News Channel Bias
Quote: GandlerMany gangs control blocks without being a techical majority.
Look at some of the blocks controlled by the crips.
But they aren't controlling the block. Again Sharia law forbids prostitution and yet prostitution is still rampant in that area. There are bars and liquor stores in these areas. Are you really arguing that this group has successfully implemented Sharia law in these zones in any capacity. I mean the definition for no go zones has changed wildly in this thread. First it was areas where only Muslims go and only Sharia law was observed where the cops dare not go, then it was areas with a majority Muslim population where Sharia law was running rampant and the police were afraid of, now its areas where a few wankers have delusions of grandeur and get arrested for trying to impose Sharia law? Color me unimpressed.
Also given that definition what does no go refer to since clearly non-Muslims can enter, they are the majority after all, clearly police enter since Sharia patrol was arrested. Clearly violators of Sharia law enter since there are bars and prostitutes and all manner of other things. Who is not going into this area?
Quote: TwirdmanPeople who talk about how this wave or that wave of immigrants is going to destroy the country are one of 3 things racist bigots who think non-whites not being in the majority is the destruction of mankind, shams trying to stir up things, or people ignorant of history.
I'll bite: what are the other two things?
Is it your contention that there is no difference between 19th century America perceiving Catholicism as a threat, and 21st century America perceiving Islam as a threat? Different sides of the same 'religious bigotry' coin?
I'd also mention that from my perspective, despite your introducing it, race has nothing to do with the question. Rather, the important point is how the religion in question views the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Quote: CalderQuote: TwirdmanPeople who talk about how this wave or that wave of immigrants is going to destroy the country are one of 3 things racist bigots who think non-whites not being in the majority is the destruction of mankind, shams trying to stir up things, or people ignorant of history.
I'll bite: what are the other two things?
Is it your contention that there is no difference between 19th century America perceiving Catholicism as a threat, and 21st century America perceiving Islam as a threat? Different sides of the same 'religious bigotry' coin?
I'd also mention that from my perspective, despite your introducing it, race has nothing to do with the question. Rather, the important point is how the religion in question views the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
I listed all 3 things that's why I had 2 commas. The second is shams trying to peddle something or win votes and the third were people ignorant of history. You could also be a combination of any 2 or even all three of these things but these three things are what lead to the rhetoric about immigrants destroying the nation.
Yes I do view them as 2 sides of the same coin.
I used race because there wasn't really examples of religions migrating to the country that people could oppose you could argue the opposition to China not being able to integrate had to do with Buddhism and their religious views being so much different then our own and that is true to an extant but there were many reasons why people of the time felt they wouldn't integrate and it proved to be false since they have integrated like every immigrant group has integrated. I mean as late as when Kennedy was elected there were fears of a Catholic politician and how he would be ruled by the pope. Now a Catholic running for president is seen as nothing unusual and numerous Catholics have run for office and have won. You fear that Muslims will disregard the laws of the land to force Sharia whereas anti-Catholic bigots thought that Kennedy would deny the law of the land and institute "Papist" law. They were wrong and while some Catholics right now are trying to institute religious laws as our evangelicals they are for the most part thankfully failing on a national level sadly more successful on the state levels. So what makes you so sure that you are right about the Muslims that wouldn't have also applied to the anti-Papist and them being sure they were right?
Also for the vast majority of Muslim in the US and those coming to live in the US they are not significantly different then anyone else who comes. Being terrified of Muslims because of what some nutbag extremist do is akin to being terrified of all Christians because some of their nutbags bomb abortion clinics and attack doctors or any number of other crazy things. The fact is Muslims will not fundamentally change this country just like no group before them has fundamentally changed this country. Why do you view them as so much different then any other group that people of the time were just sure would lead to the downfall of America.
I think some punctuation is missing in your post, but I'd agree that bigotry against the Chinese was largely racist, rather than religious. I doubt the concern was with Buddism, which in any event doesn't seem at odds to the Constitution, at least to this layman. That being the case, Buddists of any race are fine with me.
There were certainly those who feared a 'Papist' America, but what in Catholicism is antithetical to the Constitution? If I may be so bold, I assume you'd assert not all Muslims want to institute Sharia in America; but may we agree that Sharia and the Constitution cannot coexist?
Quote: TwirdmanSo what makes you so sure that you are right about the Muslims
I simply take Muslim extremists at their word.
Quote: TwirdmanBeing terrified of Muslims because of what some nutbag extremist do is akin to being terrified of all Christians because some of their nutbags bomb abortion clinics and attack doctors or any number of other crazy things.
Since it seems to be required in these discussions, let me be clear: I'm against bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionists. So are +99% of Christians.
There are nutbags everywhere. I'm not generally a fan of nutbags. But there is a great difference bewteen nutbags that disagree with an interpretation of the Constitution, and those that, if in power, would abolish it.
Quote: TwirdmanBut they aren't controlling the block. Again Sharia law forbids prostitution and yet prostitution is still rampant in that area.
Maybe, you would have to say which area you are referring to, but look at how prostitutes are treated. Or females perceived (usually wrongly) to be prostitutes based on non traditional dress.
Quote:There are bars and liquor stores in these areas. Are you really arguing that this group has successfully implemented Sharia law in these zones in any capacity.
They are certainly attempting it. Don't believe me, ask them....
Quote:I mean the definition for no go zones has changed wildly in this thread.
Because there is no legal definition, at least not how we are using them. But, my personal definition has been steady.
Quote:First it was areas where only Muslims go and only Sharia law was observed where the cops dare not go
I have never said that.
Quote:, then it was areas with a majority Muslim population where Sharia law was running rampant and the police were afraid of,
I have also never said this.
Quote:now its areas where a few wankers have delusions of grandeur and get arrested for trying to impose Sharia law? Color me unimpressed.
I have said this and its accurate. It you do not admit there are Muslim gangs controlling or attempting to control neighborhoods, then you are denying reality.
