Why do leftists believe that the opposite of homosexuality is religious faith?

Acrually leftists believe that government should stay out of marriage. People should be able to marry whomever they please.

Why do people on the right think they have the right to dictate personal choices? Sexual orientation has nothing to be with religion. And homosxuality is found even in animasl. I is natural.

I didn't mean to confuse you with facts.

If this post had anything to do with MY dictating to someone else about their personal choices, I'd answer that question.

I didn't mean to confuse you with simple questions, but then again I didn't ask you to answer them, did I?

And you didn't.

You didn't confuse me. You didn't make any sense either.

And yet you continue to comment on posts you don't understand.

I'm a straight leftist Christian who both supports gay rights and thinks that sexual orientations are not opposed, therefore putting me at odds with at least three of your propositions. And I'm not confused by anything you've said, no matter how fallacious.

Hi Mary Ann. I think you understood very well!

LOL

Homosexuality has no opposite. Like there is no opposite to swimming.

When asked why one should oppose something as natural as homosexuality the response is often couched in religious terms. The amendment to the North Carolina constitution recently passed was justified by references to the Bible while others opposed that amendment with references to the Bible. (Pastors on both sides of this issue for example.)

If someone is not a homosexual, doesn't that mean they're a heterosexual?

Leftists think if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you're a religious fanatic, not a heterosexual.

See, you just did it. LOL

I'm heterosexual, and I don't believe "marriage is between a man and a woman", so that doesn't seem to be the definition of heterosexual. But I also don't think that's the definition of a religious fanatic. I grew up in a largely atheistic but clearly homophobic culture, so I know the ultimate causes anti-gay sentiments are not religious. I have, in fact, repeatedly argued against blaming religion for them. And I'm a leftist, so here's another case falsifying your generalization.

Roryann,

There's also bisexual, so there are three categories at least. Some other people have no sexual urges which should be a fourth category it seems to me.

You don't have any idea what leftists think. You just make it up as you go along. (See, now you've got me doing it. How could I possibly know what you think or what you know?)

aniko, we're not in a court of law and no one's trying to make a case. I made an observation based on what I have read, right here on Gather, on just one of my posts. If you want to sift through the more than 600 comments to try to 'make your case' against me, knock yourself out.

Also, I didn't ask so you didn't have to tell because I don't care what your views on gay marriage are. This post isn't about who is for or against anything.

I asked two questions after stating what I have found when talking to leftists about gay marriage, that have still gone unanswered:


Is it because they believe all heterosexuals believe in God or a god?

Or is it that they believe no homosexual has religious beliefs?

I don't know how old you are, but when I was growing up, not only was the word gay associated with anything other than 'happy', the word homophobia hadn't been made up yet, by the leftists.

Larry, you don't have any idea what the point of the post is about.

Gee, Mr. Freud are there really people who call themselves bisexual? As I've repeated pointed out, this isn't a post for people to talk about their sexual preferences, because I didn't ask, and I really, really don't care.

I may not know what leftists who don't use Gather or Newsvine, or Facebook, or a number of other social networking sites such as this one, but I do know that the one constant is that leftists always go after the religious element, when one says they believe in traditional marriage.

You did once already in your first comment.

How can any of you say I'm wrong? It's here in the thread. I didn't have to prove a thing. You guys did it for me.

How is it made up? You could state I was making it up if you proved me wrong. You go sift through the comments on just one post and try to do that. I won't do your research for you.

And Larry, answer the questions from the post. Why are you all avoiding the questions and going straight to the berating and discrediting? LOL

Do leftists believe all heterosexuals believe in God or a god?

Or do they believe no homosexual has religious beliefs?

Larry, you don't have any idea what the point of the post is about.

Gee, Mr. Freud are there really people who call themselves bisexual? As I've repeated pointed out, this isn't a post for people to talk about their sexual preferences, because I didn't ask, and I really, really don't care.

I may not know how leftists react who don't use Gather or Newsvine, or Facebook, or a number of other social networking sites such as this one, but I do know that the one constant on all these types of sites, is that leftists always go after the religious element when one says they believe in traditional marriage.

You did once already in your first comment, Larry. You did want all the leftists on this thread are accusing me of doing, making a sweepig general statement without proof. That means you are also doing something else you accused me of doing; making it up.

How can any of you say I'm wrong? It's here in the thread. I didn't have to prove a thing. You guys did it for me.

And Larry, answer the questions from the post. Why are you all avoiding the questions and going straight to the berating and discrediting? I know why, but I'd like all of you to tell me. LOL

Do you, as a leftist, believe all heterosexuals believe in God or a god?

Do you, as a leftist, believe no homosexual has religious beliefs?

Roryann,

My statement in my first comment was that there is no opposite for homosexuality. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

You made the statement:

"Leftists think if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you're a religious fanatic, not a heterosexual."

That's a statement which you could not possibly know as fact because you can't know what other people think.

If I told you why you would just say I was wrong.

Bye now.

PS:
I do not believe that all heterosexuals believe in God. In fact I am certain that all do not believe in God.

I believe that some homosexuals have deep and profound religious beliefs.

But then, I'm not a leftist though you are certain that I am.

My statement is only bsed on what I've seen in the comments of leftists on this topic. They went right to the religious aspect.

Leftists think if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, you're a religious fanatic, not a heterosexual."

My statement was based on comments from leftists on this topic. They went right for the jugular of people of faith.

There are those people who believe it's not natural for a man to have sex with a man, or a woman with a woman, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious faith.

You can't make those people change their minds about something they've felt and believed all their lives, that it's unnatural, nothing to do with God or the Bible or religion.

