There is a nation wide issue with celebrating Christmas and Easter in schools. Ten Commandments, "God" in pledge of allegiance. These things have been ingrained in American society since the colonies. This is discimination. I have an issue with these even though I myself am not a Christian. It is a movement against religion as a whole. Which I find wrong.

Well let me throw out just a few Christian discrimination problems around where I live in the state of Washington. Last year there was a big flap on Christmas tree's in public Library's. There is a nation wide issue with celebrating Christmas and Easter in schools. Ten Commandments, "God" in pledge of allegiance. These things have been ingrained in American society since the colonies. This is discimination. I have an issue with these even though I myself am not a Christian. It is a movement against religion as a whole. Which I find wrong.

That is not discrimination. That is people finally saying that Christians do not get to hold a hegemony over our public buildings and schools. There is a separation of church and state in our country--governmental buildings and government funded groups do not get to in any way promote one faith. Banning a Christmas tree from a public library also means that Kwanzaa candles and Mennorah's are banned.

And let's have a history lesson on the Pledge shall we? When it was written in the late 1800s, it didn't include the "one nation under God" phrase. That was added during the 1950-60s as a response to Soviety atheism.

Further, celebrating Easter and Christmas in public schools is discimination against other religions. You don't celebrate Hannukah and or Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashannah there do you? Face it, the government not being able to actively PROMOTE Christianity is not the same thing as discimination against Christianity.

That is not discrimination. That is people finally saying that Christians do not get to hold a hegemony over our public buildings and schools. There is a separation of church and state in our country--governmental buildings and government funded groups do not get to in any way promote one faith. Banning a Christmas tree from a public library also means that Kwanzaa candles and Mennorah's are banned.

And let's have a history lesson on the Pledge shall we? When it was written in the late 1800s, it didn't include the "one nation under God" phrase. That was added during the 1950-60s as a response to Soviety atheism.

Further, celebrating Easter and Christmas in public schools is discimination against other religions. You don't celebrate Hannukah and or Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashannah there do you? Face it, the government not being able to actively PROMOTE Christianity is not the same thing as discimination against Christianity.


Yes this is discrimination. You won't convince me otherwise. If you tell a group of people that is in the majority that they can't celebrate there customs because of the minority. Then that is discrimination. If you don't want to see it as that then fine. But I can tell you that the majority of Americans find this outrageous. Christiananity is first. If I don't fight along side them for there rights to practice. And this is an Christian nation. Like it or not. I myself and my religion will be affected. It's a domino effect. Check the constitution and tell me how many times they refer to a higher power. This isn't something invented with the past 50-100 years in this nation.

Yes this is discrimination. You won't convince me otherwise. If you tell a group of people that is in the majority that they can't celebrate there customs because of the minority. Then that is discrimination. If you don't want to see it as that then fine. But I can tell you that the majority of Americans find this outrageous. Christiananity is first. If I don't fight along side them for there rights to practice. And this is an Christian nation. Like it or not. I myself and my religion will be affected. It's a domino effect. Check the constitution and tell me how many times they refer to a higher power. This isn't something invented with the past 50-100 years in this nation.

It's only discrimination if they don't let you use public places but they let other religions do so. Perhaps you should do some vocabulary work. While you are at it, you should take a government class--there is no reference to a higher power anywhere in the Consitution. The word God isn't used, the word Jesus certainly isn't used, and Christianity is never referenced.

It's only discrimination if they don't let you use public places but they let other religions do so. Perhaps you should do some vocabulary work. While you are at it, you should take a government class--there is no reference to a higher power anywhere in the Consitution. The word God isn't used, the word Jesus certainly isn't used, and Christianity is never referenced.

Ok, maybe I didn't make the whole situation clear. They allowed Kwanza and Ramadan themed decorations and information in the libraries last year. Then said that Christmas trees were banned.


Apologize on my error of saying the constitution says "God". What I meant to say is the Declaration of Independence. Which is the first document of the "official" United States.

Ok, maybe I didn't make the whole situation clear. They allowed Kwanza and Ramadan themed decorations and information in the libraries last year. Then said that Christmas trees were banned.

Then yes, this is discimination. However, this is certainly not the most common kind and certainly does not occur as often as discimination against other groups. Further--and I'm not accusing you of this, but take it as you will--I typically find that when Christians say they are being discriminated against, they typically bend the truth. I don't know if that is happening now or not.


Apologize on my error of saying the constitution says "God". What I meant to say is the Declaration of Independence. Which is the first document of the "official" United States.

The Declaration of Independance has no legal standing. Further, it has nothing to do with the US. It was pre-US. It had to do with the separation of the 13 coloines from Great Britain. It refernces those colonies--but not the USA. The US wasn't founded until some years after the Revolutionary War. First we had a Confederacy (RE Articles of Confederation) which did not work because each of the states was essentially a separate nation. It was only years later (fifteen maybe though I'm not sure on the date) that the Consitution was written to give us a strong central federal government.