Quote:Also given that definition what does no go refer to since clearly non-Muslims can enter, they are the majority after all, clearly police enter since Sharia patrol was arrested. Clearly violators of Sharia law enter since there are bars and prostitutes and all manner of other things. Who is not going into this area?
There is no clear definition.
But here is my personal descriptor:
Any zone (neighborhood, section of blocks, section of housing developments, etc...), that has a significant presence of Islamic gangs that are forcibly imposing their beliefs on local residents or people entering "their territory".
Quote:People who talk about how this wave or that wave of immigrants is going to destroy the country are one of 3 things racist bigots who think non-whites not being in the majority is the destruction of mankind, shams trying to stir up things, or people ignorant of history.
That is an old tactic. Call people bigoted is a trump card that you cant fight without looking more bigoted.
Look at the situation in England. Ask both parties what they think of immigration. It is destroying their country. It will destroy ours if we don't secure the borders and aggressively deport.
If you want to come here, apply, take a number, and get in line and wait your turn to legally enter, as my great grandparents did...
No non-citizen has a right to be here. We certainly should not stretch our neck out to blow tax dollars on educating and accommodating people who are violating our sovereignty.
Quote: CalderWell, I thought the bigotry against Irish Catholics was religious, rather than race, based. Otherwise, until they opened their mouths, who knew they were Irish (and therefore Catholic)?
I think some punctuation is missing in your post, but I'd agree that bigotry against the Chinese was largely racist, rather than religious. I doubt the concern was with Buddism, which in any event doesn't seem at odds to the Constitution, at least to this layman. That being the case, Buddists of any race are fine with me.
There were certainly those who feared a 'Papist' America, but what in Catholicism is antithetical to the Constitution? If I may be so bold, I assume you'd assert not all Muslims want to institute Sharia in America; but may we agree that Sharia and the Constitution cannot coexist?
I simply take Muslim extremists at their word.
Since it seems to be required in these discussions, let me be clear: I'm against bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionists. So are +99% of Christians.
There are nutbags everywhere. I'm not generally a fan of nutbags. But there is a great difference bewteen nutbags that disagree with an interpretation of the Constitution, and those that, if in power, would abolish it.
Sure Sharia is antithetical to the Constitution so is all religious laws since they would violate the first amendment establishment clause. There are a number of specific things that would. For instance there are attempts to overturn Roe V Wade which goes against the right to privacy. Many Catholic nations have anti blasphemy laws for instance Ireland still has them and England had them as recently as 2008. There are also plenty of anti homosexuality laws in other countries and attempts to institute them here which again would go against the constitution, and not just anti-marriage acts which would violate the first amendment anyways if we use the same Constitutional reading that was used in loving v virginia overturning Anti-miscegenation laws, but there were also anti-sodomy laws that were overturned only in Anti-miscegenation laws 2013. So yes any type of Christians taking over would fundamentally change the Constitution and the country.
Starting with fundamentals, that would have to include all Ten Commandments. Hmmmmm.Quote: TwirdmanSure Sharia is antithetical to the Constitution so is all religious laws since they would violate the first amendment establishment clause.
Quote: SanchoPanzaStarting with fundamentals, that would have to include all Ten Commandments. Hmmmmm.
Yes a large chunk of the Ten Commandments are antithetical to the constitution. As much as some right wingers try to claim it our laws are not at all based on the Ten Commandments.
Here is a list of the 10 commandments, there are many variations but this was the first easy to grab list I found,
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
You will notice the first 4 are basically all related to blasphemy laws something the US does not have and would be strictly religious laws. The 5th is about honoring father and mother something encouraged by most society but not mandated by the US. The 10th amendment is about desire and is almost encouraged by modern capitalism so hardly banned in the US.
This leaves us with a core 4 things in the 10 commandments
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
These are laws in almost every society throughout our planet and human history. So again our laws are hardly based on the 10 commandments and codifying the 10 commandments into law would violate the Constitution.
The strawman argument self-implodes. As you note, many of the commandments have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. And several are universal, codified or not. Perhaps "antithetical" is an attitude in search of a basis. After all, "antithetical" means "being in direct and unequivocal opposition," according to the dictionary.Quote: TwirdmanYes a large chunk of the Ten Commandments are antithetical to the constitution. As much as some right wingers try to claim it our laws are not at all based on the Ten Commandments.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe strawman argument self-implodes. As you note, many of the commandments have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. And several are universal, codified or not. Perhaps "antithetical" is an attitude in search of a basis. After all, "antithetical" means "being in direct and unequivocal opposition," according to the dictionary.
Yes you can pick and choose thins from any holy book and they would be fine and not antithetical to the US Constitution. The 10 commandants are antithetical and I pointed out the specific cases where it was like the fact almost half of them are anti blasphemy laws which violate freedom of speech. Just as Sharia law is antithetical that however doesn't mean there aren't aspects of Sharia law that are totally acceptable like the same prohibitions against murder or theft.
Religious laws refer to the set of laws codified together not bits and pieces chosen here and there. The 10 commandments in specific and in general Jewish and Christian laws are just as antithetical to the Constitution as Sharia law.
Quote: TwirdmanYes you can pick and choose thins from any holy book and they would be fine and not antithetical to the US Constitution. The 10 commandants are antithetical and I pointed out the specific cases where it was like the fact almost half of them are anti blasphemy laws which violate freedom of speech. Just as Sharia law is antithetical that however doesn't mean there aren't aspects of Sharia law that are totally acceptable like the same prohibitions against murder or theft.
Religious laws refer to the set of laws codified together not bits and pieces chosen here and there. The 10 commandments in specific and in general Jewish and Christian laws are just as antithetical to the Constitution as Sharia law.