Now that Obama's made his statement, and we know Romney isn't going to do the same, they'll go after the Mormons next, that's a guarantee, and I think even you will admit that.

Roryann,

The comments from those you consider to be leftists (no definition given) are hardly an unbiased sample of leftists in general let alone of all leftists. Also, you hardly qualify as an unbiased observer.

You are right about "those people" and their beliefs. But there are those people who believe the earth is flat. People believe all sorts of things. Most of what people believe is inaccurate to some degree and some of it is wrong overwhelmingly.

So far as I know you are quite right about changing people's beliefs. But that does not mean that I have to tolerate all their actions which are based on those beliefs. If someone attacks my neighbor, I have an obligation to defend my neighbor from those undeserved attacks. (That's my bias and belief.)

People have been going after the Mormons since Joseph Smith first began preaching his new revelation. I should know. My parents were Mormons.

First of all, I didn't give any specific examples, because the responses from the left are ALL the same. If I want to do that from a post with over 620 comments, I'd do it in separate posts.

I hate to burst your bubble there, Larry, but you are not what I would go to as an authority of what type of observer I am, unbiased or biased. All I have to be is a person who reads the comments from leftists on my own posts to make my observations.

Neither a flat-earther nor a birther be, so not sure how that was supposed to affect me. Yes, I think I"m aware of what different groups of people believe. I attended school, college, held a job and now run a business, so I don't need you to tell me that people form their opinions on their life experiences.

The problem with you is that you expect me to form MY opinions on YOUR life experiences. It doesn't work that way.

How noble of you to insinuate that your beliefs are accurate and that the majorit of people who surround you daily hold opinions that are inaccurate. How many people do you think you'd be able to sell that notion to, Larry?

But that does not mean that I have to tolerate all their actions which are based on those beliefs.

Fair enough, but do me the same courtesy of not demanding that I tolerate all the actions of others, based on their beliefs. Or is that not fair in your world?

If someone attacks a person for their personal beliefs, as leftists do all the time, I have an obligation to defend those people from your bias and your beliefs, do I not?

I think you are having trouble understanding that when you talk about gay marriage and people express their opinion based on their belief system, you feel that if their opinion is different than yours, their belief system is wrong.

How does that make a lick of sense to you? People expressing their opinion about an issue cannot be blamed for a federal law that is in place that happens to coinciide with their beliefs, for instance, DOMA.

Since you brought up Mormons (please show me where I attacked Mormons, because if you remember I'm a Glenn Beck fan and I'm voting for Romney), how can anyone on the left who is a supporter of gay marriage, be against polygamy, which is no longer practiced by Mormons, but something the left AND the media is still using against Romney.

No you have me pegged wrong on religions. I will stand with people of ANY religious faith if they're right to freedom of religion is under attack, because that is a RIGHT, unlike marriage which is a privilege.

Roryann,

I get the strong impression that you don't actually read my comments.

I read them, and responded to each point you brought up.
I'll show you...again. This one's a freebie. I'll not respond twice if you don't pay attention the first time:

YOU said:

Roryann,
The comments from those you consider to be leftists (no definition given) are hardly an unbiased sample of leftists in general let alone of all leftists. Also, you hardly qualify as an unbiased observer.

I responded:

First of all, I didn't give any specific examples, because the responses from the left are ALL the same. If I want to do that from a post with over 620 comments, I'd do it in separate posts.
I hate to burst your bubble there, Larry, but you are not what I would go to as an authority of what type of observer I am, unbiased or biased. All I have to be is a person who reads the comments from leftists on my own posts to make my observations.

YOU said:

You are right about "those people" and their beliefs. But there are those people who believe the earth is flat. People believe all sorts of things. Most of what people believe is inaccurate to some degree and some of it is wrong overwhelmingly.

I responded:

Neither a flat-earther nor a birther be, so not sure how that was supposed to affect me. Yes, I think I"m aware of what different groups of people believe. I attended school, college, held a job and now run a business, so I don't need you to tell me that people form their opinions on their life experiences.
The problem with you is that you expect me to form MY opinions on YOUR life experiences. It doesn't work that way.
How noble of you to insinuate that your beliefs are accurate and that the majorit of people who surround you daily hold opinions that are inaccurate. How many people do you think you'd be able to sell that notion to, Larry?

YOU said:

So far as I know you are quite right about changing people's beliefs. But that does not mean that I have to tolerate all their actions which are based on those beliefs. If someone attacks my neighbor, I have an obligation to defend my neighbor from those undeserved attacks. (That's my bias and belief.)

I responded:

Do you think I should have to tolerate the actions of others, based on their beliefs or am I afforded the same courtesy you believe you have?
If someone attacks a person for their personal beliefs, as leftists do all the time, I have an obligation to defend those people from your bias and your beliefs, do I not? I think you are having trouble understanding that when you talk about gay marriage and people express their opinion based on their belief system, you feel that if their opinion is different than yours, their belief system is wrong. How does that make a lick of sense to you? People expressing their opinion about an issue cannot be blamed for a federal law that is in place that happens to coinciide with their beliefs, for instance, DOMA.

YOU said:

People have been going after the Mormons since Joseph Smith first began preaching his new revelation. I should know. My parents were Mormons.

I responded:

Since you brought up Mormons (please show me where I attacked Mormons, because if you remember I'm a Glenn Beck fan and I'm voting for Romney), how can anyone on the left who is a supporter of gay marriage, be against polygamy, which is no longer practiced by Mormons, but something the left AND the media is still using against Romney. So, you have me pegged wrong on religions. I will stand with people of ANY religious faith if they're right to freedom of religion is under attack, because that is a RIGHT, unlike marriage which is a privilege.