If beyond that, you want further proof that we are NOT founded as a Christian nation, look up the Treaty of Tripoli.

The Declaration of Independance has no legal standing. Further, it has nothing to do with the US. It was pre-US. It had to do with the separation of the 13 coloines from Great Britain. It refernces those colonies--but not the USA. The US wasn't founded until some years after the Revolutionary War. First we had a Confederacy (RE Articles of Confederation) which did not work because each of the states was essentially a separate nation. It was only years later (fifteen maybe though I'm not sure on the date) that the Consitution was written to give us a strong central federal government.

If beyond that, you want further proof that we are NOT founded as a Christian nation, look up the Treaty of Tripoli.

Look you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't happen to share it. Declaration in 1776 seperated US from England. Hence creating a seperate nation in America. I disagree with above mentioned. 1789 is the date you were looking for btw. I believe this is the date. Anyway been interesting, will pick it up tomorrow.

Look you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't happen to share it. Declaration in 1776 seperated US from England. Hence creating a seperate nation in America. I disagree with above mentioned. 1789 is the date you were looking for btw. I believe this is the date. Anyway been interesting, will pick it up tomorrow.

It's not an opinion dude. It's a fact. The Declaration of Independance did NOT create this nation and has NO standing in our legal system. This isn't a difficult concept. Further, even if it DID, it does not specify Christianity but just references a Creator--there is NO basis to say we were founded as a Christian nation or that our government is predacated upon Christian beliefs.

It's not an opinion dude. It's a fact. The Declaration of Independance did NOT create this nation and has NO standing in our legal system. This isn't a difficult concept. Further, even if it DID, it does not specify Christianity but just references a Creator--there is NO basis to say we were founded as a Christian nation or that our government is predacated upon Christian beliefs.

Yet I believe your still wrong. Declaration did create the seperate nation of the United States. If you don't think so you smokin. As far as legal standing. It isn't the constitution. Your right. The mention of God in there implies the Christian God that most people of the colonies worshiped.

Yet I believe your still wrong. Declaration did create the seperate nation of the United States. If you don't think so you smokin. As far as legal standing. It isn't the constitution. Your right. The mention of God in there implies the Christian God that most people of the colonies worshiped.

Then why not say that? And no, the Declaration created Separate colonies. The Consitution YEARS LATER created the USA.

Then why not say that? And no, the Declaration created Separate colonies. The Consitution YEARS LATER created the USA.

All the Declaration did was tell the King of England to f*ck off. It declared war, not create a country.

Then why not say that? And no, the Declaration created Separate colonies. The Consitution YEARS LATER created the USA.

The yelling is so much fun though. Here is a link to the said Declaration of Independence. The United States was a multi document process. This is the first. Constitution 2nd and finally the Bill of Rights is what makes us today. But the first clearly defines the United States in name and color.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

The yelling is so much fun though. Here is a link to the said Declaration of Independence. The United States was a multi document process. This is the first. Constitution 2nd and finally the Bill of Rights is what makes us today. But the first clearly defines the United States in name and color.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

I stand partly corrected. However I do not yield that we were founded as a Christian nation. If we were the Consitution would've spelled it out.

And the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

ADDITION:

Actually no. I just read more--"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States:

It seems to me that by united states, the writers meant that the thirteen colonies were as states--meaning nations--and that they were united in their division. The fact that the writers say they think the colonies should be free and independant states says that they did not consider them one nation--but thirteen separate ones. That there words were used later to name a nation shoudl not imply that they were attempting to found a single nation.

I think then it is a matter of opinion. Which you are entitled to 100%. Constitution was 1787, Bill of Rights added 1789.

I think then it is a matter of opinion. Which you are entitled to 100%. Constitution was 1787, Bill of Rights added 1789.


Go back and read my addition. But the bill of rights are amendments to the Consitution and therefore a part of it.

Go back and read my addition. But the bill of rights are amendments to the Consitution and therefore a part of it.

No disagreement here.

Where I live, the colonies were considered a united whole before the Articles of Confederation- its recognition by the world *or at least other nations* as such *the United States* was one of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris 1783...

It may be inferred that we were originally a Christian nation, but I'm not very sure on that.

Sry if you've already seen this-

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled......"- DoI
I guess the states were free and independent but still, we were considered the USA already *at least by ourselves- the rest of the world acknowledged it later, as i said above* :p

Yes this is discrimination. You won't convince me otherwise. If you tell a group of people that is in the majority that they can't celebrate there customs because of the minority. Then that is discrimination. If you don't want to see it as that then fine. But I can tell you that the majority of Americans find this outrageous. Christiananity is first. If I don't fight along side them for there rights to practice. And this is an Christian nation. Like it or not. I myself and my religion will be affected. It's a domino effect. Check the constitution and tell me how many times they refer to a higher power. This isn't something invented with the past 50-100 years in this nation.