There is a monster fundamental difference. Sharia law imposes punishments -- many of them physically violent -- against ALL who do not follow the dictates of the imams and other authorities. Other religions do not do that. Especially to people who are not members of that religion.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThere is a monster fundamental difference. Sharia law imposes punishments -- many of them physically violent -- against ALL who do not follow the dictates of the imams and other authorities. Other religions do not do that. Especially to people who are not members of that religion.
Yes they do impose punishments they are laws after all. Ireland still imposes penalties for people who commit blasphemy even if they aren't Catholic the same thing with Rome. Also while the laws are not strictly enforced anymore in any country the Old Testament lays out quite clear penalties for numerous crimes for instance working on the Sabbath is a stoning, adultery is a stoning, trying to convert people is a stoning, not respecting your parents is a stoning what I'm getting at here is the laws laid out punishment and those punishments were normally stoning, not a very inventive religion. Orthodox Jews also shun members of the community who don't follow all the rules. Amish shun those who leave the religion.
Also if we look at history there have been quite violent punishments for people who don't follow religions and laws have been attempted to put into effect in other countries some of them fairly violent like originally South Africa wanted the death penalty against gays.
I mean given a statement like yours I have to assume some level of ignorance about religion, history, and what is happening around the world. Yes it is true that right now Sharia law is being used in many Middle Eastern countries and prescribing some rather violent penalties but to say that no other religion imposes penalties is just flat out wrong.
Took 5 pussys to bring him down, Looks like 1 or 2 less and he may have taken them FKers.Quote: TankoAmerican gets ass kicked for drinking beer in imaginary 'No Go' zone.
If this guy came back and shot every one of them, Don't put me on the jury, no way in hell I would find him guilty.
Quote: TwirdmanYes they do impose punishments they are laws after all. Ireland still imposes penalties for people who commit blasphemy even if they aren't Catholic the same thing with Rome.
Those are very select, and more importantly non violent punishment laws.
Quote:Also while the laws are not strictly enforced anymore in any country the Old Testament lays out quite clear penalties for numerous crimes for instance working on the Sabbath is a stoning, adultery is a stoning, trying to convert people is a stoning, not respecting your parents is a stoning what I'm getting at here is the laws laid out punishment and those punishments were normally stoning, not a very inventive religion. Orthodox Jews also shun members of the community who don't follow all the rules. Amish shun those who leave the religion.
Shunning people is hardly equatable to sawing off heads.
Quote:Also if we look at history there have been quite violent punishments for people who don't follow religions and laws have been attempted to put into effect in other countries some of them fairly violent like originally South Africa wanted the death penalty against gays.
Well South Africa used to have many backwards laws. I have never heard of this law, but I'll take your word for it. But is it religious inspired? Or is it fear inspired? (maybe they wanted to combat aids, and mistakenly blamed homosexuals for the spread). both reasoning are wrong obviously. but the point i am making is in Africa, many African countries have strict, abhorrent anti-homosexual laws. some are encouraged by certain religious groups (both Christians and Muslims), however, also the AIDs epidemic forces many there to turn to extreme options in hopes of protecting themselves.
Quote:I mean given a statement like yours I have to assume some level of ignorance about religion, history, and what is happening around the world. Yes it is true that right now Sharia law is being used in many Middle Eastern countries and prescribing some rather violent penalties but to say that no other religion imposes penalties is just flat out wrong.
I know this was not stated to me. But I am sure you feel the same about me so I will respond as well.
I am a big history nerd, and though I do not formally study history too much, I read a lot about history, especially military history (which relates to much to religion in past centuries).
600-900 years ago, yes Christianity and Judaism were far more problematic than Islam. It goes without saying that the Inquisition was one of the most backwards religious escapades in history. In my opinion it was the single worst religious event ever, based on the actions, scale, and absurd logic behind it.
The crusades were not as cut and dry as many think, in many ways it can be argued that it was a response to the Jihad that was attacking them.
Many religions impose penalties. So do many corporations, businesses, etc... What matters is what they are.
If Wal Mart stated a rule where its fans must behead people who draw Sam Walton, well then we would criticize that.
Statistically Islam is the most violent religion in the modern world by a huge margin.
I know to be politically correct we (Americans/ Westerners) like to point out flaws in other religions to balance the social scale. But, its no 600 A.D. The Pope is not ordering a legion of Knights to roam the world and torture nonbelievers. Its 2015, and there are other groups ordering the elimination and if we are good maybe, enslavement of nonbelievers.
I am a secularist, I have no love for any religion trying to effect social politics. However, there is one that poses a far greater threat to us than all of the others. And, people will literally stretch out their neck to defend it.
Quote: Gandler
Look at the situation in England. Ask both parties what they think of immigration. It is destroying their country. It will destroy ours if we don't secure the borders and aggressively deport.
If you want to come here, apply, take a number, and get in line and wait your turn to legally enter, as my great grandparents did...
No non-citizen has a right to be here. We certainly should not stretch our neck out to blow tax dollars on educating and accommodating people who are violating our sovereignty.
Don't expect any help from the new Republican Congress on this issue.
New GOP 'Border Security' Bill
Quote: mickeycrimmIt's hard for me to fathom why all the far lefties who have made highly disparaging and degrading remarks about Christianity over the years are now defending Islam.
Because they view Muslims as a minority, and view them as in need of special protection.
There is a great Douglas Murray quote that I love: "In countries where Islam is a minority religion, Muslims talk endlessly about minority rights. In countries where Islam is the majority religion, minority rights are nowhere to be seen". -Douglas Murray (typed that from my head, so may not be word for word).
Quote: EvenBobAnd informed like no other news channel.
Go Fox indeed. I have it on right now,
The Five starts in a few min.
I'm an FNC fan too, Bob, but I'm not blinded by ideology. I catch them being two faced all the time. You remember when they had to drop Cliven Bundy like a hot potato after his racial remarks. They got ridiculed by the left. There was a couple at all those standoffs. They were so radical they were eventually asked to leave Bundy's group. So they went down to Vegas, killed a couple cops then committed suicide.