Roryann,

Let's put those quotes in context.

You wrote:
"My statement is only based on what I've seen in the comments of leftists on this topic."

I responded:

"The comments from those you consider to be leftists (no definition given) are hardly an unbiased sample of leftists in general let alone of all leftists. Also, you hardly qualify as an unbiased observer."

To which you wrote:

"First of all, I didn't give any specific examples, because the responses from the left are ALL the same. If I want to do that from a post with over 620 comments, I'd do it in separate posts."

You will please me if you note that I was referring to "leftists in general" in my comment and you treated my comment as referring only to the comments which you have received from leftists. That distorts completely what my comment was saying.

----------------------

You wrote:

"There are those people who believe it's not natural for a man to have sex with a man, or a woman with a woman, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious faith."

To which I responded:

"You are right about "those people" and their beliefs. But there are those people who believe the earth is flat. People believe all sorts of things. Most of what people believe is inaccurate to some degree and some of it is wrong overwhelmingly."

You then replied:

"Neither a flat-earther nor a birther be, so not sure how that was supposed to affect me. Yes, I think I"m aware of what different groups of people believe. I attended school, college, held a job and now run a business, so I don't need you to tell me that people form their opinions on their life experiences.
The problem with you is that you expect me to form MY opinions on YOUR life experiences. It doesn't work that way.
How noble of you to insinuate that your beliefs are accurate and that the majorit of people who surround you daily hold opinions that are inaccurate. How many people do you think you'd be able to sell that notion to, Larry?"

You will please me if you note that my point (just because people believe something does not mean that what they believe is true) seems to have been completely ignored in your response. I have no idea what idea or message you were responding to in this case but it had little to do with my comment.

-----------------------

You wrote:

"You can't make those people change their minds about something they've felt and believed all their lives, that it's unnatural, nothing to do with God or the Bible or religion."

To which I responded:

"So far as I know you are quite right about changing people's beliefs. "

To which you responded:

"The problem with you is that you expect me to form MY opinions on YOUR life experiences. It doesn't work that way.

How noble of you to insinuate that your beliefs are accurate and that the majority of people who surround you daily hold opinions that are inaccurate. How many people do you think you'd be able to sell that notion to, Larry?"

It will please me if you note that I was agreeing with your statement. Your response seems to take offense at my agreement. You make accusations which are quite insulting to me. So even when I agree with you I am attacked.

---------------

I then make a personal statement of belief and bias on my part as follows:

"But that does not mean that I have to tolerate all their actions which are based on those beliefs. If someone attacks my neighbor, I have an obligation to defend my neighbor from those undeserved attacks."

You respond:

"Fair enough, but do me the same courtesy of not demanding that I tolerate all the actions of others, based on their beliefs. Or is that not fair in your world? "

I would be pleased if you would note that at no point have I demanded that you "tolerate all the actions of others, based on their beliefs.". There is no demand of any sort on my part for your behavior. I was merely and solely describing myself in that statement.

----------------

You wrote:

"Now that Obama's made his statement, and we know Romney isn't going to do the same, they'll go after the Mormons next, that's a guarantee, and I think even you will admit that."

I responded:

"People have been going after the Mormons since Joseph Smith first began preaching his new revelation. I should know. My parents were Mormons."

To which you responded:

"Since you brought up Mormons (please show me where I attacked Mormons, because if you remember I'm a Glenn Beck fan and I'm voting for Romney), how can anyone on the left who is a supporter of gay marriage, be against polygamy, which is no longer practiced by Mormons, but something the left AND the media is still using against Romney."

It would please me if you would note that it was your comment that brought up the subject of Mormons and their being attacked. If you read my comment carefully, you will see that I was agreeing with and amplifying your own statement "they'll go after the Mormons next" by mentioning that attacking Mormons has been going on for a long time.

---------

So you see, Roryann, why it seems to me that you must not be reading my comments but rather just picking out a word here and there. Your responses seem to me (my bias) to have little to do with my remarks.

Why, didn't you like them the way you posted them the first time?

And look at the last paragraph, YOU mentioned the Mormons.

I'm voting for Romney and I'm a Beck fan, so what do you think you'll get me to say against the Mormons?

Nothing.

If you can't follow your comments and then see that each of my paragraphs were in response to your paragraphs, perhaps you should find another hobby. I said I would post them twice.


Larry M. May 14, 2012, 7:17am EDT
Roryann,

The comments from those you consider to be leftists (no definition given) are hardly an unbiased sample of leftists in general let alone of all leftists. Also, you hardly qualify as an unbiased observer.

You are right about "those people" and their beliefs. But there are those people who believe the earth is flat. People believe all sorts of things. Most of what people believe is inaccurate to some degree and some of it is wrong overwhelmingly.

So far as I know you are quite right about changing people's beliefs. But that does not mean that I have to tolerate all their actions which are based on those beliefs. If someone attacks my neighbor, I have an obligation to defend my neighbor from those undeserved attacks. (That's my bias and belief.)

People have been going after the Mormons since Joseph Smith first began preaching his new revelation. I should know. My parents were Mormons.

Why, didn't you like them the way you posted them the first time?

And look at the last paragraph, YOU mentioned the Mormons.

I'm voting for Romney and I'm a Beck fan, so what do you think you'll get me to say against the Mormons?

Nothing.

If you can't follow your comments and then see that each of my paragraphs were in response to your paragraphs, perhaps you should find another hobby. I said I wouldn't post the comments a third time. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

Tweaking, twisting, and analyzing them won't change my words, or opinions.