If we can't convince you otherwise regardless of the truth, then no point in trying.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between individuals or groups "celebrat[ing] there customs" as individuals and groups separate from government and using the power of government to aid a religion. You will have no objection then to your tax dollars funding mosques and synagogues.

You've already recognized your common but serious error in confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Where does the DofI mention "God"? It doesn't, does it?

If we can't convince you otherwise regardless of the truth, then no point in trying.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between individuals or groups "celebrat[ing] there customs" as individuals and groups separate from government and using the power of government to aid a religion. You will have no objection then to your tax dollars funding mosques and synagogues.

You've already recognized your common but serious error in confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Where does the DofI mention "God"? It doesn't, does it?
You can't convince me because what I know is the truth. You are assuming that it isn't in the above statement. Read the Federalist papers. All sorts of mentions of the almighty also known as God.

Look the confusion of the Constitution and Declaration was a gramatical error late at night. It wasn't due to a lack of knowledge. I actually have a history degree from an accredited univ.


Declaration of Independence says "God" and "creator" in it. The first couple paragraphs.

You can't convince me because what I know is the truth. You are assuming that it isn't in the above statement. Read the Federalist papers. All sorts of mentions of the almighty also known as God.

Look the confusion of the Constitution and Declaration was a gramatical error late at night. It wasn't due to a lack of knowledge. I actually have a history degree from an accredited univ.


Declaration of Independence says "God" and "creator" in it. The first couple paragraphs.

I stand corrected --sort of. It says "Nature's God."

You appear to equate "Nature's God" and "Creator" with a Christian God. Many of the authors and signers of the Declaration did not.

You've now moved from the Constitution to the Declaration to the Federalist Papers. Talk about bait-and-switch.

Regardless, you find scanty support for your position. There are 85 essays written by 3 different authors that make up The Federalist Papers. In all that discussion, there are a few references to Providence, one reference I know of to an Almighty hand, and one reference to "nature's God." Pretty slim for a Christian nation -- particularly considering that The Federalist Papers were intended as popular editorials to drum up support for the Consitution.

The Constitution is the legal document that governs our nation. That it makes no reference to any higher power is telling to your argument.

Most importantly, whether or not as a matter of history the nation has ever been a "Christian nation" is irrelevant. The First Amendment clearly divides the religious sphere from the government sphere. --And that was the undeniable intent of the authors.

Been reading the last part of this post between the Author and various others. I think Marrakech is correct. There is ample proof of religious indications in the Declaration and what it says quit alot in the Federalist papers. It is clear to me and alot of fellow Christians that religion meant alot in the founding of this nation. Since the predominate religion in these United States at the time was Christiananity. Still is today as a matter of fact. I find it absured that people try to argue this point. I believe people that do are either ill informed or revisionist historians. But you cannot dispute written fact from that time period.

Been reading the last part of this post between the Author and various others. I think Marrakech is correct. There is ample proof of religious indications in the Declaration and what it says quit alot in the Federalist papers. It is clear to me and alot of fellow Christians that religion meant alot in the founding of this nation. Since the predominate religion in these United States at the time was Christiananity. Still is today as a matter of fact. I find it absured that people try to argue this point. I believe people that do are either ill informed or revisionist historians. But you cannot dispute written fact from that time period.

Sorry, but neither ill informed nor revisionist. I would suggest those adjectives apply to your view. And I find it absurd that you would argue the point.

Granted the majority religion at the time and now is "Christianity" (overlooking the deep divide then and now as to who and who is not Christian). So?

We have and are supposed to have a secular government. Religion is separate from government and vice versa. That is the purpose of the First Amendment. Religion prospers in the US precisely because of this separation of Church and State -- just as was intended.

As to the written record:

1. The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

2. The Declaration of Independence was issued 11 years before the Constitution, is not a governing charter, and includes no reference at all to Christianity. The religious references in the Declaration are unmistakably deistic: it's clear that the references are not to the revealed God of Christianity. The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

3. I've already noted there is next to nothing in The Federalist Papers referring to religion. The handful of references to a higher power are not to "God." If, as you assert, the authors were in support of a Christian government there would be at least one mention of that.

4. You might check out the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm) (1796) emphasis added):

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

EDIT: I might add that most major religious organizations in the United States have expressly supported the separation of church and state and have participated in major cases on the side of religious freedom.

Cat-

I think from how you post you are an intelligent person. You should realise that most treaties from the 18th Century through the 19th are not worth the paper they are written on. Will give Indian treaties as an example from the American frontier. Now if I were a negotiator from that time. I was told by my president to negotiate so that the US would not be charged the fees as other European powers of the time for passage. I would specifically distance myself from European powers. Saying that the US was not a Christian nation would be a good way. Especially since they were dealing with the Muslim Barbary states. Makes sense to me. Although the US was 99% Christian dominated at the time. Hmmmm....