FNC reported the cop killings but didn't report that the killers were tied to Bundy like all the other news outlets did. Do you suppose it was because Bundy already made them look bad enough and the cop killers would make them look worse?
Quote: Gandler
Well South Africa used to have many backwards laws. I have never heard of this law, but I'll take your word for it. But is it religious inspired? Or is it fear inspired? (maybe they wanted to combat aids, and mistakenly blamed homosexuals for the spread). both reasoning are wrong obviously. but the point i am making is in Africa, many African countries have strict, abhorrent anti-homosexual laws. some are encouraged by certain religious groups (both Christians and Muslims), however, also the AIDs epidemic forces many there to turn to extreme options in hopes of protecting themselves.
Many religions impose penalties. So do many corporations, businesses, etc... What matters is what they are.
If Wal Mart stated a rule where its fans must behead people who draw Sam Walton, well then we would criticize that.
Statistically Islam is the most violent religion in the modern world by a huge margin.
I know to be politically correct we (Americans/ Westerners) like to point out flaws in other religions to balance the social scale. But, its no 600 A.D. The Pope is not ordering a legion of Knights to roam the world and torture nonbelievers. Its 2015, and there are other groups ordering the elimination and if we are good maybe, enslavement of nonbelievers.
I am a secularist, I have no love for any religion trying to effect social politics. However, there is one that poses a far greater threat to us than all of the others. And, people will literally stretch out their neck to defend it.
Wow just realized I put South Africa there instead of Uganda that's odd. The law was an Ugandan law and it was purely religiously motivated specifically it was heavily influenced by an American evangelical who went there, who is now being charged with human rights violations.
Also way to change the goal post first you claim that non-Muslims don't impose penalties for religious law violations on non-believers now the response is they don't impose violent punishments.
Also if you are trying to imply that Christians don't go around killing people you are horribly wrong. One of the biggest examples right now is the Lords Resistance Army in South Sudan and Uganda. The IRA isn't that far removed and in some small ways still exist in various forms. Are Muslims worse then other religions perhaps but to claim that well its only Muslims who do X is flat out wrong.
Quote: TwirdmanWow just realized I put South Africa there instead of Uganda that's odd. The law was an Ugandan law and it was purely religiously motivated specifically it was heavily influenced by an American evangelical who went there, who is now being charged with human rights violations.
Anti-homosexuality laws are not "religiously motivated." There is no real basis to show that. Aversion to homexuality is found in almost every society on earth and is the natural default of people unless they have been educated otherwise, which is a very recent thing.
Quote: TwirdmanWow just realized I put South Africa there instead of Uganda that's odd. The law was an Ugandan law and it was purely religiously motivated specifically it was heavily influenced by an American evangelical who went there, who is now being charged with human rights violations.
Also way to change the goal post first you claim that non-Muslims don't impose penalties for religious law violations on non-believers now the response is they don't impose violent punishments.
Also if you are trying to imply that Christians don't go around killing people you are horribly wrong. One of the biggest examples right now is the Lords Resistance Army in South Sudan and Uganda. The IRA isn't that far removed and in some small ways still exist in various forms. Are Muslims worse then other religions perhaps but to claim that well its only Muslims who do X is flat out wrong.
Ok Uganda I am aware of, and he should face international human rights violation charges. But, so should the 9 Islamic countries that not only have the same law (well often even, worst since it is looser defined and anyone they don't like can be considered "a practicing homosexual"...), but actually enforce the law.
I have said numerous times in this and similar threads, other religions do a lot of things I disagree with. But there is a scale. Being "shunned" or made fun of, is hardly the same as putting death money on the head of somebody who insults you.
If you paid me 100K to make a video of me pooping on a bible, I would happily do it, because I could care less if some Christians send me nasty messages, easy money. If you offered me 100K to do the same video on a Koran, I would refuse, because 100K is not worth the very possible and real danger, of money being put on my head, as well as being hunted by terror organizations everywhere I go... There is a reason people don't care about offending Christians and Jews, they won't do anything to you. Offend Islam, and you may very likely end up dead, even if your offense was purely accidental.
The LRA is an odious organization. However, they are not strictly Christian, they are a strange brew of traditional Africanism and Christianity and militarism. Its not pure or true Christianity by any logical standpoint. Also, even more importantly, as horrible as they are, they don't come too far out of Uganda, they are mostly a local militia group with very specific political goals. Their name is more for political rallying than anything.
The IRA also had very narrow and specific political goals.
I have never claimed Islam is the only offender, but it is the biggest, by far, and that is just a statistical fact. Even if you consider some of these groups strictly religious groups (which is often a huge Stretch), Islam still gets the medal for first place by a large margin as far as number of extremists and human rights violations....
Quote: AZDuffmanAnti-homosexuality laws are not "religiously motivated." There is no real basis to show that. Aversion to homexuality is found in almost every society on earth and is the natural default of people unless they have been educated otherwise, which is a very recent thing.
Except this one was clearly religiously motivated in that it was formed by an Evangelical priest from America. Also aversion to homosexuality is not found in every society on Earth not historically and not today. For instance Greek, Roman, plenty of African tribes, plenty of tribes in the Austronesian region, along with numerous other regions throughout the world. At best you can say in many cultures especially those in the Middle East and parts of Europe have tended to look unfavorably on homosexuality.
Quote: TwirdmanExcept this one was clearly religiously motivated in that it was formed by an Evangelical priest from America. Also aversion to homosexuality is not found in every society on Earth not historically and not today. For instance Greek, Roman, plenty of African tribes, plenty of tribes in the Austronesian region, along with numerous other regions throughout the world. At best you can say in many cultures especially those in the Middle East and parts of Europe have tended to look unfavorably on homosexuality.