Larry M. May 14, 2012, 7:17am EDT

People have been going after the Mormons since Joseph Smith first began preaching his new revelation. I should know. My parents were Mormons.

Roryann,

I mentioned Mormons only after you brought them into the thread. Look back over the comment thread and find the first mention of Mormons. It was in your comment.

Yes, but I ddin't 'go after' the Mormons. It's not an excuse for the Obama camp to go after them, just because people have always done it. Look where Obama went to church for 20 years. They offered Wright money to keep his mouth shut about him and Obama.

Roryann,

That has nothing to do with me. I didn't "go after" any Mormons. Your comments seem to have little or nothing to do with my comments. Are you quite sure you are actually reading my comments?

Not posting them again. I responded to your comments, paragraph by paragraph. I'm sorry if you ddin't like the answers.

As another commenter pointed out, a single counterexample falsifies a universal claim, Roryann. As I said, I don't think the origin of homophobia lies in religious beliefs.

My comment specifically answered one of your questions, but if it wasn't clear: no, the homophobic atheists I was referring to do not believe in God. The answer to the other question is that of course many gay people are religious.

No, it doesn't at all. If you want to go by percentages, I'd say the percentage of comments that support my claim is 90%. Go look; you'll find them.

The made up word, homophobia, started recently. Leftists also can't understand that just because someone's personal beliefs don't match theirs, it means those others hate or fear a portion of people.

Okay, thanks for answering my questions. They why do the majority of leftists blame religion for the way people feel about traditional marriage; between a man and a woman?

Roryann,

If you consider me liberal perhaps you would accept my answer to your final question in the comment just above.

I don't blame religion for the way people feel about traditional marriage, I credit religion for that. Traditional marriage was a very good thing and, for most people, it still is a very good thing. I think we can all learn from traditional marriage in how to help and support and love others.

Aniko,

"As another commenter pointed out, a single counterexample falsifies a universal claim, Roryann. As I said, I don't think the origin of homophobia lies in religious beliefs."

It seems incredibly hypocritical to me, to be tossing around this term "homophobia", at the same time you are griping about generalizing . . I mean, isn't that you generalizing?


To me, this matter is about whether a minority can simply declare that they are morally "right", and bully the majority with claims that their superior morality renders those who disagree with them psychologically defective, and therefore unfit to have equal say in the matter at hand. No different really, than if "marriage" had traditionally been meant to include "gay" relationships, and a minority declared their position that "marriage" should only be used of heterosexual relationships was morally "right", and that their moral superiority rendered those who disagreed with them psychologically defective, so they oughtn't have equal say in the matter.

Superimposing a supposed "moral superiority" on democratic processes, which over-rides the will (votes) of the majority, is just plain puritanical elitism to me, and a recipe for utter disaster in terms of human rights in general. The rule of law is put in grave peril, because the "elites" in power, can then start declaring the majority of the society psychologically deficient in any way they wish, to justify ending any aspect of the democratic processes they chose to end . . You know, like the "Bill of Rights" for instance?

You're now asking a loaded question, Roryann. I cannot answer it because I don't agree with its premises. Obviously some leftists blame religion for opposition to same-sex marriage--I don't know that the "majority" do, especially in a world-wide framework. The first step, of course, would have to be a good working definition of "leftist". (Do you think, incidentally, that all leftists support same-sex marriage?) In any case, how would I know why other people do something?

"Homophobia" is undoubtedly a neologism--but so is "homosexual" and "heterosexual" (as well as "leftist", "traditional marriage" (you obviously don't mean arranged marriages, child brides, polygyny, and the like), or for that matter "post" for a text-based contribution to a forum/website on the internet.) The suffix -phobia has a wide meaning, from fear to aversion, dislike, and avoidance, all the way to mere lack of affinity.

Nope, John, generalizing would be "why are conservatives homophobic", or "why do Americans support torture" (to use the question method favored here). Using the word "homophobia" is not a generalization. It implies that such a thing exists, of course. It doesn't assign it to a particular group of people.

We've had the "moral superiority" discussion before. In every instance where people disagree, each side believe its position to be superior--that is why people hold a position in the first place. This is the essence of the democratic process, not its denial. Assigning some kind of undue elitism to one side for claiming to be right while supporting the other side's right to robust self-expression and advocacy is an old trick, of course.

Aniko,

"Nope, John, generalizing would be "why are conservatives homophobic", or "why do Americans support torture . . "

You did that very thing, to my mind;

"I grew up in a largely atheistic but clearly homophobic culture"

That's you using the term in a very generalized way, the very same way you said would be generalizing, if spoken of "Americans support[ing] torture" . . is it not?


You are being bigoted (intolerant of those who do not see things as you do) in my eyes, by invoking a pseudo diagnostic pejorative, to label people who do not see things as you do, in order to silence them, much as the terms "denier", "conspiracy theorist", "racist", "extremist", "terrorist sympathizer" etc., have been used of people who do not worship at the alter of the "proper" authorities.


"In every instance where people disagree, each side believe its position to be superior . . "

That's my point.

"Assigning some kind of undue elitism to one side for claiming to be right while supporting the other side's right to robust self-expression and advocacy is an old trick, of course."

So is dodging the points another has raised.