Cat-

I think from how you post you are an intelligent person. You should realise that most treaties from the 18th Century through the 19th are not worth the paper they are written on. Will give Indian treaties as an example from the American frontier. Now if I were a negotiator from that time. I was told by my president to negotiate so that the US would not be charged the fees as other European powers of the time for passage. I would specifically distance myself from European powers. Saying that the US was not a Christian nation would be a good way. Especially since they were dealing with the Muslim Barbary states. Makes sense to me. Although the US was 99% Christian dominated at the time. Hmmmm....

So, your explanation is that the Founders lied at the time. It wasn't just a single diplomat. The treaty was negotiated under President George Washington. Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams. It was read aloud on the floor of the Senate. It was then ratified by a unanimous Senate. It was only the third time in US history a recorded vote was unanimous.

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual:

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

The treaty and Adams statement was reprinted in full in at least three of the largest newspapers at the time, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any outcry or public dissent.

I am well aware the US has dishonored many treaties. It is a sad legacy. Do you contend we intentionally lied as a routine matter in treaties? Do you have any basis for asserting we violated this particular treaty?

I haven't overlooked that you've skipped responding to anything else.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled......"- DoI
I guess the states were free and independent but still, we were considered the USA already *at least by ourselves- the rest of the world acknowledged it later, as i said above* :p

And then it later says the thirteen colonies should be independant nationS. Note the S. You can interpret that by saying united states they meant independant states united in their deserve of indepdance from Britain. However, you can't interpret away that the DoI says that they colonies should be independant nations.

I stand corrected --sort of. It says "Nature's God."

You appear to equate "Nature's God" and "Creator" with a Christian God. Many of the authors and signers of the Declaration did not.

You've now moved from the Constitution to the Declaration to the Federalist Papers. Talk about bait-and-switch.

Regardless, you find scanty support for your position. There are 85 essays written by 3 different authors that make up The Federalist Papers. In all that discussion, there are a few references to Providence, one reference I know of to an Almighty hand, and one reference to "nature's God." Pretty slim for a Christian nation -- particularly considering that The Federalist Papers were intended as popular editorials to drum up support for the Consitution.

The Constitution is the legal document that governs our nation. That it makes no reference to any higher power is telling to your argument.

Most importantly, whether or not as a matter of history the nation has ever been a "Christian nation" is irrelevant. The First Amendment clearly divides the religious sphere from the government sphere. --And that was the undeniable intent of the authors.


And let's go ahead and throw out the Treaty of Tripoli again. It specifically says we were not founded in any way upon Christian belief. That treaty was ratified under Washington and signed into law by Adams.

Been reading the last part of this post between the Author and various others. I think Marrakech is correct. There is ample proof of religious indications in the Declaration and what it says quit alot in the Federalist papers. It is clear to me and alot of fellow Christians that religion meant alot in the founding of this nation. Since the predominate religion in these United States at the time was Christiananity. Still is today as a matter of fact. I find it absured that people try to argue this point. I believe people that do are either ill informed or revisionist historians. But you cannot dispute written fact from that time period.

The only revisionist historians are those who are trying to put god into the Consitution or make us into a Christian nation isntead of a nation of Christians. There *IS* a difference. I also continue to submit the treaty of Tripoli--a legal document that is the law of the land that was approved during the early era of the nation when the Founding Fathers were actually running the country.

The only revisionist historians are those who are trying to put god into the Consitution or make us into a Christian nation isntead of a nation of Christians. There *IS* a difference. I also continue to submit the treaty of Tripoli--a legal document that is the law of the land that was approved during the early era of the nation when the Founding Fathers were actually running the country.

Who cares about the Treaty of Tripoli? Those "Founding Fathers" of Jesusland made a number of rather scathing statements regarding Christianity.

The only revisionist historians are those who are trying to put god into the Consitution or make us into a Christian nation isntead of a nation of Christians. There *IS* a difference. I also continue to submit the treaty of Tripoli--a legal document that is the law of the land that was approved during the early era of the nation when the Founding Fathers were actually running the country.

First of all, as we've already established multiple times, the Treaty of Tripoli was ONLY a foreign policy document. Then, as now, we (the US) had to smooth things over by saying that we were not waging a holy war against Muslims. Ironically, the Barbary pirates were the historic equivalent of terrorists - but that is really straying far from the original point anyway.

The original point that Marrakech was making is that Christians are allegedly discriminated against, because despite the First Amendment protections they still are not allowed to practice their faith in public. And I think most of the people on here are not so brainwashed as to say that Christians are never discriminated against.

We really don't have that much to complain about here in the US as compared to other countries where you can be killed for being a Christian. Course, the way things are going, you can't be so sure anymore...

