[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

I didn't compare aids to being gay, I compared the VICTIMIZATION and MINORITY values of the two. I'm not saying one is like the other in all ways, I'm saying that they have similarities. If you can't understand simply that, then I can't argue anything with you. You simply take whatever you want to read out of what I'm writing, and it's not worth it to bother. It's like you're a horse with blinders on to whatever the person is trying to say, and you only see what you prefer to see, or read it how you would like to. Have you never heard somebody compare something before? It's like someone saying "Jean jackets are so ugly, I like jeans as pants, though," and you're like "WTF FUCKER? Jeans go on your LEGS, idiot, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". I'm not saying one is the other, far from, I'm not saying being gay is like having a disease, why the fuck would I ever even imply that?

I always take point against any comparison to two things that are in their essence entirely different. People, by their nature, like to compare themselves to irreversible diseases because it makes them look like a victim against the odds of nature. You could have compared being homosexual to being a rare vegetable, but nobody wants to compare themselves to something that does elicit a feeling of guilt in the other person. It's a technique that everybody uses, I do it with other subjects; if I do it, though, then I expect to be called out on it. If you don't expect to be called out by comparing homosexuality to a deadly and destructive disease, even if you are only comparing likewise characteristics of both, then don't do it.

wtf, can you read? I believe none of those things except that the integration of specifically christian beliefs (which is discriminatory in cases to people who either don't believe in God, or who aren't christian) into the legal system is archaic.

That's not archaic, it's called "politics." Politics consists of, among other things, legislators and politicians who are people. People, as we've already established, have convictions... everybody does. Legislators and politicians base their politics and their legislature on their convictions. This is legitimate, because 'beliefs are beliefs are beliefs.' The very idea of a legal system, of equality, and basic human rights is from a belief system. It may not be Christian, though Christianity has certainly propagated it in Western culture, but it is a philosophy based in subjective human beliefs. The only way to prevent this "discrimination" is to turn to a Nietzchean paradismo. If people feel that Western culture discriminates against them more than it helps them, then I do not know why they continue to live in a Western culture.

As for "believing none of those things," why would you say that "there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State" if you do not believe it? You also said "this Archaic state," clearly calling the State archaic. The use of that phrase wasn't even in the context of your argument that Christianity informing politics is archaic, but something different ... that Gays cannot marry (which is as much a Christian idea as it is an idea of the philosophy of semantics), and that gays cannot adopt. If you do not believe that the state is archaic, then don't say say that people hold beliefs "because of this archaic state." If you were using the word "state" as in "form," then you should clarify, because just several lines earlier you referred to "Church and State" referring to a political body--but I'm fairly certain you were referring to a political body, or else, the argument would be senseless. The third part, about believing that homosexuality is a boistrous display of indecency was a purposeful twist of words, and I wouldn't think that you would believe that anyway... So, ignoring that, you still seemed to believe two out of those three. Say saying "I believe none of those except two of the three..." is stupid.

As far as the AIDS bearer comment is concerned, I'm glad you live in your little bubble of righteousness, but in the real world there is discrimination, and people believe ridiculous shit like that.

Yes, some people ... but not the majority of people. If the majority of people believed that, then "rights" for homosexuals would not be getting anywhere. The majority of people believe otherwise, and not because of Gay Pride parades. Gay pride parades do more to stereotype than they do to kill those stereotypes. People do not believe that all homosexuals are AIDs bearers because it is inconsistant philosophy.

The point is, there is a stupidly large percentage of people who are bias, whether they believe so or not. You can laugh at me saying something about people thinking that all gays have aids, but in places, that's what the stereotype is, and there's simply no one there to dissuade them.

I don't think that this is the case anymore, at least, not in the United States--even in the most rural of areas.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf (table five, bias motivation; for 2003 three the number of hate crimes for sexuality is approximately the same as the number of anti-religious crimes, literally... give or take ten) (if for some reason it doesn't open, 1430 anti sexuality hate crimes, subtracting 15 anti heterosexual crimes; 1415 anti homosexual/bisexual crimes. anti-religion crimes = 1426; for 2003. Also Anti hispanic or other ethnic origin crimes number to 1236. Anti racial hate crimes are a bit more than triple the anti-sexuality crimes)


It might also be noted that (table seven, by offense type) there were six murders inspired by homophobia;

I didn't view the PDFs because I'm on my work computer and it will suffer from Adobe Acrobat from opening... but I'll take your word for it on the numbers and the wording. Given that, I do not think that there is an active discrimination against religion... and if there is an ardent believer on these forums, it is me. I believe that there is an active bias in academia against religion, but that does not reflect the majority of people. Furthmore, the "six murders inspired by homophobia" is probably a pretty subjective summary. Typically, when anybody cites "homophobia" as a reason for murder, it translates pretty well to that it was a motive that they could not find, but it involved a heterosexual and a homosexual, so the heterosexual must be "afraid" of the homosexual or homosexuality. I'd also like to see, of those murders, how many of the murderes have clinical problems.

I'm too lazy to go through the actual state-by-state analysis of the crimes, but ignorance breeds hate, and those that don't know a lot of gay people, or those who aren't EXPOSED (key word, as that's where the pride parade comes in) to gay people are those that assume that they're all the same and can stereotype them. As Jep said, if you actually attended one, you would have a good time and wouldn't keep your panties bunched about what a few people are wearing.

Well, I'm one of the few active criticizers of many of the demands of the homosexual agenda who does attend some events. I don't go to homosexual parades because I do not attend any parades at all, really. I do, however, go to lectures on homosexual 'rights', I've been to two homosexual weddings in my home state, my employer is homosexual, and I have a number of close friends who are homosexual. The gay marriages, my homosexual employer, my homosexual friends do not perpetuate the stereotypes of homosexuality... The two Gay marriages happened to be two of the more respectful "marriage" services that I've been to... and they are burying homosexual stereotypes. However, the public opinion of homosexual marriages (the services themselves) are much different than the public opinion of Gay Pride Parades (the parades themselves), and this is because the nature of those "marriages" is far different than the nature of a Gay Pride Parade.

Also I thought I summed up in the last post that you're an idiot that can't be conversed with, so the arguement is over.

I'd like to bet that this argument is not over. If you don't respond, I'll commend you for keeping your word ... but considering that you've gone back on what you've said a number of times in this thread already, I don't expect you to end the argument. If you'd like to continue to think I'm an idiot, feel free. I'll just quote what I said in the last post:

Originally Posted by Mike

If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.