I will not just say "many." If we are going to have one of those conversations where a person making a general statement will be met by a "but this is not the case in that place" then I will redirect you to where I said, "almost every." The thought of performing a homosexual act will cause revulsion to most people and really in most males. They know it is not natural and as such this is why I will say again, aversion to homexuality is found in almost every society on earth and is the natural default of people unless they have been educated otherwise.
Religion only is against it because of this natural default. Homophiles are often anti-religion because of the shared view. Some people will use religion as their excuse or reasoning. But the fact of the matter is aversion to homosexuality is anthropological and not religious.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will not just say "many." If we are going to have one of those conversations where a person making a general statement will be met by a "but this is not the case in that place" then I will redirect you to where I said, "almost every." The thought of performing a homosexual act will cause revulsion to most people and really in most males. They know it is not natural and as such this is why I will say again, aversion to homexuality is found in almost every society on earth and is the natural default of people unless they have been educated otherwise.
Religion only is against it because of this natural default. Homophiles are often anti-religion because of the shared view. Some people will use religion as their excuse or reasoning. But the fact of the matter is aversion to homosexuality is anthropological and not religious.
How do you know that aversion is the natural default you go with oh well most people and most males find it revolting so clearly revulsion is the natural tendency but most people you encounter are followers of one of the Abrahamic religions or have enough contact with it to have possibly just picked up this behavior. Again a large number of cultures throughout the world including massive countries like China readily accepted homosexuality so did they somehow all just abandon their natural revulsion? Also not natural in what way? Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior, people seem natural drawn to members of the same sex you can not say its not natural you can say its not the normal.
Also there is a difference between finding something revolting and wanting to ban it. I'd go most people find the idea of old people having sex revolting especially when you consider all the various ways they may do it yet there are really no laws against old people having sex. Same is probably true for incredibly obese people kind of revolting and I say that as an obese person. So if something being revolting was all the justification we needed to make laws about something then clearly the only people who would legally be allowed to have sex are gorgeous models and athletes. Now you might say well ugly people having sex isn't banned because we need to propagate the species but in that case old people sex and marriage should still be illegal after all its icky and yet old people continue on in their nightly tryst.
Quote: TwirdmanHow do you know that aversion is the natural default you go with oh well most people and most males find it revolting so clearly revulsion is the natural tendency but most people you encounter are followers of one of the Abrahamic religions or have enough contact with it to have possibly just picked up this behavior. Again a large number of cultures throughout the world including massive countries like China readily accepted homosexuality so did they somehow all just abandon their natural revulsion? Also not natural in what way? Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior, people seem natural drawn to members of the same sex you can not say its not natural you can say its not the normal.
Please stop it with the "homosexual animals" thing. This has been disproved and makes no sense. Animals do not have sex for pleasure or recreation. Same-sex animal mounting is a power-play same as prison rape. Simply, it serves no biological function and is not natural. As to "people being drawn" I will continue to maintain a high number of those people are "seduced" into the life. See it on TV, wonder why IRL they are not cutting it with the opposite sex as they want, so they "give it a try."
Yes, societies that accept it are abandoning a natural revulsion. BTW: I highly doubt Chinese "readily accept" it. I have seen nothing to indicate this.
In that case, why is it punishable by a range from beatings to execution?Quote: TwirdmanPlenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior, people seem natural drawn to members of the same sex you can not say its not natural you can say its not the normal.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will not just say "many." If we are going to have one of those conversations where a person making a general statement will be met by a "but this is not the case in that place" then I will redirect you to where I said, "almost every." The thought of performing a homosexual act will cause revulsion to most people and really in most males. They know it is not natural and as such this is why I will say again, aversion to homexuality is found in almost every society on earth and is the natural default of people unless they have been educated otherwise.
Religion only is against it because of this natural default. Homophiles are often anti-religion because of the shared view. Some people will use religion as their excuse or reasoning. But the fact of the matter is aversion to homosexuality is anthropological and not religious.
You last paragraph is true, but possibly not for the reasons that you think.
First of all homosexuality is not normal.
If you define normal as in statistically normal, homosexuals are a statistical fringe minority.
If you define normal as biologically normal (meaning it contributes to evolution) then certainly not normal, as homosexuals cannot reproduce.
As for humans naturally being disgusted. This is an interesting statements and one that we cannot support. The only way to do an experiment is to raise humans in total isolation until early adulthood from social influence and then judge how repulsed they are after witnessing certain sexual acts. And, even this would have issues, as humans are being raised out of normal society, so it can be classified as not a valid representation. But, this arguments is pointless anyway, there is a lot of things that "disgust" a lot of different people. What matters is should the force of the state or social stigma be used to prevent people from doing it.
However, you last statement, yes it is anthropological. But, because it is a cultural influence, and religion has historically and still currently dominated culture. Yes, some people may be "disgusted" by homosexuals. But there is no rational reason to be fearful of them. Religion is the only reason people are irrationally violent towards homosexuals to the point where still in 2015 there are quite a few countries in the world where homosexuals are put to death purely for being (or in some cases even suspected) of being homosexual (most of them are Islamic...).
Any consensual sex among adults should be acceptable to any rational person. Whether it be 2 men, 2 women, a man and woman, 3 men and 1 woman, or any other combination you can come up with, should be totally acceptable as long as they are all adults and it is consensual.
But as for a more practical argument. The earth is overpopulating rapidly. Every time I hear somebody say "well gays can't make babies" I say "Good, more people need to convert then". There are many babies without parents. Gay couples make great foster parents. We need more responsible couples and less babies.
There is no rational reason to be against homosexuality, it is logical, keeps the population more manageable (or less unmanageable), provides a new pool of foster parents for millions of parent less kids, and its a fact of life.
Quote: AZDuffman. BTW: I highly doubt Chinese "readily accept" it. I have seen nothing to indicate this.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/06/12/shanghai-full-of-pride-chinas-most-gay-friendly-city-prepares-to-celebrate/
Quote: terapinedhttp://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/06/12/shanghai-full-of-pride-chinas-most-gay-friendly-city-prepares-to-celebrate/
So China has its own San Francisco. Yip, yip, yahoo. Most societies are going to have gays concentrating for various reasons. Even the most anti-gay ones.