First of all, as we've already established multiple times, the Treaty of Tripoli was ONLY a foreign policy document. Then, as now, we (the US) had to smooth things over by saying that we were not waging a holy war against Muslims. Ironically, the Barbary pirates were the historic equivalent of terrorists - but that is really straying far from the original point anyway.

The original point that Marrakech was making is that Christians are allegedly discriminated against, because despite the First Amendment protections they still are not allowed to practice their faith in public. And I think most of the people on here are not so brainwashed as to say that Christians are never discriminated against.

We really don't have that much to complain about here in the US as compared to other countries where you can be killed for being a Christian. Course, the way things are going, you can't be so sure anymore...

Chistians "are not allowed to practice their faith in public" in the US.

That is so bizarre that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Who cares about the Treaty of Tripoli? Those "Founding Fathers" of Jesusland made a number of rather scathing statements regarding Christianity.

I care about it. People like to claim that this was founded as a Christian nation. It wasn't. That treaty is part of the proof. Treaties become part of the law of the land and therefore have standing legally in this country.

Chistians "are not allowed to practice their faith in public" in the US.

That is so bizarre that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


I agree with Cat. How many churches are there? Cathedrals? Most states NOW have a law against gay marriage and somehow Christians can't practice their religion? Honey, the US is slowly becoming a nation of christianity, so either you're blind, or you're not watching TV, or you're greedy. If anything, those who are NOT christian are descriminated against.

I care about it. People like to claim that this was founded as a Christian nation. It wasn't. That treaty is part of the proof. Treaties become part of the law of the land and therefore have standing legally in this country.

If you read some of what Jefferson wrote, the Treaty of Tripoli isn't needed. ;)

First of all, as we've already established multiple times, the Treaty of Tripoli was ONLY a foreign policy document. Then, as now, we (the US) had to smooth things over by saying that we were not waging a holy war against Muslims. Ironically, the Barbary pirates were the historic equivalent of terrorists - but that is really straying far from the original point anyway.

Actually we haven't established that. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the fact that Treaties are LAW in this country.


The original point that Marrakech was making is that Christians are allegedly discriminated against, because despite the First Amendment protections they still are not allowed to practice their faith in public. And I think most of the people on here are not so brainwashed as to say that Christians are never discriminated against.

I didn't say they weren't disciriminated against, so don't put the words in my mouth that you wish were coming out of them. I said they aren't the MOST discriminated against. It''s the brainwashed who claim that.

And besides, the original point was that straight, white, Christian males are the most disciminated against group in America. We haven't seen any evidence offered on anything besides the Christian point--and frankly, the only evidence that has been offered shows that the Christians are mad that someone is challenging their hegemony over government property.

Further, who said Christians couldn't practice there faith in public? The statement was that public money and public property could not be used for thinly veiled Christian evagelism.


We really don't have that much to complain about here in the US as compared to other countries where you can be killed for being a Christian. Course, the way things are going, you can't be so sure anymore...

I have one word for this:

PUHLEASE!

If you read some of what Jefferson wrote, the Treaty of Tripoli isn't needed. ;)

While this might be true, it is easier to refute what Jefferson said (one person) than what a treaty says--an Ambassador, a Senate, and the President.

We really don't have that much to complain about here in the US as compared to other countries where you can be killed for being a Christian. Course, the way things are going, you can't be so sure anymore...


Now that makes me laugh. Your president is a fanatical Christian who can't keep his beliefs out of his politics...but yet somehow you're going to be killed for being a christian. Hmmm.....if anything, we pagans....we have more to worry about, though not physically killed, our rights are being taken away because we don't bow down to Jesus.

First of all, as we've already established multiple times, the Treaty of Tripoli was ONLY a foreign policy document. *snip*

:rolleyes: You might check out Article IV of the Constitution. Treaties are the law of the land -- second only to the Constitution itself.

I find myself posting less and lurking more, just so I can watch The Cat in action. :fluffle:

I find myself posting less and lurking more, just so I can watch The Cat in action. :fluffle:

I have less gray hair now that he is posting.

Cat, are you a lawyer, a legal genius, or just my future boyfriend? ;)

I find myself posting less and lurking more, just so I can watch The Cat in action. :fluffle:

I have less gray hair now that he is posting.

Cat, are you a lawyer, a legal genius, or just my future boyfriend? ;)

Wow, I'm blushing. :cool: Especially given some of the things that were said about me earlier today, this means a lot to me. Thanks.

I have the greatest respect and appreciation of both of you as well. :fluffle:

Pracus, at least 2 out of three. ;) :D

Wow, I'm blushing. :cool: Especially given some of the things that were said about me earlier today, this means a lot to me. Thanks.

I have the greatest respect and appreciation of both of you as well. :fluffle:

Pracus, at least 2 out of three. ;) :D

Jerk. You could've told me which two out of three ;)

:rolleyes: You might check out Article IV of the Constitution. Treaties are the law of the land -- second only to the Constitution itself.