"Superimposing a supposed "moral superiority" on democratic processes, which over-rides the will (votes) of the majority, is just plain puritanical elitism to me . . "

Note that I did NOT say it is "moral elitism" to think or argue (robustly or otherwise) that one is morally right, but specifically referred to the over-riding of the will of the majority, on moral grounds. Which is to say essentially "recycling" the moral judgments of a minority, as though deterministic, rather than granting the very thing you said was so;

"In every instance where people disagree, each side believe its position to be superior-"


What this notion of "above democratic" moral authority does, is allow/justify the Government in doing things like suspending (indefinitely) all of our rights, on the grounds that they have a moral obligation to do so. (To protect us from harm, in this case). That is a moral argument, and it is an open ended argument, so to speak, that obliterates any and all constraints on the people in power from simply trampling on anyone's rights, on the grounds that some "they" are a special minority, whose moral judgments supersede the the judgments of the majority of the society, and any democratically arrived at agreements as to what the rights of citizens are. Elitism, simply put.

The society arrived at an actual agreement that certain basic human rights are "unalienable", but they have been alienated on moral grounds. "Experts" (elites) decided that our human rights ought to be suspended (indefinitely), on the moral grounds that those rights prevented the authorities from keeping us safe, basically.

But, there is no doubt in my mind, that by far the greatest threat to human beings throughout history, is government itself. Hundreds of millions (in just the last century) were literally murdered in cold blood, by Governments. It is, to my mind, utterly irrational to think that we are made safe, by having our human rights taken from us, by a Government that is so obviously beholden to the unscrupulous "rich and powerful" . . That's why we needed the rights in the first place, to protect us from those very people . .

aniko, with all the gay parades we've seen around the country, how can you see we're a culture where:

no gay person dares come out, in which the word "gay" is the ugliest slur, and in which boys would rather die than be thought of as gay

A culture in which no gay person dares come out, in which the word "gay" is the ugliest slur, and in which boys would rather die than be thought of as gay is a homophobic culture, by definition. It doesn't require that all people in that culture be homophobes any more than saying that Italy is a wine culture and Germany is a beer culture requires that all Italians drink wine and no beer and all Germans do the opposite. It's specifically a statement about the cultural environment and not about individuals (unlike "leftist always blah blah blah).

As for your claim that something terrible is done to people or to the democratic process by suggesting that some people may indeed be driven by homophobia, kindly apply it to all the instances you label people who disagreed with you on some detail in a discussion totalitarians, NWO-hacks, evil, narcissistic, psychopathic, and a whole host of other labels, some obviously quite explicitly meaning "psychological deficient". There is no point in arguing with you, John--your principles are semi-permeable. It's bad to suggest there is such a thing as homophobia because you want to argue against gay marriage; it's okay to directly call people totalitarian NWO-hacks because you want to argue against universal healthcare. And suggesting that people's right to marriage not be restricted by their partner's gender is restricting their human rights. To quote you, John, I tire of your pretzel logic.

Sorry, Roryann, I reposted my comment and it ended up after yours.

It helps to (re-)read the thread. I first mentioned the culture in which I grew up in a comment to you. I didn't realize I had to clarify it wasn't in the United States, or in the current decade.

No problem, I understand. The culture was very much different when I was growing up as well. Humans are still not perfect, but we are better than we were in previous generations here in the US.

Aniko,

"As for your claim that something terrible is done to people or to the democratic process by suggesting that some people may indeed be driven by homophobia . . "

I never made such a claim, you're trippin' . . Apparently caught in a dehumanizing control freak mindset wherein fake ~parent lecturing child~ BS, like that narcissistic "We've had this discussion before" jive, that serves no logical function in a serious adult to adult interaction, but allows you to play the parent "role". No ma'am, I don't see you as a wise and intellectually superior being that has thought all this stuff through already, I see you as a rather cowardly flake, that uses haughty innuendo to try to intimidate others into shutting up. Like this;

"Assigning some kind of undue elitism to one side for claiming to be right while supporting the other side's right to robust self-expression and advocacy is an old trick, of course."

And so is not openly stating that someone did something, but instead using innuendo so one can play the victim, if the person you are trying to discredit/stifle calls you out. I'm calling you out, lady. I'm accusing you of using underhanded tactics, to discredit and stifle those who do not share your personal biases and fanciful illusions, that one can be a champion of human rights, while at the same time supporting those "elites" who blatantly alienate our human rights from us.

The Government has literally announced that it can spy on, search, abduct, imprison, torture, and kill anyone at all, with no due process at all, and you dare to claim to be a "humanitarian", while supporting the people who do this? Not gonna buy it, ma'am, I see you as an enemy of human rights, if you support those who claim we have none. Simple as that.

With this "gay marriage" hot button issue, you can play the big champion, by declaring that you get to decide what is best for society, without explaining what good this does for society. It's not about what people are allowed to do legally, or what rights people have, for all that can be facilitated without changing the meaning of the word "marriage". This is about forcing others to "accept" your personal prejudices, at the point of a gun, so to speak.


I am a man of science, I know there is a huge difference between me placing my penis inside a man, and placing it inside a woman. That is because we are sexual critters, in far more than the hedonistic sense that we get pleasure from our sexual organs. Those organs have an actual FUNCTION, a reason for existing at all. That's how new people are generated, honest. "Homosexuality" is clearly an imitation of the making babies kind, not an equivalent/alternative form of it, except in the getting pleasure aspect. The hedonistic part, when that getting pleasure aspect, is treated as if the reason virtually all (successful) human societies have had this convention of respecting the "pair bonding" of a man and and woman, I am quite sure. It was not an "honoring" of the getting pleasure part, but of the making new people part. Treating that pair as set apart, in the getting sexual pleasure sense, because it was obvious that extra marital sex would make the break of the family far more likely, and that meant children being in unstable family situations.