I don't wish to way lay the discussion but it is obvious to me at least that you have not spent much time around billy-goats.Quote: AZDuffmanAnimals do not have sex for pleasure or recreation.
Quote: Gandler
Any consensual sex among adults should be acceptable to any rational person. Whether it be 2 men, 2 women, a man and woman, 3 men and 1 woman, or any other combination you can come up with, should be totally acceptable as long as they are all adults and it is consensual.
"Sex" can only happen between a man and a woman. Anything else is deviant and unnatural.
Quote:There is no rational reason to be against homosexuality, it is logical, keeps the population more manageable (or less unmanageable), provides a new pool of foster parents for millions of parent less kids, and its a fact of life.
Quote: AZDuffman"Sex" can only happen between a man and a woman. Anything else is deviant and unnatural.
Unnatural, maybe, depending on your definition of strictly natural.
Deviant? Strictly speaking yes.
My statement is still completely true, there is no rational reason to be hateful or fearful of homosexuality.
In fact all logic points to homosexuality being a positive impact for the planet.
Or the infamous bonobos.Quote: petroglyphI don't wish to way lay the discussion but it is obvious to me at least that you have not spent much time around billy-goats.
Quote: GandlerI am a secularist, I have no love for any religion trying to effect social politics. However, there is one that poses a far greater threat to us than all
of the others. And, people will literally stretch out their neck to defend it.
Always curious what the right wants to do about Islam.
Ban freedom of thought; engage thought police? Or Wholesale branding, kinda like rounding up the Japanese during WW2.
I could say the problem is Islam, of course that ignores the muslims I've encountered over the years who are all individuals. The moderate muslim is much like the guy who hid people in the basement during the attack in the UK. Or maybe the policeman who lost his life in the same attack. Actually, that is more like heroism. You got bible thumping literalists in Christianity and and only go to Church on Easter Christians. Not sure why it's not also true of Muslims.
People tried unsuccessfully to kill all the Christians when there were a lot less of them, and that didn't work.
Which principle of the Constitution are you going to use to prevent radicalization?
Are we going after freedom of religion?
There's a lot of bellyaching from the right.
The basic principle that your rights end where mine begin.Quote: rxwineWhich principle of the Constitution are you going to use to prevent radicalization?
In today's world, nothing can be totally unfettered. Everything has to succumb to the constraints of the societal contract. Unless, of course, you want to continue to advocate completely unleashed liberation for all. In that case, we can start a whole new thread about anarchy.Quote: rxwineAre we going after freedom of religion?
Quote: rxwineAlways curious what the right wants to do about Islam.
Ban freedom of thought; engage thought police? Or Wholesale branding, kinda like rounding up the Japanese during WW2.
No. And, nobody suggested anything of the sort.
Quote:I could say the problem is Islam, of course that ignores the muslims I've encountered over the years who are all individuals. The moderate muslim is much like the guy who hid people in the basement during the attack in the UK. Or maybe the policeman who lost his life in the same attack. Actually, that is more like heroism. You got bible thumping literalists in Christianity and and only go to Church on Easter Christians. Not sure why it's not also true of Muslims.
Nobody is saying all Muslims are bad. But the overall ideology is. Read the Koran if you want a terrifying read.
Yes there are a lot of radical Christians to. But not nearly as many.
The problem is more so with religion as a whole than Islam. But Islam is the one religion in the modern world that poses the most immediate threat.
Quote:People tried unsuccessfully to kill all the Christians when there were a lot less of them, and that didn't work.
Killing people does not stop an idea.
Spreading truth and education is the best way to stop an ideology.
Quote:Which principle of the Constitution are you going to use to prevent radicalization?
Are we going after freedom of religion?
How about freedom from religion?
People can believe whatever nonsense they want.
But if they try to pressure us to put in anti-blamsapme laws, then we will say "no"
People are free to be offended, who cares. People are not free, to use violence to push their beliefs.
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease stop it with the "homosexual animals" thing. This has been disproved and makes no sense. Animals do not have sex for pleasure or recreation. Same-sex animal mounting is a power-play same as prison rape. Simply, it serves no biological function and is not natural. As to "people being drawn" I will continue to maintain a high number of those people are "seduced" into the life. See it on TV, wonder why IRL they are not cutting it with the opposite sex as they want, so they "give it a try."
Yes, societies that accept it are abandoning a natural revulsion. BTW: I highly doubt Chinese "readily accept" it. I have seen nothing to indicate this.
Dolphins have sex for pleasure and actively engage in homosexuality. Bonobos are a very social non hiarchical society and regularly engage in homosexual sex as part of custom for the species. So your statement of it only being display of dominance not based on pleasure is pure fiction.
I won't even get into how wrong you are about human sexuality
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe basic principle that your rights end where mine begin.
In today's world, nothing can be totally unfettered. Everything has to succumb to the constraints of the societal contract. Unless, of course, you want to continue to advocate completely unleashed liberation for all. In that case, we can start a whole new thread about anarchy.
Well, part of what I am getting at, all the things that propagate islam, are also part of our way of life.
People can think about turning the country into an Islamic State, but can't plot overthrow. People can wish for race separation, or whatever their heart desires. People can hope anything, including crazy earth destroying stuff if they want.
So, what we' are doing is what we do when any radical thinking group, who actually murders, or someone who bombs or attacks us.
Quote: Gandler"In countries where Islam is a minority religion, Muslims talk endlessly about minority rights. In countries where Islam is the majority religion, minority rights are nowhere to be seen". .
This describes Christianity for 1000 years
of it's history. No religion other than theirs
was tolerated. They had military campaigns for
over 200 years to try and wipe Islam off
the map. We now call them The Crusades.