I highly doubt we have bothered to follow the Treaty of Tripoli to the letter for the last two centuries - namely, because the entities which we 'treatised' with don't exist anymore. Since it addressed a specific foreign policy circumstance, I think it is less relevant now that the world playing field has changed (again and again and again.)

However, I'm not trying to prove anything. I just feel that back-n-forth over what the Constitution/Declaration/Federation says yada yada is tangential to the original discussion (of modern religious freedom). I could be wrong, but so far all I have seen is leashed dogs yelping at each other across the yard.

I highly doubt we have bothered to follow the Treaty of Tripoli to the letter for the last two centuries - namely, because the entities which we 'treatised' with don't exist anymore. Since it addressed a specific foreign policy circumstance, I think it is less relevant now that the world playing field has changed (again and again and again.)

The whole point of the Treaty of Tripoli was to express that our country was not founded as a Christian nation. That part of it is still relevant today because no matter how much you might pray otherwise, the fact will never change that we were not founded as a Christian nation.


However, I'm not trying to prove anything. I just feel that back-n-forth over what the Constitution/Declaration/Federation says yada yada is tangential to the original discussion (of modern religious freedom). I could be wrong, but so far all I have seen is leashed dogs yelping at each other across the yard.

Actually, had you really concerned yourself with several of our responses, you would see that we hold that it is not a violation of your religious freedom to not be able to use government property and money to evangelize or practice your religion.

I highly doubt we have bothered to follow the Treaty of Tripoli to the letter for the last two centuries - namely, because the entities which we 'treatised' with don't exist anymore. Since it addressed a specific foreign policy circumstance, I think it is less relevant now that the world playing field has changed (again and again and again.)

However, I'm not trying to prove anything. I just feel that back-n-forth over what the Constitution/Declaration/Federation says yada yada is tangential to the original discussion (of modern religious freedom). I could be wrong, but so far all I have seen is leashed dogs yelping at each other across the yard.

Modern religious freedom is protected by the wall of separation of Church and State. I'm defending that freedom against those that would breach the wall in the name of a "Christian nation."

Perhaps you missed the declarations that "we are a Christian nation" and that the Constitution should be interpreted to support Christianity. If others would stop asserting that the documents we've discussed support that view, we would have no need to argue it.

As to the Treaty, you seem to miss the point. It is evidence refuting the view that the Founders thought we were a "Christian nation" or had a Christian government. Whether or not we still follow the Treaty (and it has expired), the Constitution hasn't changed to embrace the establishment of religion.

Jerk. You could've told me which two out of three ;)

:D

I am a lawyer. Perhaps the other two are matters of your judgment. ;) :D

The whole point of the Treaty of Tripoli was to express that our country was not founded as a Christian nation. That part of it is still relevant today because no matter how much you might pray otherwise, the fact will never change that we were not founded as a Christian nation.


The whole point of the Treaty of Tripoli was to establish a Treaty with Tripoli. There is ONE reference to religion. Out of a 4-5 page foreign policy document. If you really want to prove the U.S. is a secular nation, pick something more modern. Like the Scopes trial.

Trying to establish a definite meaning for these other "founding" documents is tenuous (at best) from a modern standpoint. BOTH sides, including the religious people, inject way too much meaning into things. It simply was much more commonplace back then to say things in document like "a great Creator" or "the preservation of the Almighty" etc.

The whole point of the Treaty of Tripoli was to establish a Treaty with Tripoli. There is ONE reference to religion. Out of a 4-5 page foreign policy document. If you really want to prove the U.S. is a secular nation, pick something more modern. Like the Scopes trial.

Allow to rephrase my poor choice of words. The whole point of our CITING the treaty of Tripoli. . . . .kind of change sthe meaning of what I was saying.


Trying to establish a definite meaning for these other "founding" documents is tenuous (at best) from a modern standpoint. BOTH sides, including the religious people, inject way too much meaning into things. It simply was much more commonplace back then to say things in document like "a great Creator" or "the preservation of the Almighty" etc.

I fail to see how I can inject meaning into the treaty of Tripoli that isn't there. It is expressly stated that the US is in no sense founded upon Christian beliefs.

I also see that you haven't responded to what we were saying about Christians not being discriminated against. You have repeatedly implied we should stop talking about the Treaty of Tripoli and go back to the original statement about straight, white, christian, males being the most disciminated against. . .but you keep right on the with the Treaty of Tripoli and never respond to the statements that Christians are not the most maligned group in the country.

:D

I am a lawyer. Perhaps the other two are matters of your judgment. ;) :D

Well, since you are on the other end of the country, I guess I will just have to assume that you are a legal genius.

Though I must admit, a lawyer and a doctor would be a good combination.