You get to assume that turning marriage into an honoring of people getting certain kinds of pleasure together, will not cause the institution to become less respected, and therefor make it less "taboo" to hit on married people, but it's just an assumption, not a known fact by any means. Others, including myself, think it will further weaken an already weakened institution, and lead to more children being raised in unstable family situations. I care about that, I am pro-children, pro stable family environment, so I wish the institution to continue, as an honoring of the making/rearing new people part.

If you wish to honor people for getting pleasure together, do so, but please don't classify all people who feel it is unwise to transform the institution into a hedonistic, special pleasure enshrinement deal, of being immoral or uncaring. It's perfectly possible to my mind, that what you call "homophobic cultures", were simply made up of people who (on average) were morally superior to you. Which is to say had a better sense of what was good for people in general, to honor and enshrine in a cultural sense. What this or that individual you encountered said or did, which struck you as wrong, is just something you personally felt/experienced, not automatically damning of all members of that culture. It would be no problem at all for me to scramble up some horrid examples of "gay" people (or their supposed advocates), and play the generalization game as you do, but that's not appropriate behavior to me, not morally right.

"It seems incredibly hypocritical to me[,] to be tossing around this term "homophobia"[,] at the same time you are griping about generalizing . . I mean, isn't that you generalizing?


To me, this matter is about whether a minority can simply declare that they are morally "right", and bully the majority with claims that their superior morality renders those who disagree with them psychologically defective, and therefore unfit to have equal say in the matter at hand. No different really, than if "marriage" had traditionally been meant to include "gay" relationships, and a minority declared their position that "marriage" should only be used of heterosexual relationships was morally "right", and that their moral superiority rendered those who disagreed with them psychologically defective, so they oughtn't have equal say in the matter."

I thought you meant that using the word "homophobia" did the kind bullying you describe in the second paragraph. You could of course explain what you meant, if that wasn't it.

I have no idea what the hell you want the rest of your comment to accomplish, but much of it flies squarely back in your face. For someone obviously highly intelligent, you have an amazing tin ear for this stuff. Carry on.

"I thought you meant that using the word "homophobia" did the kind bullying you describe in the second paragraph."

But I told you that's not what I meant . . You actually just quoted my telling you that's not what I meant, and explaining what I meant . . right before telling me *I could of course explain what I meant, if that wasn't it* . . This is somewhat bizarre to me.


"I have no idea what the hell you want the rest of your comment to accomplish . . "

Has it dawned on you that I might be trying to convey something I don't think you have come to understand? As in, if I'm right, you would have to do some looking at this matter from a different perspective than you have thus far, to understand it?

To me, it seems you have mistaken the sense of empathy/sympathy for a "moral" sense . . That you think in terms of reacting to that sense, as though that is "being" moral.

It's not, I say, since humans can control their own (and others) sense of empathy/sympathy, in a variety of ways. It's not a sort of inner God talking to us about what is right, I surmise, it's a reaction to seeing suffering. If one focuses on this or that suffering, one will feel sympathy/empathy feelings for the sufferer. If one does not look, one will not feel those feelings. You must notice folks doing "selective" looking/empathizing quite often, and so must have at least a vague notion of what I'm taking about, I figure . . but it does not seem to me that you have gone much further in terms of exploring this stuff within yourself. Like you are still hoping/trusting in some sense, that your feelings of sympathy/empathy are special in this regard, and can rightly be used by you as though a true indicator of some sort of "ultimate" morality.


"For someone obviously highly intelligent, you have an amazing tin ear for this stuff."

No, I hear it, but I do not hear much depth to it. It's like a list of do's and don'ts, favor this and don't favor that, think this and don't think that, which is arbitrary and very limiting to actual reasoning. For example; to me, it is no different for American politicians/officials to be declaring they get to kill anyone in the world they feel like killing, than for Russian, or Iranian, or Canadian ones to be doing that patently psychopathic crap.

I do not support any regimes that treat people like that, period. It's a clear violation of basic human rights, and I don't care if it has become common for people to apply "double standards" based on some sort of "We Americans are special" garbage . . The lawless tyrants that do such things are just tyrants to me. Monsters, basically. I could no more support such people than I could support rape, or child sacrifice . . it's not about any list of who is and who is not "entitled" to target and kill people without a fair trial, it's horribly barbaric to me, period.

I asked you to explain how what you said differed from my interpretation, which you said was wrong. Obviously, your original words that I was interpreting cannot do that... So, as it is, I continue to think that you meant that using the word "homophobia" did the kind bullying you described in the second paragraph. Honestly, I can't think of any other meaning.

It's obvious that you're trying to convey something you think I don't understand. Has it dawned on you that I've read it all about half a dozen times, and I see nothing in it but desperate contortions to justify your prejudices?

The "tin ear" was for how your comments fly back in your face, demonstrating the opposite of what you meant to demonstrate. The inversion flips back right side up and the pretzel unravels itself before the reader's eyes.

Getting back to the original post. This author assumes she knows what people on the right think.I have been at dozens of labor union meetings and anti war rallies and women's rights marches. Religion has never been mentioned or if it was I do not remember.

Your argument is begging the question. In other words you assert truth to an unproven statement. No one cares about your religion unless you try to force it on others. We have separation of church and state here. I repeat that the choice of a marriage partner is an individual choice. Government has no business getting involved.

And only someone with a very small mind would care about someone else's seexuality.

No one left the point of the original post.

The commenter above assumes she knows what I asserted and what hasn't been proven, time and time again.

What do labor unions, anti-war dirtbags, and feminists' have to do with what the left goes after as soon as someone says traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, in THEIR opinion?

I never brought up the government either. You did, twice.

And only someone with nothing to disprove the point of a post would resort to insults...uh...like you just did.