Quote: EvenBobThis describes Christianity for 1000 years
of it's history. No religion other than theirs
was tolerated. They had military campaigns for
over 200 years to try and wipe Islam off
the map. We now call them The Crusades.
Yes, but it is 2015.
600 years ago, I would agree, Christianity tramples more human rights than Islam.
However, even among the Crusades, not all of the crusades were as cut and dry as it sounds. Some of the crusades were a defensive response to the Jihad.
Quote: rxwineAlways curious what the right wants to do about Islam.
Ban freedom of thought; engage thought police? Or Wholesale branding, kinda like rounding up the Japanese during WW2.
What I want to do is get the world to recognize the danger it presents and realize that it cannot live side-by-side with other religions.
Quote:I could say the problem is Islam, of course that ignores the muslims I've encountered over the years who are all individuals. The moderate muslim is much like the guy who hid people in the basement during the attack in the UK. Or maybe the policeman who lost his life in the same attack. Actually, that is more like heroism. You got bible thumping literalists in Christianity and and only go to Church on Easter Christians. Not sure why it's not also true of Muslims.
Maybe you need to hear it in a different way. Islam *IS* a problem. I am sure there are Hell's Angels that are nice to get along with guys. Not every Nazi was a murderous thug. Not every Soviet wanted to take over the world. Yet the ideology of each of them would be considered a problem. It is the same with Islam. It breeds problems and violence. The problem has likely been ignored long enough that large scale conflict is inevitable now.
Quote:There's a lot of bellyaching from the right.
And a lot of enabling by the left.
Quote: TwirdmanDolphins have sex for pleasure and actively engage in homosexuality. Bonobos are a very social non hiarchical society and regularly engage in homosexual sex as part of custom for the species. So your statement of it only being display of dominance not based on pleasure is pure fiction.
Dolphins do not have sex for pleasure, that is a myth. What is true is that the female does not know if she is in season or not so will accept the male regardless. The Bonobos "custom" is going to be dominance, like the rest of nature.
Quote:I won't even get into how wrong you are about human sexuality
That is good because your counterarguments will not match my points on a logic basis. If you want to try though, please do. However, I have never heard a homophile point made on logic or science here or anywhere. I do hold out hope, however.
Quote: AZDuffmanDolphins do not have sex for pleasure, that is a myth. What is true is that the female does not know if she is in season or not so will accept the male regardless. The Bonobos "custom" is going to be dominance, like the rest of nature.
That is good because your counterarguments will not match my points on a logic basis. If you want to try though, please do. However, I have never heard a homophile point made on logic or science here or anywhere. I do hold out hope, however.
Well about bonobos every primatologist disagrees with you. Bonobos have sex as a form of bonding tool, a method to avoid conflict, and a method to reconcile after conflict not to establish dominance. The closest to establishing dominance you can say is females bond over lesbian sex and these bonds allow them to be dominant over the males. It is mainly a conflict resolution tool.
Also there is plenty of evidence of a biological reason for sexuality. Here are some
Researchers found that disabling the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research. His most recent findings have been published in the BMC Genetics journal on July 7, 2010.[35][36] Another study found that by manipulating a gene in fruit flies (Drosophila), homosexual behavior appeared to have been induced. However, in addition to homosexual behavior, several abnormal behaviors were also exhibited apparently due to this mutation.[37]
In March 2011, research showed that serotonin is involved in the mechanism of sexual orientation of mice.[38][39] A study conducted on fruit flies found that inhibiting the dopamine neurotransmitter inhibited lab-induced homosexual behavior.[40]
Also I'd just like to point out that most actual scientist agree that human sexuality is also caused by a complex confluence of biological causes.
Quote: SonuvabishThank you. I canceled my cable not so long ago. It's all garbage, especially stuff like FOX news. If I wanna watch something, I do it the old-fashioned way. Illegal stream. I'm a taker. Not of million dollar tax breaks...just a fox news term for middle class people who should feel bad if they don't vote in the interests of the richest people on earth, and against their own interests.
The richest people on Earth are committed leftists who support the Party Of Owe. Beverly Hills, Upper West Side, Georgetown, San Fransicko, Martha's Vineyard, North Shore of Chicago, etc., etc., etc.
The very rich vote Democrat. The bustouts, the losers, junkies, anchor babies, high school dropouts, pimps, welfare moms, sex offenders, crackheads, ho's and corrupt cronies all vote the same way. That is the base of your party. Everybody else votes Republican
Quote: bobsimsThe richest people on Earth are committed leftists who support the Party Of Owe. Beverly Hills, Upper West Side, Georgetown, San Fransicko, Martha's Vineyard, North Shore of Chicago, etc., etc., etc.
The very rich vote Democrat. The bustouts, the losers, junkies, anchor babies, high school dropouts, pimps, welfare moms, sex offenders, crackheads, ho's and corrupt cronies all vote the same way. That is the base of your party. Everybody else votes Republican
This is very true. The richest few in the world (old money families who have most mainstream politicians bought off) vote dems. They don't care about regulation, they are above it, they have their wealth.
And, then the other main base is very lower class and fringe minorities, whom they attract with government benefits and protection (to clarify I am not always against these things on all issues, some people do need special situations, but its still a political tactic).
The middle class and upper class who are not super elite vote for the Grand Old Party who are the ones who truly represent the working man trying to rise and survive. Even the not so well off blue collar who actually work, usually vote R. in many areas...
Republicans represent the common man. The GOP freed the slaves, pushed for social reform, for equality (while all of the southern Democratic governors supported segregation), and that tradition continues proudly to this day, supporting an equal environment for people to have a fair competing chance. GOP represents the everyday American, the real American.
Quote: AZDuffmanDolphins do not have sex for pleasure, that is a myth. What is true is that the female does not know if she is in season or not so will accept the male regardless. The Bonobos "custom" is going to be dominance, like the rest of nature.