The whole point of the Treaty of Tripoli was to establish a Treaty with Tripoli. There is ONE reference to religion. Out of a 4-5 page foreign policy document. If you really want to prove the U.S. is a secular nation, pick something more modern. Like the Scopes trial.

Trying to establish a definite meaning for these other "founding" documents is tenuous (at best) from a modern standpoint. BOTH sides, including the religious people, inject way too much meaning into things. It simply was much more commonplace back then to say things in document like "a great Creator" or "the preservation of the Almighty" etc.

<sigh>

Nice try, but the Treaty was 1 page. Here it is (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=340) in the Congressional Record.

And you are still missing the point. The original copy of the Constitution may be 230 years old, but it is the modern living contract governing our nation. It is (a) completely secular and (b) declares that government must be kept secular.

A few try to argue based on history that the Constitution was meant to allow for the establishment of Christianity. You are correct that is a silly thing to argue.

The Daily Telegraph? Tabloid? What planet do you live on. Okay, so it's the Daily Torygraph, I'll give you that, but it's still a class above The Sun, Daily Mail, et al.

I think he means The Daily Telegraph from Australia, which really is tabloid crap

I think he means The Daily Telegraph from Australia, which really is tabloid crap
Yep only thing good in australia is The Australian and Sunday Telegraph's Good Weekend, news, and once icons lol. Only once.

<snip>
A few try to argue based on history that the Constitution was meant to allow for the establishment of Christianity. You are correct that is a silly thing to argue.

Article 11 was a miniscule part of a much larger document: Allow me to quote from David Barton:

The following is an excerpt from David’s book Original Intent:

To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God;1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible;2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.)

Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym.4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious.5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:



The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.GEORGE WASHINGTON


The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source.

That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States,7 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the five Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada9).

In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.10(Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates"—a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean.13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli,14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers,15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers,16 etc.).

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.17 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

Because Muslim nations were capturing and torturing Christian sailors for the profession of their faith. The Treaty was meant to defuse a potential jihad. It appears to have worked, for a while.

Article 11 was a miniscule part of a much larger document: Allow me to quote from David Barton:



Because Muslim nations were capturing and torturing Christian sailors for the profession of their faith. The Treaty was meant to defuse a potential jihad. It appears to have worked, for a while.

1. You clearly did not look at the document. It was pretty short - 1 page. 12 Articles.

2. Mr. Barton is a far from an objective source. He is a religious zealot who believes the Constitution enforces Christianity.

3. Your alleged "context" misses the point. The treaty says what it says. Are you saying President George Washington, President John Adams, and a unanimous Senate negotiated, signed, and ratified a deliberate blatant lie? And had it published in the largest papers in the land at the time, with no outcry?

You continue to miss the simple point that the Constitution is secular and provides for a secular government that does not interfere with religion. You offer no evidence to the contrary.

1. You clearly did not look at the document. It was pretty short - 1 page. 12 Articles.

Of which only one is even remotely pertinent to your argument.


2. Mr. Barton is a far from an objective source. He is a religious zealot who believes the Constitution enforces Christianity.

And yet, a scholar, who at least considers opposing viewpoints in order to intelligently refute them. I think I can safely assume from your ignorance of the content of the quote that you didn't bother to read it once you saw who it was written by.

3. Your alleged "context" misses the point. The treaty says what it says. Are you saying President George Washington, President John Adams, and a unanimous Senate negotiated, signed, and ratified a deliberate blatant lie? And had it published in the largest papers in the land at the time, with no outcry?


It certainly wouldn't be the first time our leaders have lied to a foreign country for political reasons. Not even GW is perfect.

Of which only one is even remotely pertinent to your argument.

And yet, a scholar, who at least considers opposing viewpoints in order to intelligently refute them. I think I can safely assume from your ignorance of the content of the quote that you didn't bother to read it once you saw who it was written by.


It certainly wouldn't be the first time our leaders have lied to a foreign country for political reasons. Not even GW is perfect.

This has gotten tedious. Yes, only 1 paragraph out of twelve directly states that the US government is not Christian. Body blow.

I did read the quote. I've even read some of Barton's work. He's a hack. But, more importantly, nothing in the quote changes anything.

It wasn't a simple lie. It was THE LAW OF THE LAND. See Article IV of the Constitution.

Given that you've presented not a single shred of affirmative evidence that our Constitution was intended to or does establish a Christian nation and you've at most tried to nitpick one piece of evidence that the Constitution is secular, just walk away. You're the one who keeps saying it shouldn't be argued about.

Given that you've presented not a single shred of affirmative evidence that our Constitution was intended to or does establish a Christian nation and you've at most tried to nitpick one piece of evidence that the Constitution is secular, just walk away. You're the one who keeps saying it shouldn't be argued about.

Well, I am sorry to have tired you out. But you should notice that I haven't presented any evidence to suggest that the U.S. is a Christian nation, because I don't believe it ever was. The leaders had their respective faiths (some of them were definitely Christian) and those faiths colored the language of our historic documents.