You got me wrong. I don't ask about anyone's sexual preference, I don't want anyone to tell me about their sexuality, and furhter, I don't care.

So please, Mary...DADT, I don't care. Homosexuality is not the point of the post.

And Larry proved my point by saying those who believe in traditional marriage base it on religon.

So, I asserted truth and the truth showed up on my post.

Small mind,eh? Perhaps you need bigger glasses. Go read Larry's response.


I'm going by the responses right her on Gather from leftists.

No, I based my post on comments I've seen right here on Gather.

It seems to me the post author is a RW bigot that hates the LW ...

It seems to me the post author is a RW bigot that hates the LW ...

Jerry, it does? How so?

How many times here have you been overly critical in blaming the Left ? Of course if you really feel that way you would defend it all ... so what I said was at least IMnsHO

I have nothing to defend, it's all right here in a post of mine with about 650 comments. You'll have to do your own homework and find it for youself. And to answer this question of yours:

How many times here have you been overly critical in blaming the Left ?

Not nearly as many times as the leftists blamed the right, Bush, the tea party, and conservatives for everything, including all of Obama's failed policies.

Some folks very much deserve blame ... the Left may not be Right but they are correct.

Correct about what? The left is the side that does not understand, or believe in the words, "personal responsibility". It's always someone else's fault. Someone is to blame for what's wrong in their lives, someone else made them do this or that. They can't take responsibility for themselves. Most kids grow up and are no longer dependent on their parents. The left goes from being dependent on their parents to being dependent on the government.

But eventually they run out of someone else's money.

It seems to me the post author is a RW bigot that hates the LW ...

YAWN! Yeah, you said that before, look:


Jerry Kays May 23, 2012, 2:11pm EDT
It seems to me the post author is a RW bigot that hates the LW ...

I was aware, it was a C&P because it was still, and ever more, fitting.

the leftists throw religion into the mix.

Wel-l-l-l-l... no. That statement is actually pretty much the opposite of what really happens. The religion in these posts nearly ALWAYS first shows up in a far-right comment that references biblical disapproval.

Wel-l-l-l-l... no. That statement is actually pretty accurate since a leftist already did, right in this post.

Ah...nearly...there's the rub. Nearly, but not THIS time and not all the other times I've seen it.

Sorry but not everyone that is heterosexual is a right wing religious fanatic, to use the leftists' words.

You'd be wrong...but I'm sure it's not the first time.

"as soon as you talk about people objecting to gay marriage, the leftists throw religion into the mix."

Hmm...Sounds like a sweeping generalization to me. I'm a leftist. I don't care why people object to gay marriage. It doesn't matter whether or not they're religious. I happen to believe that people who oppose same sex marriage are probably different from me in a fundamental way, but the important thing in a dispute over same sex marriage is pro or con and how come.

Disclaimer: I'm an old fat straight guy who's been married for nearly 40 years to the same person, who happens to be a woman. We have a daughter and two extremely fun granddaughters. I just happen to think that there's no conceivable reason to stop two people of any gender from civil marriage if they want to enter into a contract. I don't see it as different from any other form of contract.

Nippy, I too would not oppose a civil contract.

Nippy, a sweeping generalization would be not seeing leftists talk aboot the religious right every time the gay marriage issue comes up.

Every time I've discussed gay marriage with leftists, they bring up religion.

See the difference?

I never said I was against gays getting married, did I? If I did on this thread, please point it out to me Nippy.

"See the difference?"

Yup. You have your own personal definition of "sweeping generalization" that is a bit different from the one most people are familiar with.

I don't care if you're for or against same sex marriage. I didn't say anything about what I thought your position was. I did say that I thought people who were against same sex marriage were fundamentally different from me.

BTW, a statement qualified with "all" or "every" needs only one counterexample to invalidate it. I'm a leftist. I don't care whether or not people who are against same sex marriage do it for religious reasons.

I don't care if you care if I'm for or against gay marriage. That's not the point of this post.

I'm not going to got back to one of my posts, and search through a post with over 625 comments in it, mostly from leftists laced with religion bashing statements. You'll have to do that if you want to try to prove me wrong.

My guess is you won't look for them, but they're there.

BTW, the words "I have found that..." mean...well, they mean I have found that SO maybe you haven't found it to be true, but I have.

Cleared up for you?

And Nippy, if you only need ONE, check out the comments in this post; there are TWO...look up!

''Why do leftists believe that the opposite of homosexuality is religious faith?''


Can you present some evidence to prove your claim?

I can provide you with one link to just ONE of my posts that has all the evidence I need to, as you put it, "prove my claim".

Other than this one post of mine, you will have to look through my other posts and find the evidence yourself. For the explanation of the headline I chose for this post, you'd have to actually read the entire post and not just the headline.

I don't have to prove anything, but as a courtesy to you, I'll give you this link but after that, you'll have to do your own homework.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981317537

I see no evidence that the left (many of whom are more religiously inclined than the right) believe that 'the opposite of homosexuality is religious faith'.

Yes, I see that a right winger makes the claim, but presents no credible evidence whatsoever. Go to a court to make that claim and you'll be laughed out of court.

I see no evidence that the left (many of whom are more religiously inclined than the right) believe that 'the opposite of homosexuality is religious faith'.

You haven't look hard enough then.

Yes, I see that a leftist tries to disprove the claim, but is not willing to do their own homework, so automatically they say it's wrong.

No, that would be leftists who go to court for every least little thing, because they are thin-skinned.