Even if true, irrelevant for either side. But I have read a lot of contradictory studies of dolphins that may suggest otherwise, but again its not a valid argument for either side.
Quote:That is good because your counterarguments will not match my points on a logic basis. If you want to try though, please do. However, I have never heard a homophile point made on logic or science here or anywhere. I do hold out hope, however.
I don't know if you would consider me a "homophile" (I know this post was not for me, but I feel obligated to respond) a term wich would embrace at any rate. But as a biological anthropology student I have made quite a few logistical points on why homosexuality is not just acceptable, but necessary (unless straight people can learn to stop pumping out babies and not supporting them or relying on government subsidies).
In many senses gay male couples, perhaps because it is two males together, can provide much more for a child than a straight couple can (and not rely on government handouts), and its not even their child, they are adopting and caring for a child who was abandoned.
Quote: GandlerThe GOP freed the slaves, pushed for social reform, for equality (while all of the southern Democratic governors supported segregation), and that tradition continues proudly to this day, supporting an equal environment for people to have a fair competing chance. GOP represents the everyday American, the real American.
Hey you forgot the party of Lincoln also started the first progressive income tax and basically the IRS. Progressive being not equal, and they were right on that.
The first thing they noticed was the poorer people got burdened with more costs of the civil war in the proportion of buying normal goods and being able to survive. So they made an alteration to pick up the difference with richer people.
It's what actually works and what's right as well, despite much of the screaming ever since of the current petty party of mean.
Quote: Gandler
I don't know if you would consider me a "homophile" (I know this post was not for me, but I feel obligated to respond) a term wich would embrace at any rate. But as a biological anthropology student I have made quite a few logistical points on why homosexuality is not just acceptable, but necessary (unless straight people can learn to stop pumping out babies and not supporting them or relying on government subsidies).
Sorry, I do not buy this logic. The number of kids per woman has nothing to do with guys hooking up. Plenty of lesbian woman decide they want a kid and have one. I have heard of women who have a kid or a few then decide to try out the lesbian lifestyle and kick the guy (but rarely his wallet!) to the curb.
Quote:In many senses gay male couples, perhaps because it is two males together, can provide much more for a child than a straight couple can (and not rely on government handouts), and its not even their child, they are adopting and caring for a child who was abandoned.
Again, I do not buy it. Providing for a child means more than having the cash to buy all kinds of things. It means showing a healthy lifestyle and bringing up a proper man or woman. On that point a child growing up in a gay household has problems because they will not see what a natural family unit behaves like. Of course to be fair we now have a generation that does not know that. And we are near the point where to have both parents married puts you in the minority. This will have dangerous consequences which we will see in about 20 years or so.
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, I do not buy this logic. The number of kids per woman has nothing to do with guys hooking up. Plenty of lesbian woman decide they want a kid and have one. I have heard of women who have a kid or a few then decide to try out the lesbian lifestyle and kick the guy (but rarely his wallet!) to the curb.
No, but it has a lot to do with reproduction. Most gay men will never reproduce with a female, hence lowering the population pool.
Yes lesbians sometimes get pregnant either artificially or by paying a guy to impregnate them, but even so, the number of kids they have is controlled. How many married couple have more kids than they intended?
But also, my comment was more geared for gay males.
Quote:Again, I do not buy it. Providing for a child means more than having the cash to buy all kinds of things. It means showing a healthy lifestyle and bringing up a proper man or woman. On that point a child growing up in a gay household has problems because they will not see what a natural family unit behaves like. Of course to be fair we now have a generation that does not know that. And we are near the point where to have both parents married puts you in the minority. This will have dangerous consequences which we will see in about 20 years or so.
There have been thorough studies in several countries, and so far, kids with gay parents have no significant social differences than kids who do not. If it does not effect them in childhood, I doubt they will manage to become traumatized in their 20s.
But I agree with your point, yes there is an absurd amount of single parents, even more reason gay couples can be useful. I can say with complete certainty, that a child with 2 gay parents is far better off than a child under a single mom or dad.
Quote: Gandler
Republicans represent the common man. The GOP freed the slaves, pushed for social reform, for equality (while all of the southern Democratic governors supported segregation), and that tradition continues proudly to this day, supporting an equal environment for people to have a fair competing chance. GOP represents the everyday American, the real American.
Stop pushing this false narative even if you neglect the fact that the southern strategy is a think and Nixon courted those Southern Democrats to win the presidency and many ended up consequently switching sides it is wrong to say that the GOP supported civil rights. Civil rights wasn't a GOP vs Democrat thing it was a north vs south thing. The civil rights vote is literally a textbook example of Simpsons paradox. A larger percentage of northern Democrats voted for civil rights then norther Republicans specifically 94% compared to 85% . Also a larger percentage of southern Democrats voted for civil rights then southern Republicans 7% compared to 0%.
Also I love how the narrative is Republicans passed civil rights when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency truly a powerful group back then. Oh also on the north vs south you can definitely tell the change since the south is now solidly republican with at most a few Democrats able to win a couple seats.
Quote: TwirdmanStop pushing this false narative even if you neglect the fact that the southern strategy is a think and Nixon courted those Southern Democrats to win the presidency and many ended up consequently switching sides it is wrong to say that the GOP supported civil rights. Civil rights wasn't a GOP vs Democrat thing it was a north vs south thing. The civil rights vote is literally a textbook example of Simpsons paradox. A larger percentage of northern Democrats voted for civil rights then norther Republicans specifically 94% compared to 85% . Also a larger percentage of southern Democrats voted for civil rights then southern Republicans 7% compared to 0%.
Also I love how the narrative is Republicans passed civil rights when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency truly a powerful group back then. Oh also on the north vs south you can definitely tell the change since the south is now solidly republican with at most a few Democrats able to win a couple seats.
What matters is what is happening now.
The Republicans watch out for the common man. The Democrats are for the super rich, and the poor. Most middle class, blue collar, and hardworking people would logically identify with Republicans.