But I am sick of people using the Treaty of Tripoli to argue the other side's viewpoint. You as a lawyer should be able to see how thin it is, to suggest that a treaty which ended an international incident should be the answer to all questions of domestic religious liberty.

Well, I am sorry to have tired you out. But you should notice that I haven't presented any evidence to suggest that the U.S. is a Christian nation, because I don't believe it ever was. The leaders had their respective faiths (some of them were definitely Christian) and those faiths colored the language of our historic documents.

But I am sick of people using the Treaty of Tripoli to argue the other side's viewpoint. You as a lawyer should be able to see how thin it is, to suggest that a treaty which ended an international incident should be the answer to all questions of domestic religious liberty.

1. Why, for Bob's sake, have you been arguing then? Nevermind. I don't care.

2. No one here asserted the Treaty of Tripoli was "the answer to all questions of domestic religious liberty." It was one piece of evidence that the view that Founding Fathers intended to create a Christian government is ridiculous. You appear to agree. See #1.

Ok. I went back over the thread, to figure out how we got from there to here. Cat, you can respond to this or not as you choose. I gotta say, debating with a lawyer is tiring.

Chronology:
We were on the infringement of the religious rights of the majority.

A couple people said that the religious rights of the majority were never infringed.

In response, some people outlined discrimination against certain religions.

Then, someone (I'm not naming names) made the statement, "America is a Christian Nation." Ka-boom.

Someone, even before Cat-Tribe, pulled the Treaty of Tripoli out of their ass. [sarcasm]

It could be argued that the individual who caused the "ka-boom" would have been better served by saying that the U.S. was a nation gifted with a lot of religiously fervent people, or even a lot of Christians.

I have spent the last 14 hours attempting to say that, regardless of the other merits of your argument, the Treaty of Tripoli can not be used as an excuse to secularize government (any more than the Constitution can be used as an excuse to inject religion into government.) The treaty of Tripoli, compelling as it is, is only an agreement with ANOTHER nation, and has nothing to do with our own citizens except to the extent that they should interact with that foreign government.

And then, SOMEONE attempted to put words in my mouth and ask why I was not presenting any evidence that the US is a Christian nation (which I don't remember ever asserting, at least not in this thread.)

While I do think religious principles have a place in government (!), I am against the statement "America is a Christian Nation" because if our country was "Christian" then Christians would be giving themselves a very bad name.

Since this nation is founded on "the freedom of existence" and people do whatever the hell they want, it would mean Christians condoned every other wackjob thing that goes on in this country if we insisted that we live in a "Christian Nation."

Does that make more sense?

Ok. I went back over the thread, to figure out how we got from there to here. Cat, you can respond to this or not as you choose. I gotta say, debating with a lawyer is tiring.

Thank you, I try. :D

Chronology:
We were on the infringement of the religious rights of the majority.

A couple people said that the religious rights of the majority were never infringed.

In response, some people outlined discrimination against certain religions.

Then, someone (I'm not naming names) made the statement, "America is a Christian Nation." Ka-boom.

Someone, even before Cat-Tribe, pulled the Treaty of Tripoli out of their ass. [sarcasm]

It could be argued that the individual who caused the "ka-boom" would have been better served by saying that the U.S. was a nation gifted with a lot of religiously fervent people, or even a lot of Christians.

I don't agree with your characterizations, but your timeline is vaguely accurate.

And I think it was rather clear that the individual who stated the US is a Christian nation meant just that and thought it had significance beyond the number of Christians who live in the U.S. But anyway ...

I have spent the last 14 hours attempting to say that, regardless of the other merits of your argument, the Treaty of Tripoli can not be used as an excuse to secularize government (any more than the Constitution can be used as an excuse to inject religion into government.) The treaty of Tripoli, compelling as it is, is only an agreement with ANOTHER nation, and has nothing to do with our own citizens except to the extent that they should interact with that foreign government.

I disagree, but no need to debate further.

And then, SOMEONE attempted to put words in my mouth and ask why I was not presenting any evidence that the US is a Christian nation (which I don't remember ever asserting, at least not in this thread.)

A regrettable error. But I would say it was a reasonable assumption given that you jumped into the middle of a debate on the side that was arguing for that proposition. That an assumption seemed reasonable at the time does not prevent it from being completely wrong, however.

While I do think religious principles have a place in government (!), I am against the statement "America is a Christian Nation" because if our country was "Christian" then Christians would be giving themselves a very bad name.

Since this nation is founded on "the freedom of existence" and people do whatever the hell they want, it would mean Christians condoned every other wackjob thing that goes on in this country if we insisted that we live in a "Christian Nation."

Does that make more sense?

Yes. (And your views make more sense than what I had assumed. :p ).

Thank you for the explanation.

And, though we disagreed, thank you for the civil, spirited discussion. :D