''I see that a leftist tries to disprove the claim''

Surely you do not mean me as I am not a leftist nor am I trying to "disprove" your claim. No one can disprove something that has yet to be proven or defended in any way with credible facts or shown to have a semblance of logic or truth. In fact, I see so credibility to that claim whatsoever. Moreover, if that claim had any validity, there would be numerous articles in a variety of magazines either disputing or defending its premise. I see no such thing anywhere.

As I said, I'm not doing your homework for you. You don't see it because you're not looking. You can't disprove it because it's true.

True only in your opinion. Perhaps if you could find endorsements of this idea on the right wing Fox network or in the John Birch Society's New American, you might get at least one other person to buy it.

The lunatic left fringe is such a riot.. Now you think that only radical right wing people believe that gay marriage goes aginst people's religious faith.

See, by trying to claim I'm wrong, you proved me right.

Do you really think only Fox News commentators and people in the John Birth Society believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

LOL

"lunatic left fringe"

Not only can you not prove your claim, you resort to name calling as well. That certainly isn't a Christian thing to do.

Oh, I see, are you the only one who can throw names around? Wow, how'd you get by in life with that attitude? Right winger...lunatic left fringe...check yourself before you wrect yourself.

Psst...where did I say I was a Christian?

I always ask people who state they are opposed to same-sex marriage to explain their reasons. I don't assume that it is related to a religious belief. I will say that 9 out of 10 times it IS because of their religion and I get a bucketload of biblical quotes to prove it. That remaining reason 1 out of 10 usually is related to homophobia - you know, the fact that gays are part of a larger leftist plot to bring down the civilized world as we know it and enslave all our children.

So you too believe that one's personal beliefs are rooted in fear or hatred? The leftists have been able to convince themselves and other leftists that this is true.

I don't see anyone asking, I just see them go right for religion.

Does anyone on here have real names?

As real as yours.

"So you too believe that one's personal beliefs are rooted in fear or hatred? The leftists have been able to convince themselves and other leftists that this is true."

Sorry, did you actually read what I wrote? I don't think so.

Again, I stated that I DO ask. I ALWAYS ask why someone feels the way they do in a discussion. I like to know what basis for reasoning they have. And most of the time I hear, 'god says it's wrong'. If their god says it's an abomination and all these folks are doomed to hell, then I don't infer from that that the person 'fears' or 'hates', only that they are a person who follows the teachings of their particular religion and will not waver from them. If the person tells me that all fags should die and it makes them sick to think about them, then I naturally assume fear and hate.

Wouldn't you? What's so hard to understand about that? Read these types of remarks of people on Gather (a few have been on quite a few years, so it's certainly not up for discussion that they fear and hate). the hatred is palpable in their remarks. For others, they simply keep C&P'ing the same links to biblical references and articles by religious leaders that support their religious beliefs.....over and over and over again. That is the way they live their lives - tied to the teachings of books that were supposed written thousands of years ago.

Where do you see me using any biblical references, and where you do you see me expressng hatred or fear of gay people?'

Where did I say that all gay people should die?

Does anyone ever answer because they believe that it's just not natural? What category does that fall under for you?

First off, Roryann - I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to actual people that I converse with and people I have interacted with for years on this forum. I don't know you at all and have no context on which to make a comment about you.

The 'it's not natural' line eventually leads to the 'creeps me out' line which eventually leads to 'I can't stand to be around these people' line, etc etc. When people start out with the 'it's not natural' it usually shows that they are ignorant of the fact that in the animal world (of which we are a part) homosexual behavior is quite prevalent. Ignorance usually translates to fear and aversion of the unknown.

I guess Conservatives are always Right ...and by default, everyone else is Wrong.

No, someone is right until they are proven wrong.

''someone is right until they are proven wrong''


hahahaha ~ post of the year

Prove me wrong. You haven't been able to yet.

I was responding to the comment above me which laughingly stated:

Conservatives are always Right ...and by default, everyone else is Wrong.

It's laughable because that's the left's mantra.

Roryann O'Rourke: ''someone is right until they are proven wrong. ... Prove me wrong. You haven't been able to yet."

Ok. You're posting from the day room of a methadone rehabilitation center at which you are an inpatient.

Prove me wrong.

Oh, Dave, just because you can't prove me wrong, doesn't mean you need to resort to juvenile namecalling.

Isn't it the leftists who despise bullying? I'm guessing it's because they've been victims of it more often than not.

Also, I know drugs kill brain cells. It's all leftists who want to legalize drugs. I say go for it and let them rot more brain cells until there's nothing left.

Then all they'd be capable of is calling people names on social networking sites...oh, kind of like the way you just did.

You got nothin'!

I'm right until I'm proven wrong. It's an example, Roryann. Don't worry. See what you can do with it!

What is your nickname all about? Are you a medical doctor?

Because 'religious faith' is in such opposition to homosexuality.

Duh!


Oh, look, it took Cookie to prove my point in the post. LOL...DOH!

I was thinking the same thing Roryann... I have seen on here many many times that religion is thrown in as the main reason... Isnt it amazing how now, since you wrote this post that everyone is innocent of making such a claim...now what we have here is a bunch of saints...lol Again, its all about religion... Your point is proven...lol

Why can't they just answer a simple question? They've said it numerous times, but when confronted about what they said, they deny saying it. Odd.

I never thought of it that way before Joy. You are correct. Most people do regard marriage as two people joined together by God. The left wants what we have without the belief in God.

There are no "laws set forth by God" against gay marriage in the Christian Bible, Joy. Did you have a particular scripture passage in mind. Why not cite it?

Marriage between a man and a woman is the law of the land, but it is in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I Corinthians 6:9 - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Would you like more scriptures?

Mrs Betty bowers explains traditional marriage:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw